Institutes of the Christian Religion, Vol. 2 of 2

By Author	[ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z \| Other Symbols ]
By Title	[ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z \| Other Symbols ]
By Language

Download this book: [ ASCII ]

Look for this book on Amazon

We have new books nearly every day.
If you would like a news letter once a week or once a month fill out this form and we will give you a summary of the books for that week or month by email.

Title: Institutes of the Christian Religion, Vol. 2 of 2
Author: Calvin, Jean
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.

*** Start of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "Institutes of the Christian Religion, Vol. 2 of 2" ***

This book is indexed by ISYS Web Indexing system to allow the reader find any word or number within the document.

RELIGION, VOL. 2 OF 2 ***

Institutes of the Christian Religion

INSTITUTES OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION.

JOHN CALVIN.

TRANSLATED FROM THE ORIGINAL LATIN, AND COLLATED WITH
THE AUTHOR’S LAST EDITION IN FRENCH,

BY JOHN ALLEN.

Non tamen omnino potuit mors invida totum
Tollere Calvinum terris; æterna manebunt
Ingenii monumenta tui: et livoris iniqui
Languida paulatim cum flamma resederit, omnes
Religio qua pura nitet se fundet in oras
Fama tui.

BUCHANAN.

SIXTH AMERICAN EDITION, REVISED AND CORRECTED.

IN TWO VOLUMES.

VOL. II.

PHILADELPHIA:
PRESBYTERIAN BOARD OF PUBLICATION.

BOOK III.

CHAPTER XIV.
THE COMMENCEMENT AND CONTINUAL PROGRESS OF JUSTIFICATION.

For the further elucidation of this subject, let us examine what kind of
righteousness can be found in men during the whole course of their
lives. Let us divide them into four classes. For either they are
destitute of the knowledge of God, and immerged in idolatry; or, having
been initiated by the sacraments, they lead impure lives, denying God in
their actions, while they confess him with their lips, and belong to
Christ only in name; or they are hypocrites, concealing the iniquity of
their hearts with vain disguises; or, being regenerated by the Spirit of
God, they devote themselves to true holiness. In the first of these
classes, judged of according to their natural characters, from the crown
of the head to the sole of the foot there will not be found a single
spark of goodness; unless we mean to charge the Scripture with falsehood
in these representations which it gives of all the sons of Adam—that
“the heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked;”[1]
that “every imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth;”[2] that
“the thoughts of man are vanity; that there is no fear of God before his
eyes;”[3] that “there is none that understandeth, none that seeketh
after God;”[4] in a word, “that he is flesh,”[5] a term expressive of
all those works which are enumerated by Paul—“adultery, fornication,
uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance,
emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, murders,”[6]
and every impurity and abomination that can be conceived. This is the
dignity, in the confidence of which they must glory. But if any among
them discover that integrity in their conduct which among men has some
appearance of sanctity, yet, since we know that God regards not external
splendour, we must penetrate to the secret springs of these actions, if
we wish them to avail any thing to justification. We must narrowly
examine, I say, from what disposition of heart these works proceed.
Though a most extensive field of observation is now before us, yet,
since the subject may be despatched in very few words, I shall be as
compendious as possible.

II. In the first place, I do not deny, that whatever excellences appear
in unbelievers, they are the gifts of God. I am not so at variance with
the common opinion of mankind, as to contend that there is no difference
between the justice, moderation, and equity of Titus or Trajan, and the
rage, intemperance, and cruelty of Caligula, or Nero, or Domitian;
between the obscenities of Tiberius and the continence of Vespasian;
and, not to dwell on particular virtues or vices, between the observance
and the contempt of moral obligation and positive laws. For so great is
the difference between just and unjust, that it is visible even in the
lifeless image of it. For what order will be left in the world, if these
opposites be confounded together? Such a distinction as this, therefore,
between virtuous and vicious actions, has not only been engraven by the
Lord in the heart of every man, but has also been frequently confirmed
by his providential dispensations. We see how he confers many blessings
of the present life on those who practise virtue among men. Not that
this external resemblance of virtue merits the least favour from him;
but he is pleased to discover his great esteem of true righteousness, by
not permitting that which is external and hypocritical to remain without
a temporal reward. Whence it follows, as we have just acknowledged, that
these virtues, whatever they may be, or rather images of virtues, are
the gifts of God; since there is nothing in any respect laudable which
does not proceed from him.

III. Nevertheless the observation of Augustine is strictly true—that all
who are strangers to the religion of the one true God, however they may
be esteemed worthy of admiration for their reputed virtue, not only
merit no reward, but are rather deserving of punishment, because they
contaminate the pure gifts of God with the pollution of their own
hearts. For though they are instruments used by God for the preservation
of human society, by the exercise of justice, continence, friendship,
temperance, fortitude, and prudence, yet they perform these good works
of God very improperly; being restrained from the commission of evil,
not by a sincere attachment to true virtue, but either by mere ambition,
or by self-love, or by some other irregular disposition. These actions,
therefore, being corrupted in their very source by the impurity of their
hearts, are no more entitled to be classed among virtues, than those
vices which commonly deceive mankind by their affinity and similitude to
virtues. Besides, when we remember that the end of what is right is
always to serve God, whatever is directed to any other end, can have no
claim to that appellation. Therefore, since they regard not the end
prescribed by Divine wisdom, though an act performed by them be
externally and apparently good, yet, being directed to a wrong end, it
becomes sin. He concludes, therefore, that all the Fabricii, Scipios,
and Catos, in all their celebrated actions, were guilty of sin, inasmuch
as, being destitute of the light of faith, they did not direct those
actions to that end to which they ought to have directed them; that
consequently they had no genuine righteousness; because moral duties are
estimated not by external actions, but by the ends for which such
actions are designed.

IV. Besides, if there be any truth in the assertion of John, that “he
that hath not the Son of God, hath not life;”[7] they who have no
interest in Christ, whatever be their characters, their actions, or
their endeavours, are constantly advancing, through the whole course of
their lives, towards destruction and the sentence of eternal death. On
this argument is founded the following observation of Augustine: “Our
religion discriminates between the righteous and the unrighteous, not by
the law of works, but by that of faith, without which works apparently
good are perverted into sins.” Wherefore the same writer, in another
place, strikingly compares the exertions of such men to a deviation in a
race from the prescribed course. For the more vigorously any one runs
out of the way, he recedes so much the further from the goal, and
becomes so much the more unfortunate. Wherefore he contends, that it is
better to halt in the way, than to run out of the way. Finally, it is
evident that they are evil trees, since without a participation of
Christ there is no sanctification. They may produce fruits fair and
beautiful to the eye, and even sweet to the taste, but never any that
are good. Hence we clearly perceive that all the thoughts, meditations,
and actions of man, antecedent to a reconciliation to God by faith, are
accursed, and not only of no avail to justification, but certainly
deserving of condemnation. But why do we dispute concerning it as a
dubious point, when it is already proved by the testimony of the
apostle, that “without faith it is impossible to please God?”[8]

V. But the proof will be still clearer, if the grace of God be directly
opposed to the natural condition of man. The Scripture invariably
proclaims, that God finds nothing in men which can incite him to bless
them, but that he prevents them by his gratuitous goodness. For what can
a dead man do to recover life? But when God illuminates us with the
knowledge of himself, he is said to raise us from death, and to make us
new creatures.[9] For under this character we find the Divine goodness
towards us frequently celebrated, especially by the apostle. “God,” says
he, “who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,
even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ,”
&c.[10] In another place, when, under the type of Abraham, he treats of
the general calling of believers, he says, It is “God, who quickeneth
the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they
were.”[11] If we are nothing, what can we do? Wherefore God forcibly
represses this presumption, in the Book of Job, in the following words:
“Who hath prevented me, that I should repay him? Whatsoever is under the
whole heaven is mine.”[12] Paul, explaining this passage, concludes from
it, that we ought not to suppose we bring any thing to the Lord but
ignominious indigence and emptiness.[13] Wherefore, in the passage cited
above, in order to prove that we attain to the hope of salvation, not by
works, but solely by the grace of God, he alleges, that “we are his
workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath
before ordained that we should walk in them.”[14] As though he would
say, Who of us can boast that he has influenced God by his
righteousness, since our first power to do well proceeds from
regeneration? For, according to the constitution of our nature, oil
might be extracted from a stone sooner than we could perform a good
work. It is wonderful, indeed, that man, condemned to such ignominy,
dares to pretend to have any thing left. Let us confess, therefore, with
that eminent servant of the Lord, that “God hath saved us, and called us
with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his
own purpose and grace;”[15] and that “the kindness and love of God our
Saviour towards man appeared,” because “not by works of righteousness
which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us; that being
justified by his grace, we should be made heirs of eternal life.”[16] By
this confession we divest man of all righteousness, even to the smallest
particle, till through mere mercy he has been regenerated to the hope of
eternal life; for if a righteousness of works contributed any thing to
our justification, we are not truly said to be “justified by grace.” The
apostle, when he asserted justification to be by grace, had certainly
not forgotten his argument in another place, that “if it be of works,
then it is no more grace.”[17] And what else does our Lord intend, when
he declares, “I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners?”[18] If
sinners only are admitted, why do we seek to enter by a counterfeit
righteousness?

VI. The same thought frequently recurs to me, that I am in danger of
injuring the mercy of God, by labouring with so much anxiety in the
defence of this doctrine, as though it were doubtful or obscure. But
such being our malignity, that, unless it be most powerfully subdued, it
never allows to God that which belongs to him, I am constrained to dwell
a little longer upon it. But as the Scripture is sufficiently
perspicuous on this subject, I shall use its language in preference to
my own. Isaiah, after having described the universal ruin of mankind,
properly subjoins the method of recovery. “The Lord saw it, and it
displeased him that there was no judgment. And he saw that there was no
man, and wondered that there was no intercessor: therefore his own arm
brought salvation unto him; and his righteousness it sustained him.”[19]
Where are our righteousnesses, if it be true, as the prophet says, that
no one assists the Lord in procuring his salvation? So another prophet
introduces the Lord speaking of the reconciliation of sinners to
himself, saying, “I will betroth thee unto me for ever, in
righteousness, and in judgment, and in loving-kindness, and in mercies.
I will have mercy upon her that had not obtained mercy.”[20] If this
covenant, which is evidently our first union with God, depend on his
mercy, there remains no foundation for our righteousness. And I should
really wish to be informed by those, who pretend that man advances to
meet God with some righteousness of works, whether there be any
righteousness at all, but that which is accepted by God. If it be
madness to entertain such a thought, what that is acceptable to God can
proceed from his enemies, who, with all their actions, are the objects
of his complete abhorrence? And that we are all the inveterate and
avowed enemies of our God, till we are justified and received into his
friendship, is an undeniable truth.[21] If justification be the
principle from which love originates, what righteousnesses of works can
precede it? To destroy that pestilent arrogance, therefore, John
carefully apprizes us that “we did not first love him.”[22] And the Lord
had by his prophet long before taught the same truth: “I will love them
freely,” saith he, “for mine anger is turned away.”[23] If his love was
spontaneously inclined towards us, it certainly is not excited by works.
But the ignorant mass of mankind have only this notion of it—that no man
has merited that Christ should effect our redemption; but that towards
obtaining the possession of redemption, we derive some assistance from
our own works. But however we may have been redeemed by Christ, yet till
we are introduced into communion with him by the calling of the Father,
we are both heirs of darkness and death, and enemies to God. For Paul
teaches, that we are not purified and washed from our pollutions by the
blood of Christ, till the Spirit effects that purification within
us.[24] This is the same that Peter intends, when he declares that the
“sanctification of the Spirit” is effectual “unto obedience, and
sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ.”[25] If we are sprinkled by the
Spirit with the blood of Christ for purification, we must not imagine
that before this ablution we are in any other state than that of sinners
destitute of Christ. We may be certain, therefore, that the commencement
of our salvation is, as it were, a resurrection from death to life;
because, when “on the behalf of Christ it is given to us to believe on
him,”[26] we then begin to experience a transition from death to life.

VII. The same reasoning may be applied to the second and third classes
of men in the division stated above. For the impurity of the conscience
proves, that they are neither of them yet regenerated by the Spirit of
God; and their unregeneracy betrays also their want of faith: whence it
appears, that they are not yet reconciled to God, or justified in his
sight, since these blessings are only attained by faith. What can be
performed by sinners alienated from God, that is not execrable in his
view? Yet all the impious, and especially hypocrites, are inflated with
this foolish confidence. Though they know that their heart is full of
impurity, yet if they perform any specious actions, they esteem them too
good to be despised by God. Hence that pernicious error, that though
convicted of a polluted and impious heart, they cannot be brought to
confess themselves destitute of righteousness; but while they
acknowledge themselves to be unrighteous, because it cannot be denied,
they still arrogate to themselves some degree of righteousness. This
vanity the Lord excellently refutes by the prophet. “Ask now,” saith he,
“the priests, saying, If one bear holy flesh in the skirt of his
garment, and with his skirt do touch bread, or any meat, shall it be
holy? And the priests answered and said, No. Then said Haggai, If one
that is unclean by a dead body touch any of these, shall it be unclean?
And the priests answered and said, It shall be unclean. Then answered
Haggai, and said, So is this people, and so is this nation before me,
saith the Lord; and so is every work of their hands; and that which they
offer there is unclean.”[27] I wish that this passage might either
obtain full credit with us, or be deeply impressed on our memory. For
there is no one, however flagitious his whole life may be, who can
suffer himself to be persuaded of what the Lord here plainly declares.
The greatest sinner, as soon as he has performed two or three duties of
the law, doubts not but they are accepted of him for righteousness; but
the Lord positively denies that any sanctification is acquired by such
actions, unless the heart be previously well purified; and not content
with this, he asserts that all the works of sinners are contaminated by
the impurity of their hearts. Let the name of righteousness, then, no
longer be given to these works which are condemned for their pollution
by the lips of God. And by what a fine similitude does he demonstrate
this! For it might have been objected that what the Lord had enjoined
was inviolably holy. But he shows, on the contrary, that it is not to be
wondered at, if those things which are sanctified by the law of the
Lord, are defiled by the pollution of the wicked; since an unclean hand
cannot touch any thing that has been consecrated, without profaning it.

VIII. He excellently pursues the same argument also in Isaiah: “Bring no
more vain oblations; incense is an abomination unto me; your new moons
and your appointed feasts my soul hateth; they are a trouble unto me; I
am weary to bear them. When ye spread forth your hands, I will hide mine
eyes from you; yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear: your
hands are full of blood. Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of
your doings.”[28] What is the reason that the Lord is so displeased at
an obedience to his law? But, in fact, he here rejects nothing that
arises from the genuine observance of the law; the beginning of which,
he every where teaches, is an unfeigned fear of his name.[29] If that be
wanting, all the oblations made to him are not merely trifles, but
nauseous and abominable pollutions. Let hypocrites go now, and,
retaining depravity concealed in their hearts, endeavour by their works
to merit the favour of God. But by such means they will add provocation
to provocation; for “the sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination to
the Lord; but the prayer of the upright” alone “is his delight.”[30] We
lay it down, therefore, as an undoubted truth, which ought to be well
known to such as are but moderately versed in the Scriptures, that even
the most splendid works of men not yet truly sanctified, are so far from
righteousness in the Divine view, that they are accounted sins. And
therefore they have strictly adhered to the truth, who have maintained
that the works of a man do not conciliate God’s favour to his person;
but, on the contrary, that works are never acceptable to God, unless the
person who performs them has previously found favour in his sight. And
this order, to which the Scripture directs us, is religiously to be
observed. Moses relates, that “The Lord had respect unto Abel and to his
offering.”[31] Does he not plainly indicate that the Lord is propitious
to men, before he regards their works? Wherefore the purification of the
heart is a necessary prerequisite, in order that the works which we
perform may be favourably received by God; for the declaration of
Jeremiah is always in force, that the “eyes of the Lord are upon the
truth.”[32] And the Holy Spirit has asserted by the mouth of Peter, that
it is “by faith” alone that the “heart” is “purified,”[33] which proves
that the first foundation is laid in a true and living faith.

IX. Let us now examine what degree of righteousness is possessed by
those whom we have ranked in the fourth class. We admit, that when God,
by the interposition of the righteousness of Christ, reconciles us to
himself, and having granted us the free remission of our sins, esteems
us as righteous persons, to this mercy he adds also another blessing;
for he dwells in us by his Holy Spirit, by whose power our carnal
desires are daily more and more mortified, and we are sanctified, that
is, consecrated to the Lord unto real purity of life, having our hearts
moulded to obey his law, so that it is our prevailing inclination to
submit to his will, and to promote his glory alone by all possible
means. But even while, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, we are
walking in the ways of the Lord,—that we may not forget ourselves, and
be filled with pride, we feel such remains of imperfection, as afford us
abundant cause for humility. The Scripture declares, that “there is not
a just man upon earth, that doeth good and sinneth not.”[34] What kind
of righteousness, then, will even believers obtain from their own works?
In the first place, I assert, that the best of their performances are
tarnished and corrupted by some carnal impurity and debased by a mixture
of some alloy. Let any holy servant of God select from his whole life
that which he shall conceive to have been the best of all his actions,
and let him examine it with attention on every side; he will undoubtedly
discover in it some taint of the corruption of the flesh; since our
alacrity to good actions is never what it ought to be, but our course is
retarded by great debility. Though we perceive that the blemishes which
deform the works of the saints, are not difficult to be discovered, yet
suppose we admit them to be very diminutive spots, will they not be at
all offensive in the sight of God, in which even the stars are not pure?
We have now ascertained, that there is not a single action performed by
the saints, which, if judged according to its intrinsic merit, does not
justly deserve to be rewarded with shame.

X. In the next place, even though it were possible for us to perform any
works completely pure and perfect, yet one sin is sufficient to
extinguish and annihilate all remembrance of antecedent righteousness,
as is declared by the prophet.[35] With him James also agrees:
“Whosoever shall offend,” says he, “in one point, he is guilty of
all.”[36] Now, since this mortal life is never pure or free from sin,
whatever righteousness we might acquire being perpetually corrupted,
overpowered, and destroyed by subsequent sins, it would neither be
admitted in the sight of God, nor be imputed to us for righteousness.
Lastly, in considering the righteousness of works, we should regard, not
any action commanded in the law, but the commandment itself. Therefore,
if we seek righteousness by the law, it is in vain for us to perform two
or three works; a perpetual observance of the law is indispensably
necessary. Wherefore God does not impute to us for righteousness that
remission of sins, of which we have spoken, once only, (as some
foolishly imagine,) in order that, having obtained pardon for our past
lives, we may afterwards seek righteousness by the law; which would be
only sporting with us, and deluding us by a fallacious hope. For since
perfection is unattainable by us, as long as we are in this mortal body,
and the law denounces death and judgment on all whose works are not
completely and universally righteous, it will always have matter of
accusation and condemnation against us, unless it be prevented by the
Divine mercy continually absolving us by a perpetual remission of our
sins. Wherefore it will ever be true, as we asserted at the beginning,
that if we be judged according to our demerits, whatever be our designs
or undertakings, we are nevertheless with all our endeavours and all our
pursuits, deserving of death and destruction.

XI. We must strenuously insist on these two points—first, that there
never was an action performed by a pious man, which, if examined by the
scrutinizing eye of Divine justice, would not deserve condemnation; and
secondly, if any such thing be admitted, (though it cannot be the case
with any individual of mankind,) yet being corrupted and contaminated by
the sins, of which its performer is confessedly guilty, it loses every
claim to the Divine favour. And this is the principal hinge on which our
controversy [with the Papists] turns. For concerning the beginning of
justification, there is no dispute between us and the sounder schoolmen,
but we all agree, that a sinner being freely delivered from condemnation
obtains righteousness, and that by the remission of his sins; only they,
under the term _justification_, comprehend that renovation in which we
are renewed by the Spirit of God to an obedience to the law, and so they
describe the righteousness of a regenerate man as consisting in
this—that a man, after having been once reconciled to God through faith
in Christ, is accounted righteous with God on account of his good works,
the merit of which is the cause of his acceptance. But the Lord, on the
contrary, declares, “that faith was reckoned to Abraham for
righteousness,”[37] not during the time while he yet remained a
worshipper of idols, but after he had been eminent during many years for
the sanctity of his life. Abraham, then, had for a long time worshipped
God from a pure heart, and performed all that obedience to the law,
which a mortal man is capable of performing; yet, after all, his
righteousness consisted in faith. Whence we conclude, according to the
argument of Paul, that it was not of works. So when the prophet says,
“The just shall live by his faith,”[38] he is not speaking of the
impious and profane, whom the Lord justifies by converting them to the
faith; but his address is directed to believers, and they are promised
life by faith. Paul also removes every doubt, when, in confirmation of
this sentiment, he adduces the following passage of David: “Blessed are
they whose iniquities are forgiven.”[39] But it is certain that David
spake not of impious men, but of believers, whose characters resembled
his own; for he spoke from the experience of his own conscience.
Wherefore it is necessary for us, not to have this blessing for once
only, but to retain it as long as we live. Lastly, he asserts, that the
message of a free reconciliation with God, is not only promulgated for a
day or two, but is perpetual in the church.[40] Believers, therefore,
even to the end of their lives, have no other righteousness than that
which is there described. For the mediatorial office is perpetually
sustained by Christ, by whom the Father is reconciled to us; and the
efficacy of whose death is perpetually the same, consisting in ablution,
satisfaction, expiation, and perfect obedience, which covers all our
iniquities. And Paul does not tell the Ephesians that they are indebted
to grace merely for the beginning of their salvation, but that they “are
saved by grace, not of works, lest any man should boast.”[41]

XII. The subterfuges, by which the schoolmen endeavour to evade these
arguments, are unavailing. They say, that the sufficiency of good works
to justification arises not from their intrinsic merit, but from the
grace through which they are accepted. Secondly, because they are
constrained to acknowledge the righteousness of works to be always
imperfect in the present state, they admit, that as long as we live we
need the remission of our sins, in order to supply the defects of our
works; but that our deficiencies are compensated by works of
supererogation. I reply, that what they denominate the grace through
which our works are accepted, is no other than the free goodness of the
Father, with which he embraces us in Christ, when he invests us with the
righteousness of Christ, and accepts it as ours, in order that, in
consequence of it, he may treat us as holy, pure, and righteous persons.
For the righteousness of Christ (which, being the only perfect
righteousness, is the only one that can bear the Divine scrutiny) must
be produced on our behalf, and judicially presented, as in the case of a
surety. Being furnished with this, we obtain by faith the perpetual
remission of our sins. Our imperfections and impurities, being concealed
by its purity, are not imputed to us, but are as it were buried, and
prevented from appearing in the view of Divine justice, till the advent
of that hour, when the old man being slain and utterly annihilated in
us, the Divine goodness shall receive us into a blessed peace with the
new Adam, in that state to wait for the day of the Lord, when we shall
receive incorruptible bodies, and be translated to the glories of the
celestial kingdom.

XIII. If these things are true, surely no works of ours can render us
acceptable to God; nor can the actions themselves be pleasing to him,
any otherwise than as a man, who is covered with the righteousness of
Christ, pleases God and obtains the remission of his sins. For God has
not promised eternal life as a reward of certain works; he only
declares, that “he that doeth these things shall live,”[42] denouncing,
on the contrary, that memorable curse against all who continue not in
the observance of every one of his commands.[43] This abundantly refutes
the erroneous notion of a partial righteousness, since no other
righteousness is admitted into heaven but an entire observance of the
law. Nor is there any more solidity in their pretence of a sufficient
compensation for imperfections by works of supererogation. For are they
not by this perpetually recurring to the subterfuge, from which they
have already been driven, that the partial observance of the law
constitutes, as far as it goes, a righteousness of works? They
unblushingly assume as granted, what no man of sound judgment will
concede. The Lord frequently declares, that he acknowledges no
righteousness of works, except in a perfect obedience to his law. What
presumption is it for us, who are destitute of this, in order that we
may not appear to be despoiled of all our glory, or, in other words, to
submit entirely to the Lord—what presumption is it for us to boast of I
know not what fragments of a few actions, and to endeavour to supply
deficiencies by other satisfactions! _Satisfactions_ have already been
so completely demolished, that they ought not to occupy even a transient
thought. I only remark, that those who trifle in this manner, do not
consider what an execrable thing sin is in the sight of God; for indeed
they ought to know, that all the righteousness of all mankind,
accumulated in one mass, is insufficient to compensate for a single sin.
We see that man on account of one offence was rejected and abandoned by
God, so that he lost all means of regaining salvation.[44] They are
deprived, therefore, of the power of satisfaction, with which, however
they flatter themselves, they will certainly never be able to render a
satisfaction to God, to whom nothing will be pleasing or acceptable that
proceeds from his enemies. Now, his enemies are all those to whom he
determines to impute sin. Our sins, therefore, must be covered and
forgiven, before the Lord can regard any of our works. Whence it follows
that the remission of sins is absolutely gratuitous, and that it is
wickedly blasphemed by those who obtrude any _satisfactions_. Let us,
therefore, after the example of the apostle, “forgetting those things
which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before,
press toward the mark for the prize of our high calling.”[45]

XIV. But how is the pretence of works of supererogation consistent with
this injunction—“When ye shall have done all those things which are
commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants; we have done that
which was our duty to do?”[46] This direction does not inculcate an act
of simulation or falsehood, but a decision in our mind respecting that
of which we are certain. The Lord, therefore, commands us sincerely to
think and consider with ourselves, that our services to him are none of
them gratuitous, but merely the performance of indispensable duties; and
that justly; for we are servants under such numerous obligations as we
could never discharge; even though all our thoughts and all our members
were devoted to the duties of the law. In saying, therefore, “When ye
shall have done all those things which are commanded,” he supposes a
case of one man having attained to a degree of righteousness beyond what
is attained by all the men in the world. How, then, while every one of
us is at the greatest distance from this point, can we presume to glory
that we have completely attained to that perfect standard? Nor can any
one reasonably object, that there is nothing to prevent his efforts from
going beyond his necessary obligations, who in any respect fails of
doing the duty incumbent on him. For we must acknowledge, that we cannot
imagine any thing pertaining either to the service of God or to the love
of our neighbour, which is not comprehended in the Divine law. But if it
is a part of the law, let us not boast of voluntary liberality, where we
are bound by necessity.

XV. It is irrelevant to this subject, to allege the boasting of
Paul,[47] that among the Corinthians he voluntarily receded from what,
if he had chosen, he might have claimed as his right, and not only did
what was incumbent on him to do, but afforded them his gratuitous
services beyond the requisitions of duty. They ought to attend to the
reason there assigned, that he acted thus, “lest he should hinder the
gospel of Christ.”[48] For wicked and fraudulent teachers recommended
themselves by this stratagem of liberality, by which they endeavoured,
both to conciliate a favourable reception to their own pernicious
dogmas, and to fix an odium on the gospel; so that Paul was necessitated
either to endanger the doctrine of Christ, or to oppose these artifices.
Now, if it be a matter of indifference to a Christian to incur an
offence when he may avoid it, I confess that the apostle performed for
the Lord a work of supererogation; but if this was justly required of a
prudent minister of the gospel, I maintain that he did what was his duty
to do. Even if no such reason appeared, yet the observation of
Chrysostom is always true—that all that we have is on the same tenure as
the possessions of slaves, which the law pronounces to be the property
of their masters. And Christ has clearly delivered the same truth in the
parable, where he inquires whether we thank a servant, when he returns
home in the evening, after the various labours of the day.[49] But it is
possible that he may have laboured with greater diligence than we had
ventured to require. This may be granted; yet he has done no more than,
by the condition of servitude, he was under an obligation to do; since
he belongs to us, with all the ability he has. I say nothing of the
nature of the supererogations which these men wish to boast of before
God; for they are contemptible trifles, which he has never commanded,
which he does not approve, nor, when they render up their account to
him, will he accept them. We cannot admit that there are any works of
supererogation, except such as those of which it is said by the prophet,
“Who hath required this at your hand?”[50] But let them remember the
language of another passage respecting these things: “Wherefore do ye
spend money for that which is not bread? and your labour for that which
satisfieth not?”[51] It is easy, indeed, for these idle doctors to
dispute concerning these things in easy chairs; but when the Judge of
all shall ascend the judgment seat, all such empty notions must vanish
away. The object of our inquiries ought to be, what plea we may bring
forward with confidence at his tribunal, not what we can invent in
schools and cloisters.

XVI. On this subject our minds require to be guarded chiefly against two
pernicious principles—That we place no confidence in the righteousness
of our works, and that we ascribe no glory to them. The Scriptures every
where drive us from all confidence, when they declare that all our
righteousnesses are odious in the Divine view, unless they are perfumed
with the holiness of Christ; and that they can only excite the vengeance
of God, unless they are supported by his merciful pardon. Thus they
leave us nothing to do, but to deprecate the wrath of our Judge with the
confession of David, “Enter not into judgment with thy servant; for in
thy sight shall no man living be justified.”[52] And where Job says, “If
I be wicked, woe unto me; and if I be righteous, yet will I not lift up
my head;”[53] though he refers to that consummate righteousness of God,
compared to which even the angels are deficient, yet he at the same time
shows, that when God comes to judgment, all men must be dumb. For he not
only means that he would rather freely recede, than incur the danger of
contending with the rigour of God, but signifies that he experiences in
himself no other righteousness than what would instantaneously vanish
before the Divine presence. When confidence is destroyed, all boasting
must of necessity be relinquished. For who can give the praise of
righteousness to his works, in which he is afraid to confide in the
presence of God? We must therefore have recourse to the Lord, in whom we
are assured, by Isaiah, that “all the seed of Israel shall be justified,
and shall glory;”[54] for it is strictly true, as he says in another
place, that we are “the planting of the Lord, that he might be
glorified.”[55] Our minds therefore will then be properly purified, when
they shall in no degree confide nor glory in our works. But foolish men
are led into such a false and delusive confidence, by the error of
always considering their works as the cause of their salvation.

XVII. But if we advert to the four kinds of causes, which the
philosophers direct us to consider in the production of effects, we
shall find none of them consistent with works in the accomplishment of
our salvation. For the Scripture every where proclaims, that the
efficient cause of eternal life being procured for us, was the mercy of
our heavenly Father, and his gratuitous love towards us; that the
material cause is Christ and his obedience, by which he obtained a
righteousness for us; and what shall we denominate the formal and
instrumental cause, unless it be faith? These three John comprehends in
one sentence, when he says, that “God so loved the world that he gave
his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not
perish, but have everlasting life.”[56] The final cause the apostle
declares to be, both the demonstration of the Divine righteousness and
the praise of the Divine goodness, in a passage in which he also
expressly mentions the other three causes. For this is his language to
the Romans: “All have sinned, and come short of the glory of God, being
justified freely by his grace:”[57] here we have the original source of
our salvation, which is the gratuitous mercy of God towards us. It
follows, “through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:” here we have
the matter of our justification. “Through faith in his blood:” here he
points out the instrumental cause, by which the righteousness of Christ
is revealed to us. Lastly, he subjoins the end of all, when he says, “To
declare his righteousness; that he might be just, and the justifier of
him which believeth in Jesus.” And to suggest, by the way, that this
righteousness consists in reconciliation or propitiation, he expressly
asserts that Christ was “set forth to be a propitiation.” So also in the
first chapter to the Ephesians, he teaches that we are received into the
favour of God through his mere mercy; that it is accomplished by the
mediation of Christ; that it is apprehended by faith; and that the end
of all is, that the glory of the Divine goodness may be fully
displayed.[58] When we see that every part of our salvation is
accomplished without us, what reason have we to confide or to glory in
our works? Nor can even the most inveterate enemies of Divine grace
raise any controversy with us concerning the efficient or the final
cause, unless they mean altogether to renounce the authority of the
Scripture. Over the material and formal causes they superinduce a false
colouring; as if our own works were to share the honour of them with
faith and the righteousness of Christ. But this also is contradicted by
the Scripture, which affirms that Christ is the sole author of our
righteousness and life, and that this blessing of righteousness is
enjoyed by faith alone.

XVIII. The saints often confirm and console themselves with the
remembrance of their own innocence and integrity, and sometimes even
refrain not from proclaiming it. Now, this is done for two reasons;
either that, in comparing their good cause with the bad cause of the
impious, they derive from such comparison an assurance of victory, not
so much by the commendation of their own righteousness, as by the just
and merited condemnation of their adversaries; or that, even without any
comparison with others, while they examine themselves before God, the
purity of their consciences affords them some consolation and
confidence. To the former of these reasons we shall advert hereafter;
let us now briefly examine the consistency of the latter with what we
have before asserted, that in the sight of God we ought to place no
reliance on the merit of works, nor glory on account of them. The
consistency appears in this—that for the foundation and accomplishment
of their salvation, the saints look to the Divine goodness alone,
without any regard to works. And they not only apply themselves to it
above all things, as the commencement of their happiness, but likewise
depend upon it as the consummation of their felicity. A conscience thus
founded, built up, and established, is also confirmed by the
consideration of works; that is, as far as they are evidences of God
dwelling and reigning in us. Now, this confidence of works being found
in none but those who have previously cast all the confidence of their
souls on the mercy of God, it ought not to be thought contrary to that
upon which it depends. Wherefore, when we exclude the confidence of
works, we only mean that the mind of a Christian should not be directed
to any merit of works as a mean of salvation; but should altogether rely
on the gratuitous promise of righteousness. We do not forbid him to
support and confirm this faith by marks of the Divine benevolence to
him. For if, when we call to remembrance the various gifts which God has
conferred on us, they are all as so many rays from the Divine
countenance, by which we are illuminated to contemplate the full blaze
of supreme goodness,—much more the grace of good works, which
demonstrates that we have received the Spirit of adoption.

XIX. When the saints, therefore, confirm their faith, or derive matter
of rejoicing from the integrity of their consciences, they only
conclude, from the fruits of vocation, that they have been adopted by
the Lord as his children. The declaration of Solomon, that “In the fear
of the Lord is strong confidence;”[59] and the protestation sometimes
used by the saints to obtain a favourable audience from the Lord, that
“they have walked before” him “in truth and with a perfect heart;”[60]
these things have no concern in laying the foundation for establishing
the conscience; nor are they of any value, except as they are
consequences of the Divine vocation. For there nowhere exists that fear
of God which can establish a full assurance, and the saints are
conscious that their integrity is yet accompanied with many relics of
corruption. But as the fruits of regeneration evince that the Holy
Spirit dwells in them, this affords them ample encouragement to expect
the assistance of God in all their necessities, because they experience
him to be their Father in an affair of such vast importance. And even
this they cannot attain, unless they have first apprehended the Divine
goodness, confirmed by no other assurance but that of the promise. For
if they begin to estimate it by their good works, nothing will be weaker
or more uncertain; for, if their works be estimated in themselves, their
imperfection will menace them with the wrath of God, as much as their
purity, however incomplete, testifies his benevolence. In a word, they
declare the benefits of God, but in such a way as not to turn away from
his gratuitous favour, in which Paul assures us there is “length, and
breadth, and depth, and height;” as though he had said, Which way soever
the pious turn their views, how high soever they ascend, how widely
soever they expatiate, yet they ought not to go beyond the love of
Christ, but employ themselves wholly in meditating on it, because it
comprehends in itself all dimensions. Therefore he says that it “passeth
knowledge,” and that when we know how much Christ has loved us, we are
“filled with all the fulness of God.”[61] So also in another place, when
he glories that believers are victorious in every conflict, he
immediately adds, as the reason of it, “through him that loved us.”[62]

XX. We see now, that the confidence which the saints have in their works
is not such as either ascribes any thing to the merit of them, (since
they view them only as the gifts of God, in which they acknowledge his
goodness, and as marks of their calling, whence they infer their
election,) or derogates the least from the gratuitous righteousness
which we obtain in Christ; since it depends upon it, and cannot subsist
without it. This is concisely and beautifully represented by Augustine,
when he says, “I do not say to the Lord, Despise not the works of my
hands. I have sought the Lord with my hands, and I have not been
deceived. But I commend not the works of my hands; for I fear that when
thou hast examined them, thou wilt find more sin than merit. This only I
say, this I ask, this I desire; Despise not the works of thy hands.
Behold in me thy work, not mine. For if thou beholdest mine, thou
condemnest me; if thou beholdest thine own, thou crownest me. Because
whatever good works I have, they are from thee.” He assigns two reasons
why he ventured not to boast of his works to God; first, that if he has
any good ones, he sees nothing of his own in them; secondly, that even
these are buried under a multitude of sins. Hence the conscience
experiences more fear and consternation than security. Therefore he
desires God to behold his best performances, only that he may recognize
in them the grace of his own calling, and perfect the work which he has
begun.

XXI. The remaining objection is, that the Scripture represents the good
works of believers as the causes for which the Lord blesses them. But
this must be understood so as not to affect what we have before proved,
that the efficient cause of our salvation is the love of God the Father;
the material cause, the obedience of the Son; the instrumental cause,
the illumination of the Spirit, that is, faith; and the final cause, the
glory of the infinite goodness of God. No obstacle arises from these
things to prevent good works being considered by the Lord as inferior
causes. But how does this happen? Because those whom his mercy has
destined to the inheritance of eternal life, he, in his ordinary
dispensations, introduces to the possession of it by good works. That
which, in the order of his dispensations, precedes, he denominates the
cause of that which follows. For this reason he sometimes deduces
eternal life from works; not that the acceptance of it is to be referred
to them; but because he justifies the objects of his election, that he
may finally glorify them; he makes the former favour, which is a step to
the succeeding one, in some sense the cause of it. But whenever the true
cause is to be assigned, he does not direct us to take refuge in works,
but confines our thoughts entirely to his mercy. For what does he teach
us by the apostle? “The wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is
eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.” Why does he not oppose
righteousness to sin, as well as life to death? Why does he not make
righteousness the cause of life, as well as sin the cause of death? For
then the antithesis would have been complete, whereas by this variation
it is partly destroyed. But the apostle intended by this comparison to
express a certain truth—that death is due to the demerits of men, and
that life proceeds solely from the mercy of God. Lastly, these phrases
denote rather the order of the Divine gifts, than the cause of them. In
the accumulation of graces upon graces, God derives from the former a
reason for adding the next, that he may not omit any thing necessary to
the enrichment of his servants. And while he thus pursues his
liberality, he would have us always to remember his gratuitous election,
which is the source and original of all. For although he loves the gifts
which he daily confers, as emanations from that fountain, yet it is our
duty to adhere to that gratuitous acceptance, which alone can support
our souls, and to connect the gifts of his Spirit, which he afterwards
bestows on us, with the first cause, in such a manner as will not be
derogatory to it.

Footnote 1:

Jer. xvii. 9.

Footnote 2:

Gen. vi. 5; viii. 21.

Footnote 3:

Psalm xciv. 11; xxxvi. 1.

Footnote 4:

Psalm xiv. 1-3. Rom. iii. 11.

Footnote 5:

Gen. vi. 3.

Footnote 6:

Gal. v. 19, &c.

Footnote 7:

1 John v. 12.

Footnote 8:

Heb. xi. 6.

Footnote 9:

John v. 25.

Footnote 10:

Eph. ii. 4, 5.

Footnote 11:

Rom. iv. 17.

Footnote 12:

Job xli. 11.

Footnote 13:

Rom. xi. 35.

Footnote 14:

Ephes. ii. 10.

Footnote 15:

2 Tim. i. 9.

Footnote 16:

Titus iii. 4, 5, 7.

Footnote 17:

Rom. xi. 6.

Footnote 18:

Matt. ix. 13.

Footnote 19:

Isaiah lix. 15, 16.

Footnote 20:

Hosea ii. 19, 23.

Footnote 21:

Rom. v. 6, 10. Col. i. 21.

Footnote 22:

1 John iv. 10.

Footnote 23:

Hosea xiv. 4.

Footnote 24:

1 Cor. vi. 11.

Footnote 25:

1 Peter i. 2.

Footnote 26:

Phil. i. 29.

Footnote 27:

Hag. ii. 11-14.

Footnote 28:

Isaiah i. 13-16.

Footnote 29:

Deut. iv. 6. Psalm cxi. 10. Prov. i. 7; ix. 10.

Footnote 30:

Prov. xv. 8.

Footnote 31:

Gen. iv. 4.

Footnote 32:

Jer. v. 3.

Footnote 33:

Acts xv. 9.

Footnote 34:

Eccles. vii. 20.

Footnote 35:

Ezek. xviii. 24.

Footnote 36:

James ii. 10.

Footnote 37:

Rom. iv. 9.

Footnote 38:

Hab. ii. 4.

Footnote 39:

Rom. iv. 7.

Footnote 40:

2 Cor. v. 18, 19.

Footnote 41:

Ephes. ii. 8, 9.

Footnote 42:

Lev. xviii. 5. Rom. x. 5.

Footnote 43:

Deut. xxvii. 26. Gal. iii. 10.

Footnote 44:

Gen. iii.

Footnote 45:

Phil. iii. 13, 14.

Footnote 46:

Luke xvii. 10.

Footnote 47:

1 Cor. ix.

Footnote 48:

1 Cor. ix. 12.

Footnote 49:

Luke xvii. 9.

Footnote 50:

Isaiah i. 12.

Footnote 51:

Isaiah lv. 2.

Footnote 52:

Psalm cxliii. 2.

Footnote 53:

Job x. 15.

Footnote 54:

Isaiah xlv. 25.

Footnote 55:

Isaiah lxi. 3.

Footnote 56:

John iii. 16.

Footnote 57:

Rom. iii. 23, &c.

Footnote 58:

Ephes. i. 5-7, 13.

Footnote 59:

Prov. xiv. 26.

Footnote 60:

2 Kings xx. 3.

Footnote 61:

Ephes. iii. 18, 19.

Footnote 62:

Rom. viii. 37.

CHAPTER XV.
BOASTING OF THE MERIT OF WORKS, EQUALLY SUBVERSIVE OF GOD’S GLORY IN THE
GIFT OF RIGHTEOUSNESS, AND OF THE CERTAINTY OF SALVATION.

We have now discussed the principal branch of this subject; that because
righteousness, if dependent on works, must inevitably be confounded in
the sight of God, therefore it is contained exclusively in the mercy of
God and the participation of Christ, and consequently in faith alone.
Now, it must be carefully remarked that this is the principal hinge on
which the argument turns, that we may not be implicated in the common
delusion, which equally affects the learned and the vulgar. For as soon
as justification by faith or works becomes the subject of inquiry, they
have immediate recourse to those passages which seem to attribute to
works some degree of merit in the sight of God; as though justification
by works would be fully evinced, if they could be proved to be of any
value before God. We have already clearly demonstrated that the
righteousness of works consists only in a perfect and complete
observance of the law. Whence it follows, that no man is justified by
works, but he who, being elevated to the summit of perfection, cannot be
convicted even of the least transgression. This, therefore, is a
different and separate question, whether, although works be utterly
insufficient for the justification of men, they do not, nevertheless,
merit the grace of God.

II. In the first place, with respect to the term _merit_, it is
necessary for me to premise, that whoever first applied it to human
works, as compared with the Divine judgment, showed very little concern
for the purity of the faith. I gladly abstain from all controversies
about mere words; but I could wish that this sobriety had always been
observed by Christian writers, that they had avoided the unnecessary
adoption of terms not used in the Scriptures, and calculated to produce
great offence, but very little advantage. For what necessity was there
for the introduction of the word _merit_, when the value of good works
might be significantly expressed without offence by a different term?
But the great offence contained in it, appears in the great injury the
world has received from it. The consummate haughtiness of its import can
only obscure the Divine grace, and taint the minds of men with
presumptuous arrogance. I confess, the ancient writers of the Church
have generally used it, and I wish that their misuse of one word had not
been the occasion of error to posterity. Yet they also declare in some
places that they did not intend any thing prejudicial to the truth. For
this is the language of Augustine in one passage: “Let human merit,
which was lost by Adam, here be silent, and let the grace of God reign
through Jesus Christ.” Again: “The saints ascribe nothing to their own
merits; they will ascribe all, O God, only to thy mercy.” In another
place: “And when a man sees that whatever good he has, he has it not
from himself, but from his God, he sees that all that is commended in
him proceeds not from his own merits, but from the Divine mercy.” We see
how, by divesting man of the power of performing good actions, he
likewise destroys the dignity of merit. Chrysostom says, “Our works, if
there be any consequent on God’s gratuitous vocation, are a retribution
and a debt; but the gifts of God are grace, beneficence, and immense
liberality.” Leaving the name, however, let us rather attend to the
thing. I have before cited a passage from Bernard: “As not to presume on
our merits is sufficiently meritorious, so to be destitute of merits is
sufficient for the judgment.” But by the explanation immediately
annexed, he properly softens the harshness of these expressions, when he
says, “Therefore you should be concerned to have merits; and if you have
them, you should know that they are given to you; you should hope for
the fruit, the mercy of God; and you have escaped all danger of poverty,
ingratitude, and presumption. Happy the Church which is not destitute,
either of merits without presumption, or of presumption without merits.”
And just before he had fully shown how pious his meaning was. “For
concerning merits,” he says, “why should the Church be solicitous, which
has a more firm and secure foundation for glorying in the purpose of
God? For God cannot deny himself; he will perform what he has promised.
Thus you have no reason for inquiring, on account of what merits we may
hope for blessings, especially when you read, ‘Not for your sakes, but
for my sake;’[63] it is sufficiently meritorious to know that merits are
insufficient.”

III. The Scripture shows what all our works are capable of meriting,
when it represents them as unable to bear the Divine scrutiny, because
they are full of impurity; and in the next place, what would be merited
by the perfect observance of the law, if this could any where be found,
when it directs us, “When ye shall have done all those things which are
commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants;”[64] because we shall
not have conferred any favour on God, but only have performed the duties
incumbent on us, for which no thanks are due. Nevertheless, the good
works which the Lord has conferred on us, he denominates our own, and
declares that he will not only accept, but also reward them. It is our
duty to be animated by so great a promise, and to stir up our minds that
we “be not weary in well doing,”[65] and to be truly grateful for so
great an instance of Divine goodness. It is beyond a doubt, that
whatever is laudable in our works proceeds from the grace of God; and
that we cannot properly ascribe the least portion of it to ourselves. If
we truly and seriously acknowledge this truth, not only all confidence,
but likewise all idea of merit, immediately vanishes. We, I say, do not,
like the sophists, divide the praise of good works between God and man,
but we preserve it to the Lord complete, entire, and uncontaminated. All
that we attribute to man, is, that those works which were otherwise good
are tainted and polluted by his impurity. For nothing proceeds from the
most perfect man, which is wholly immaculate. Therefore let the Lord sit
in judgment on the best of human actions, and he will indeed recognize
in them his own righteousness, but man’s disgrace and shame. Good works,
therefore, are pleasing to God, and not unprofitable to the authors of
them; and they will moreover receive the most ample blessings from God
as their reward; not because they merit them, but because the Divine
goodness has freely appointed them this reward. But what wickedness is
it, not to be content with that Divine liberality which remunerates
works destitute of merit with unmerited rewards, but with sacrilegious
ambition still to aim at more, that what entirely originates in the
Divine munificence may appear to be a compensation of the merit of
works! Here I appeal to the common sense of every man. If he who, by the
liberality of another, enjoys the use and profit of an estate, usurp to
himself also the title of proprietor, does he not by such ingratitude
deserve to lose the possession which he had? So also if a slave,
manumitted by his master, conceal his mean condition as a freed-man, and
boast that he was free by birth, does he not deserve to be reduced to
his former servitude? For this is the legitimate way of enjoying a
benefit, if we neither arrogate more than is given us, nor defraud our
benefactor of his due praise; but, on the contrary, conduct ourselves in
such a manner, that what he has conferred on us may appear, as it were,
to continue with himself. If this moderation ought to be observed
towards men, let every one examine and consider what is due to God.

IV. I know that the sophists abuse some texts in order to prove that the
term _merit_ is found in the Scriptures with reference to God. They cite
a passage from Ecclesiasticus: “Mercy shall make place for every man
according to the merit of his works.”[66] And from the Epistle to the
Hebrews: “To do good, and to communicate, forget not; for with such
sacrifices men merit of God.”[67] My right to reject the authority of
Ecclesiasticus I at present relinquish; but I deny that they faithfully
cite the words of the writer of Ecclesiasticus, whoever he might be; for
in the Greek copy it is as follows: Παση ελεημοσυνη ποιησει τοπον·
ἑκαστος γαρ κατα τα εργα αυτου εὑρησει. “He shall make place for every
mercy; and every man shall find according to his works.” And that this
is the genuine reading, which is corrupted in the Latin version, appears
both from the complexion of the words themselves and from the preceding
context. In the passage quoted from the Epistle to the Hebrews, there is
no reason why they should endeavour to insnare us by a single word, when
the apostle’s words in the Greek imply nothing more than that “with such
sacrifices God is well pleased.” This alone ought to be abundantly
sufficient to repress and subdue the insolence of our pride, that we
transgress not the scriptural rule by ascribing any dignity to human
works. Moreover, the doctrine of the Scripture is, that our good works
are perpetually defiled with many blemishes, which might justly offend
God and incense him against us; so far are they from being able to
conciliate his favour, or to excite his beneficence towards us; yet
that, because in his great mercy he does not examine them according to
the rigour of his justice, he accepts them as though they were
immaculately pure, and therefore rewards them, though void of all merit,
with infinite blessings both in this life and in that which is to come.
For I cannot admit the distinction laid down by some, who are otherwise
men of learning and piety, that good works merit the graces which are
conferred on us in this life, and that eternal salvation is the reward
of faith alone; because the Lord almost always places the reward of
labours and the crown of victory in heaven. Besides, to ascribe the
accumulation of graces upon graces, given us by the Lord, to the merit
of works, in such a manner as to detract it from grace, is contrary to
the doctrine of the Scripture. For though Christ says, that “to every
one that hath shall be given,” and that “the good and faithful servant,
who hath been faithful over a few things, shall be made ruler over many
things,”[68] yet he likewise shows in another place, that the
improvements of believers are the gifts of his gratuitous kindness. “Ho,
every one that thirsteth,” says he, “come ye to the waters, and he that
hath no money; come ye, buy, and eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk
without money and without price.”[69] Whatever, therefore, is now
conferred on believers to promote their salvation as well as their
future blessedness, flows exclusively from the beneficence of God;
nevertheless he declares, that both in the latter and in the former, he
has respect to our works, because, to demonstrate the magnitude of his
love to us, he dignifies with such honour, not only ourselves, but even
the gifts which he has bestowed on us.

V. If these points had been handled and digested in proper order in
former ages, there would never have arisen so many debates and
dissensions. Paul says, that in erecting the superstructure of Christian
doctrine, it is necessary to retain that foundation which he had laid
among the Corinthians, other than which no man can lay, which is Jesus
Christ.[70] What kind of a foundation have we in Christ? Has he begun
our salvation, that we may complete it ourselves? and has he merely
opened a way for us to proceed in by our own powers? By no means; but,
as the apostle before stated, when we acknowledge him, he is “made unto
us righteousness.”[71] No man, therefore, is properly founded on Christ,
but he who has complete righteousness in him; since the apostle says,
that he was sent, not to assist us in the attainment of righteousness,
but to be himself our righteousness; that is to say, that we were chosen
in him from eternity, before the formation of the world, not on account
of any merit of ours, but according to the purpose of the Divine
will;[72] that by the death of Christ we are redeemed from the sentence
of death, and liberated from perdition;[73] that in him we are adopted
as sons and heirs by the heavenly Father,[74] to whom we have been
reconciled by his blood; that being committed to his protection, we are
not in the least danger of perishing;[75] that being thus ingrafted into
him, we are already, as it were, partakers of eternal life, and entered
by hope into the kingdom of God; and moreover, that having obtained such
a participation of him, however foolish we may be in ourselves, he is
our wisdom before God; that however impure we are, he is our purity;
that though we are weak and exposed to Satan, yet that power is ours
which is given to him in heaven and in earth,[76] by which he defeats
Satan for us, and breaks the gates of hell; that though we still carry
about with us a body of death, yet he is our life; in short, that all
that is his belongs to us, and that we have every thing in him, but
nothing in ourselves. On this foundation, I say, it is necessary for us
to build, if we wish to “grow unto a holy temple in the Lord.”[77]

VI. But the world has long been taught a different lesson; for I know
not what good works of morality have been invented to render men
acceptable to God, before they are ingrafted into Christ. As though the
Scripture were false in asserting, that “he that hath not the Son of
God, hath not life.”[78] If they are destitute of life, how could they
generate any cause of life? As though there were no truth in the
declaration, that “whatsoever is not of faith, is sin!”[79] as though an
evil tree could produce good fruits! But what room have these most
pestilent sophists left to Christ for the exertion of his power? They
say that he has merited for us the first grace; that is, the opportunity
of meriting; and that now it is our part not to miss the offered
opportunity. What extreme impudence and impiety! Who would have expected
that any persons professing the name of Christ, would presume thus to
rob him of his power, and almost to trample him under their feet? It is
every where testified of him, that all who believe in him are
justified:[80] these men tell us, that the only benefit received from
him is, that a way is opened for all men to justify themselves. But I
wish that they had experienced what is contained in these passages: “He
that hath the Son, hath life;”[81] “he that believeth is passed from
death unto life;”[82] “justified by his grace,” that we might “be made
heirs of eternal life;”[83] that believers have Christ abiding in them,
by whom they are united to God;[84] that they are partakers of his life,
and sit with him “in heavenly places;”[85] that they are translated into
the kingdom of God, and have obtained salvation;[86] and innumerable
places of similar import. For they do not signify that by faith in
Christ we merely gain the ability to attain righteousness or effect our
salvation, but that both are bestowed on us. Therefore, as soon as we
are ingrafted into Christ by faith, we are already become sons of God,
heirs of heaven, partakers of righteousness, possessors of life, and
(the better to refute their falsehoods) we have attained, not the
opportunity of meriting, but all the merits of Christ; for they are all
communicated to us.

VII. Thus the Sorbonic schools, those sources of all kinds of errors,
have deprived us of justification by faith, which is the substance of
all piety. They grant, indeed, in words, that a man is justified by
faith formed; but this they afterwards explain to be, because faith
renders good works effectual to justification; so that their mention of
faith has almost the appearance of mockery, since it could not be passed
over in silence, while the Scripture is so full of it, without exposing
them to great censure. And not content with this, they rob God of part
of the praise of good works, and transfer it to man. Perceiving that
good works avail but little to the exaltation of man, and that they
cannot properly be denominated merits if they be considered as the
effects of Divine grace, they derive them from the power of free-will;
which is like extracting oil from a stone. They contend, that though
grace be the principal cause of them, yet that this is not to the
exclusion of free-will, from which all merit originates. And this is
maintained not only by the latter sophists, but likewise by their
master, Lombard, whom, when compared with them, we may pronounce to be
sound and sober. Truly wonderful was their blindness, with Augustine so
frequently in their mouths, not to see how solicitously he endeavoured
to prevent men from arrogating the least degree of glory on account of
good works. Before, when we discussed the question of free-will, we
cited from him some testimonies to this purpose; and similar ones
frequently recur in his writings; as when he forbids us ever to boast of
our merits, since even they are the gifts of God; and when he says,
“that all our merit proceeds from grace alone; that it is not obtained
by our sufficiency, but is produced entirely by grace,” &c. That Lombard
was blind to the light of Scripture, in which he appears not to have
been so well versed, need not excite so much surprise. Yet nothing could
be wished for more explicit, in opposition to him and his disciples,
than this passage of the apostle; who, having interdicted Christians
from all boasting, subjoins as a reason why boasting is unlawful, that
“we are his (God’s) workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good
works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.”[87]
Since nothing good, then, can proceed from us but as we are regenerated,
and our regeneration is, without exception, entirely of God, we have no
right to arrogate to ourselves the smallest particle of our good works.
Lastly, while they assiduously inculcate good works, they at the same
time instruct the consciences of men in such a manner, that they can
never dare to be confident that God is propitious and favourable to
their works. But, on the contrary, our doctrine, without any mention of
merit, animates the minds of believers with peculiar consolation, while
we teach them that their works are pleasing to God, and that their
persons are undoubtedly accepted by him. And we likewise require, that
no man attempt or undertake any work without faith; that is, unless he
can previously determine, with a certain confidence of mind, that it
will be pleasing to God.

VIII. Wherefore let us not suffer ourselves to be seduced even a hair’s
breadth from the only foundation, on which, when it is laid, wise
architects erect a firm and regular superstructure. For if there be a
necessity for doctrine and exhortation, they apprize us, that “for this
purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works
of the devil; whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin:”[88] “the
time past of our life may suffice us to have wrought the will of the
Gentiles;”[89] the elect of God are vessels of mercy selected to honour,
and therefore ought to be cleansed from all impurity.[90] But every
thing is said at once, when it is shown that Christ chooses such for his
disciples as will deny themselves, take up their cross, and follow
him.[91] He who has denied himself, has laid the axe to the root of all
evils, that he may no longer seek those things which are his own; he who
has taken up his cross, has prepared himself for all patience and
gentleness. But the example of Christ comprehends not only these, but
all other duties of piety and holiness. He was obedient to his Father,
even to death; he was entirely occupied in performing the works of God;
he aspired with his whole soul to promote the glory of his Father; he
laid down his life for his brethren; he both acted and prayed for the
benefit of his enemies. But if there be need of consolation, these
passages will afford it in a wonderful degree: “We are troubled on every
side, yet not distressed; we are perplexed, but not in despair;
persecuted, but not forsaken; cast down, but not destroyed; 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.”[92] “If we be dead
with him, we shall also live with him; if we suffer, we shall also reign
with him.”[93] “Being made conformable unto his death; if by any means I
might attain unto the resurrection of the dead.”[94] The Father has
predestinated all whom he has chosen in his Son “to be conformed to his
image, that he might be the first-born among many brethren;” and
therefore “neither death, nor life, nor things present, nor things to
come, shall separate us from the love of God which is in Christ
Jesus;”[95] but “all things shall work together for good”[96] to us, and
conduce to our salvation. We do not justify men by works before God; but
we say, that all who are of God are regenerated and made new creatures,
that they may depart from the kingdom of sin into the kingdom of
righteousness; and that by this testimony they ascertain their
vocation,[97] and, like trees, are judged by their fruits.

Footnote 63:

Ezek. xxxvi. 32.

Footnote 64:

Luke xvii. 10.

Footnote 65:

Gal. vi. 9. 2 Thess. iii. 13.

Footnote 66:

Ecclus. xvi. 14.

Footnote 67:

Heb. xiii. 16.

Footnote 68:

Matt. xxv. 21, 29.

Footnote 69:

Isaiah lv. 1.

Footnote 70:

1 Cor. iii. 10, 11.

Footnote 71:

1 Cor. i. 30.

Footnote 72:

Ephes. i. 3-5.

Footnote 73:

Col. i. 14, 20, 21.

Footnote 74:

John i. 12.

Footnote 75:

John x. 28, 29.

Footnote 76:

Matt. xxviii. 18.

Footnote 77:

Ephes. ii 21. Titus iii. 7.

Footnote 78:

1 John v. 12.

Footnote 79:

Rom. xiv. 23.

Footnote 80:

Acts xiii. 39.

Footnote 81:

1 John v. 12.

Footnote 82:

John v. 24.

Footnote 83:

Rom. iii. 24.

Footnote 84:

1 John iii. 24.

Footnote 85:

Ephes. ii. 6.

Footnote 86:

Col. i. 13.

Footnote 87:

Ephes. ii. 10.

Footnote 88:

1 John iii. 8, 9.

Footnote 89:

1 Peter iv. 3.

Footnote 90:

2 Tim. ii. 20. Rom. ix. 23.

Footnote 91:

Luke ix. 23.

Footnote 92:

2 Cor. iv. 8-10.

Footnote 93:

2 Tim. ii. 11, 12.

Footnote 94:

Phil. iii. 10, 11.

Footnote 95:

Rom. viii. 29, 38, 39.

Footnote 96:

Rom. viii. 28.

Footnote 97:

2 Peter i. 10.

CHAPTER XVI.
A REFUTATION OF THE INJURIOUS CALUMNIES OF THE PAPISTS AGAINST THIS
DOCTRINE.

The observation with which we closed the preceding chapter is, of
itself, sufficient to refute the impudence of some impious persons, who
accuse us, in the first place, of destroying good works, and seducing
men from the pursuit of them, when we say that they are not justified by
works, nor saved through their own merit; and secondly, of making too
easy a road to righteousness, when we teach that it consists in the
gratuitous remission of sins; and of enticing men, by this allurement,
to the practice of sin, to which they have naturally too strong a
propensity. These calumnies, I say, are sufficiently refuted by that one
observation; yet I will briefly reply to them both. They allege that
justification by faith destroys good works. I forbear any remarks on the
characters of these zealots for good works, who thus calumniate us. Let
them rail with impunity as licentiously as they infest the whole world
with the impurity of their lives. They affect to lament that while faith
is so magnificently extolled, works are degraded from their proper rank.
What if they be more encouraged and established? For we never dream
either of a faith destitute of good works, or of a justification
unattended by them: this is the sole difference, that while we
acknowledge a necessary connection between faith and good works, we
attribute justification, not to works, but to faith. Our reason for this
we can readily explain, if we only turn to Christ, towards whom faith is
directed, and from whom it receives all its virtue. Why, then, are we
justified by faith? Because by faith we apprehend the righteousness of
Christ, which is the only medium of our reconciliation to God. But this
you cannot attain, without at the same time attaining to sanctification;
for he “is made unto us wisdom and righteousness, and sanctification and
redemption.”[98] Christ therefore justifies no one whom he does not also
sanctify. For these benefits are perpetually and indissolubly connected,
so that whom he illuminates with his wisdom, them he redeems; whom he
redeems, he justifies; whom he justifies, he sanctifies. But as the
present question relates only to righteousness and sanctification, let
us insist upon them. We may distinguish between them, but Christ
contains both inseparably in himself. Do you wish, then, to obtain
righteousness in Christ? You must first possess Christ; but you cannot
possess him without becoming a partaker of his sanctification; for he
cannot be divided. Since, then, the Lord affords us the enjoyment of
these blessings only in the bestowment of himself, he gives them both
together, and never one without the other. Thus we see how true it is
that we are justified, not without works, yet not by works; since union
with Christ, by which we are justified, contains sanctification as well
as righteousness.

II. It is also exceedingly false, that the minds of men are seduced from
an inclination to virtue, by our divesting them of all ideas of merit.
Here the reader must just be informed, that they impertinently argue
from reward to merit, as I shall afterwards more fully explain; because,
in fact, they are ignorant of this principle, that God is equally
liberal in assigning a reward to good works, as in imparting an ability
to perform them. But this I would rather defer to its proper place. It
will suffice, at present, to show the weakness of their objection, which
shall be done two ways. For, first, when they say that there will be no
concern about the proper regulation of our life without a hope of reward
being proposed, they altogether deceive themselves. If they only mean
that men serve God in expectation of a reward, and hire or sell their
services to him, they gain but little; for he will be freely worshipped
and freely loved, and he approves of that worshipper who, after being
deprived of all hope of receiving any reward, still ceases not to
worship him. Besides, if men require to be stimulated, it is impossible
to urge more forcible arguments than those which arise from the end of
our redemption and calling; such as the word of God adduces, when it
inculcates, that it is the greatest and most impious ingratitude not
reciprocally to “love him who first loved us;”[99] that “by the blood of
Christ our consciences are purged from dead works, to serve the living
God;”[100] that it is a horrible sacrilege, after having been once
purged, to defile ourselves with new pollutions, and to profane that
sacred blood;[101] that we have been “delivered out of the hand of our
enemies,” that we “might serve him without fear, in holiness and
righteousness before him, all the days of our life;”[102] that we are
made “free from sin,” that with a free spirit we might “become the
servants of righteousness;”[103] “that our old man is crucified,” that
“we should walk in newness of life.”[104] Again: “If ye be risen with
Christ,” as his members indeed are, “seek those things which are above,”
and conduct yourselves as “pilgrims on the earth;” that you may aspire
towards heaven, where your treasure is.[105] That “the grace of God hath
appeared, teaching us, that denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we
should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world;
looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great
God and our Saviour.”[106] Wherefore “God hath not appointed us to
wrath, but to obtain salvation by Christ.”[107] That we are the “temples
of the Holy Ghost,” which it is unlawful to profane;[108] that we are
not _darkness_, “but light in the Lord,” whom it becomes to “walk as
children of the light;”[109] that “God hath not called us unto
uncleanness, but unto holiness; for this is the will of God, even our
sanctification, that we should abstain from fornication;”[110] that our
calling is a holy one, which should be followed by a correspondent
purity of life;[111] that we are “made free from sin,” that we might
“become servants of righteousness.”[112] Can we be incited to charity by
any stronger argument than that of John, “If God so loved us, we ought
also to love one another?” “in this the children of God are manifest,
and the children of the devil;”[113] hereby the children of light, by
their abiding in love, are distinguished from the children of darkness;
or that of Paul, That if we be united to Christ, we are members of one
body, and ought to afford each other mutual assistance?[114] Or can we
be more powerfully excited to holiness, than when we are informed by
John, that “every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even
as God is pure?”[115] Or when Paul says, “Having therefore these
promises, (relative to our adoption,) let us cleanse ourselves from all
filthiness of the flesh and spirit?”[116] or than when we hear Christ
proposing himself as our example, that we should follow his steps?[117]

III. These few instances, indeed, I have given as a specimen; for if I
were disposed to quote every particular passage, I should produce a
large volume. The apostles are quite full of admonitions, exhortations,
and reproofs, to “furnish the man of God unto all good works,”[118] and
that without any mention of merit. But they rather deduce their
principal exhortations from this consideration, That our salvation
depends not on any merit of ours, but merely on the mercy of God. As
Paul, after having very largely shown that we can have no hope of life,
but from the righteousness of Christ, when he proceeds to exhortations,
beseeches us “by the mercies of God” with which we have been
favoured.[119] And indeed this one reason ought to be enough; that God
may be glorified in us.[120] But if any persons be not so powerfully
affected by the glory of God, yet the remembrance of his benefits should
be amply sufficient to incite them to rectitude of conduct. But these
men, who by the obtrusion of merit extort some servile and constrained
acts of obedience to the law, are guilty of falsehood when they affirm
that we have no arguments to enforce the practice of good works, because
we do not proceed in the same way; as though, truly, such obedience were
very pleasing to God, who declares that he “loveth a cheerful giver;”
and forbids any thing to be given “grudgingly, or of necessity.”[121]
Nor do I say this, because I either reject or neglect that kind of
exhortation, which the Scripture frequently uses, that no method of
animating us to our duty may be omitted. It mentions the reward which
“God will render to every man according to his works;”[122] but that
this is the only argument, or the principal one, I deny. In the next
place, I assert that we ought not to begin with it. Moreover, I contend
that it has no tendency to establish the merit preached by these men, as
we shall afterwards see; and, lastly, that it is entirely useless,
unless preceded by this doctrine, That we are justified solely on
account of the merit of Christ, apprehended by faith, and not on account
of any merit in our own works; because none can be capable of the
pursuit of holiness, but such as have previously imbibed this doctrine.
This sentiment is beautifully suggested by the Psalmist when he thus
addresses the Lord: “There is forgiveness with thee, that thou mayest be
feared;”[123] for he shows that there is no worship of God without an
acknowledgment of his mercy, on which alone it is both founded and
established. And this well deserves to be remarked, in order that we may
know, not only that the true worship of God arises from a reliance on
his mercy, but that the fear of God (which the Papists hold to be
meritorious) cannot be dignified with the title of _merit_, because it
is founded in the pardon and remission of sins.

IV. But the most futile of all their calumnies is, that men are
encouraged to the practice of sin by our maintaining the gratuitous
remission of sins, in which we make righteousness to consist. For we say
that so great a blessing could never be compensated by any virtue of
ours, and that therefore it could never be obtained, unless it were
gratuitously bestowed; moreover, that it is gratuitous to us indeed, but
not so to Christ, whom it cost so much, even his own most sacred blood,
beside which no price sufficiently valuable could be paid to Divine
justice. When men are taught in this manner, they are apprized that it
is not owing to them that this most sacred blood is not shed as often as
they sin. Besides, we learn that such is our pollution, that it can
never be washed away, except in the fountain of this immaculate blood.
Must not persons who hear these things conceive a greater horror of sin,
than if it were said to be cleansed by a sprinkling of good works? And
if they have any fear of God, will they not dread, after being once
purified, to plunge themselves again into the mire, and thereby to
disturb and infect, as far as they can, the purity of this fountain? “I
have washed my feet,” (says the believing soul in Solomon,) “how shall I
defile them?”[124] Now, it is plain which party better deserves the
charge of degrading the value of remission of sins, and prostituting the
dignity of righteousness. They pretend that God is appeased by their
frivolous _satisfactions_, which are no better than dung; we assert,
that the guilt of sin is too atrocious to be expiated by such
insignificant trifles; that the displeasure of God is too great to be
appeased by these worthless satisfactions; and therefore that this is
the exclusive prerogative of the blood of Christ. They say, that
righteousness, if it ever be defective, is restored and repaired by
works of satisfaction. We think it so valuable that no compensation of
works can be adequate to it; and therefore that for its restitution we
must have recourse to the mercy of God alone. The remaining particulars
that pertain to the remission of sins may be found in the next chapter.

Footnote 98:

1 Cor. i. 30.

Footnote 99:

1 John iv. 10, 19.

Footnote 100:

Heb. ix. 14.

Footnote 101:

Heb. x. 29.

Footnote 102:

Luke i. 74, 75.

Footnote 103:

Rom. vi. 18.

Footnote 104:

Rom. vi. 4, 6.

Footnote 105:

Col. iii. 1. Heb. xi. 13. 1 Peter ii. 11.

Footnote 106:

Titus ii. 11-13.

Footnote 107:

1 Thess. v. 9.

Footnote 108:

1 Cor. iii. 16, 17; vi. 19. Ephes. ii. 21.

Footnote 109:

Ephes. v. 8.

Footnote 110:

1 Thess. iv. 3, 7.

Footnote 111:

2 Tim. i. 9. 1 Peter i. 15.

Footnote 112:

Rom. vi. 18.

Footnote 113:

1 John iv. 11; iii. 10.

Footnote 114:

1 Cor. xii. 12, &c.

Footnote 115:

1 John iii. 3.

Footnote 116:

2 Cor. vii. 1.

Footnote 117:

Matt. xi. 29. John xiii. 15.

Footnote 118:

2 Tim. iii. 17.

Footnote 119:

Rom. xii. 1.

Footnote 120:

Matt. v. 16.

Footnote 121:

2 Cor. ix. 7.

Footnote 122:

Matt. xvi. 27. Rom. ii. 6.

Footnote 123:

Psalm cxxx. 4.

Footnote 124:

Cant. v. 3.

CHAPTER XVII.
THE HARMONY BETWEEN THE PROMISES OF THE LAW AND THOSE OF THE GOSPEL.

Let us now pursue the other arguments with which Satan by his satellites
attempts to destroy or to weaken justification by faith. I think we have
already gained this point with these calumniators—that they can no
longer accuse us of being enemies to good works. For we reject the
notion of justification by works, not that no good works may be done, or
that those which are performed may be denied to be good, but that we may
neither confide in them, nor glory in them, nor ascribe salvation to
them. For this is our trust, this is our glory, and the only anchor of
our salvation, That Christ the Son of God is ours, and that we are
likewise, in him, sons of God and heirs of the celestial kingdom; being
called, not for our worthiness, but by the Divine goodness, to the hope
of eternal felicity. But since they assail us besides, as we have
observed, with other weapons, let us also proceed to the repulsion of
them. In the first place, they return to the legal promises which the
Lord gave to the observers of his law, and inquire whether we suppose
them to be entirely vain, or of any validity. As it would be harsh and
ridiculous to say they are vain, they take it for granted that they have
some efficacy. Hence they argue, that we are not justified by faith
alone. For thus saith the Lord, “Wherefore it shall come to pass, if ye
hearken to these judgments, and keep and do them, that the Lord thy God
shall keep unto thee the covenant and the mercy which he sware unto thy
fathers; and he will love thee, and bless thee, and multiply thee.”[125]
Again: “If ye thoroughly amend your ways and your doings; if ye
thoroughly execute judgment between a man and his neighbour; if ye
oppress not, neither walk after other gods; then will I cause you to
dwell in this place,” &c.[126] I am not willing to recite a thousand
passages of the same kind, which, not being different in sense, will be
elucidated by an explanation of these. The sum of all is declared by
Moses, who says that in the law are proposed “a blessing and a curse,
life and death.”[127] Now, they argue, either that this blessing becomes
inefficacious and nugatory, or that justification is not by faith alone.
We have already shown, how, if we adhere to the law, being destitute of
every blessing, we are obnoxious to the curse which is denounced on all
transgressors. For the Lord promises nothing, except to the perfect
observers of his law, of which description not one can be found. The
consequence then is, that all mankind are proved by the law to be
obnoxious to the curse and wrath of God; in order to be saved from
which, they need deliverance from the power of the law, and emancipation
from its servitude; not a carnal liberty, which would seduce us from
obedience to the law, invite to all kinds of licentiousness, break down
the barriers of inordinate desire, and give the reins to every lawless
passion; but a spiritual liberty, which will console and elevate a
distressed and dejected conscience, showing it to be delivered from the
curse and condemnation under which it was held by the law. This
liberation from subjection to the law, and manumission, (if I may use
the term,) we attain, when we apprehend by faith the mercy of God in
Christ, by which we are assured of the remission of sins, by the sense
of which the law penetrated us with compunction and remorse.

II. For this reason all the promises of the law would be ineffectual and
vain, unless we were assisted by the goodness of God in the gospel. For
the condition of a perfect obedience to the law, on which they depend,
and in consequence of which alone they are to be fulfilled, will never
be performed. Now, the Lord affords this assistance, not by leaving a
part of righteousness in our works, and supplying part from his mercy,
but by appointing Christ alone for the completion of righteousness. For
the apostle, having said that he and other Jews, “knowing that a man is
not justified by the works of the law, believed in Christ,” adds as a
reason, not that they might be assisted to obtain a complete
righteousness by faith in Christ, but “that they might be justified by
the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law.”[128] If the
faithful pass from the law to faith, to find righteousness in the
latter, which they perceive to be wanting in the former, they certainly
renounce the righteousness of the law. Therefore let whosoever will now
amplify the rewards which are said to await the observer of the law;
only let him remark, that our depravity prevents us from receiving any
benefit from them, till we have obtained by faith another righteousness.
Thus David, after having mentioned the reward which the Lord has
prepared for his servants, immediately proceeds to the acknowledgment of
sins, by which it is annulled. In the nineteenth psalm, likewise, he
magnificently celebrates the benefits of the law; but immediately
exclaims, “Who can understand his errors? cleanse thou me from secret
faults.”[129] This passage perfectly accords with that before referred
to, where, after having said, “All the paths of the Lord are mercy and
truth unto such as keep his covenant and his testimonies,” he adds, “For
thy name’s sake, O Lord, pardon mine iniquity; for it is great.”[130] So
we ought also to acknowledge, that the Divine favour is offered to us in
the law, if we could purchase it by our works; but that no merit of ours
can ever obtain it.

III. What, then, it will be said, were those promises given, to vanish
away without producing any effect? I have already declared that this is
not my opinion. I assert, indeed, that they have no efficacy with
respect to us as long as they are referred to the merit of works;
wherefore, considered in themselves, they are in some sense abolished.
Thus that grand promise, “Keep my statutes and judgments; which if a man
do, he shall live in them;”[131] the apostle maintains to be of no value
to us, if we rest upon it, and that it will be no more beneficial to us
than if it had never been given; because it is inapplicable to the
holiest of God’s servants, who are all far from fulfilling the law, and
are encompassed with a multitude of transgressions.[132] But when these
are superseded by the evangelical promises, which proclaim the
gratuitous remission of sins, the consequence is, that not only our
persons, but also our works, are accepted by God; and not accepted only,
but followed by those blessings, which were due by the covenant to the
observance of the law. I grant, therefore, that the works of believers
are rewarded by those things which the Lord has promised in his law to
the followers of righteousness and holiness; but in this retribution it
is always necessary to consider the cause, which conciliates such favour
to those works. Now, this we perceive to be threefold: The first is,
That God, averting his eyes from the actions of his servants, which are
invariably more deserving of censure than of praise, receives and
embraces them in Christ, and by the intervention of faith alone
reconciles them to himself without the assistance of works. The second
is, That in his paternal benignity and indulgence, he overlooks the
intrinsic worth of these works, and exalts them to such honour, that he
esteems them of some degree of value. The third cause is, That he
pardons these works as he receives them, not imputing the imperfection
with which they are all so defiled, that they might otherwise be
accounted rather sins than virtues. Hence it appears how great has been
the delusion of the sophists, who thought that they had dexterously
avoided all absurdities by saying that works are sufficient to merit
salvation, not on account of their own intrinsic goodness, but by reason
of the covenant, because the Lord in his mercy has estimated them so
highly. But at the same time, they had not observed how far the works,
which they styled _meritorious_, fell short of the condition of the
promise; unless they were preceded by justification founded on faith
alone, and by remission of sins, by which even good works require to be
purified from blemishes. Therefore, of the three causes of the Divine
goodness, in consequence of which the works of believers are accepted,
they only noticed one, and suppressed two others, and those the
principal.

IV. They allege the declaration of Peter, which Luke recites in the
Acts: “Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons; but in
every nation he that worketh righteousness is accepted with him.”[133]
And hence they conclude, what they think admits of no doubt, that if a
man by rectitude of conduct conciliate to himself the favour of God, the
grace of God is not the sole cause of his salvation; moreover, that God
of his own mercy assists a sinner in such a manner, as to be influenced
to the exercise of mercy by his works. But we cannot by any means
reconcile the Scriptures with themselves, unless we observe a twofold
acceptance of man with God. For God finds nothing in man, in his native
condition, to incline him to mercy, but mere misery. If, then, it is
evident that man is entirely destitute of all good, and full of every
kind of evil, when he is first received by God, by what good qualities
shall we pronounce him entitled to the heavenly calling? Let us reject,
therefore, all vain imagination of merits, where God so evidently
displays his unmerited clemency. The declaration of the angel to
Cornelius in the same passage, “Thy prayers and thine alms are come up
for a memorial before God,” they most wickedly pervert to prove that the
practice of good works prepares a man to receive the grace of God. For
Cornelius must have been already illuminated with the Spirit of wisdom,
since he was endued with the fear of God, which is true wisdom; and he
must have been sanctified by the same Spirit, since he was a follower of
righteousness, which the apostle represents as one of the Spirit’s most
certain fruits.[134] It was from the grace of God, then, that he derived
all these things in which he is said to have pleased him; so far was he
from preparing himself to receive it by the exercise of his own powers.
There cannot indeed be adduced a single syllable of the Scripture, which
is not in harmony with this doctrine; That there is no other cause for
God’s reception of man into his love, than his knowledge that man, if
abandoned by him, would be utterly lost; and because it is not his will
to abandon him to perdition, he displays his mercy in his deliverance.
Now, we see that this acceptance is irrespective of the righteousness of
man, but is an unequivocal proof of the Divine goodness towards
miserable sinners, who are infinitely unworthy of so great a favour.

V. After the Lord has recovered a man from the abyss of perdition, and
separated him to himself by the grace of adoption,—because he has
regenerated him, and raised him to a new life, he now receives and
embraces him, as a new creature, with the gifts of his Spirit. This is
the acceptance mentioned by Peter, in which even the works of believers
after their vocation are approved by God; for the Lord cannot but love
and accept those good effects which are produced in them by his Spirit.
But it must always be remembered, that they are accepted by God in
consequence of their works, only because, for their sakes and the favour
which he bears to them, he deigns to accept whatever goodness he has
liberally communicated to their works. For whence proceeds the goodness
of their works, but from the Lord’s determination to adorn with true
purity those whom he has chosen as vessels of honour? And how is it that
they are accounted good, as though they were free from all imperfection,
except from the mercy of their Father, who pardons the blemishes which
adhere to them? In a word, Peter intends nothing else in this passage,
but that God accepts and loves his children, in whom he beholds the
marks and lineaments of his own countenance; for we have elsewhere shown
that regeneration is a reparation of the Divine image in us. Wherever
the Lord contemplates his own likeness, he justly both loves and honours
it. The life of his children, therefore, being devoted to holiness and
righteousness, is truly represented as pleasing to him. But as the
faithful, while they are surrounded with mortal flesh, are still
sinners, and all their works are imperfect, and tainted with the vices
of the flesh, he cannot be propitious either to their persons or to
their works, without regarding them in Christ rather than in themselves.
It is in this sense that those passages must be understood, which
declare God to be merciful and compassionate to the followers of
righteousness. Moses said to the Israelites, “The Lord thy God, which
keepeth covenant and mercy with them that love him and keep his
commandments, to a thousand generations”[135]—a sentence which was
afterwards in frequent use among that people. Thus Solomon, in his
solemn prayer: “Lord God of Israel, who keepest covenant and mercy with
thy servants that walk before thee with all their heart.”[136] The same
language is also repeated by Nehemiah.[137] For as, in all the covenants
of his mercy, the Lord stipulates with his servants for integrity and
sanctity in their lives, that his goodness may not become an object of
contempt, and that no man infected with a vain confidence in his
mercy,[138] may bless himself in his mind while walking in the depravity
of his heart, so he designs by these means to confine to their duty all
that are admitted to the participation of his covenant; yet,
nevertheless, the covenant is originally constituted and perpetually
remains altogether gratuitous. For this reason, David, though he
declares that he had been rewarded for the purity of his hands, does not
overlook that original source which I have mentioned: “He delivered me,
because he delighted in me;”[139] where he commends the goodness of his
cause, so as not to derogate from the gratuitous mercy which precedes
all the gifts that originate from it.

VI. And here it will be useful to remark, by the way, what difference
there is between such forms of expression and the legal promises. By
legal promises I intend, not all those which are contained in the books
of Moses,—since in those books there likewise occur many evangelical
ones,—but such as properly pertain to the ministry of the law. Such
promises, by whatever appellation they may be distinguished, proclaim
that a reward is ready to be bestowed, on condition that we perform what
is commanded. But when it is said that “the Lord keepeth covenant and
mercy with them that love him,” this rather designates the characters of
his servants, who have faithfully received his covenant, than expresses
the causes of his beneficence to them. Now, this is the way to prove it:
As the Lord favours us with the hope of eternal life, in order that he
may be loved, reverenced, and worshipped by us, therefore all the
promises of mercy contained in the Scriptures are justly directed to
this end, that we may revere and worship the Author of our blessings.
Whenever, therefore, we hear of his beneficence to them who observe his
laws, let us remember that the children of God are designated by the
duty in which they ought always to be found; and that we are adopted as
his children, in order that we may venerate him as our Father.
Therefore, that we may not renounce the privilege of our adoption, we
ought to aim at that which is the design of our vocation. On the other
hand, however, we may be assured, that the accomplishment of God’s mercy
is independent of the works of believers; but that he fulfils the
promise of salvation to them whose vocation is followed by a
correspondent rectitude of life, because in them who are directed by his
Spirit to good works, he recognizes the genuine characters of his
children. To this must be referred what is said of the citizens of the
Church: “Lord, who shall abide in thy tabernacle? who shall dwell in thy
holy hill? He that walketh uprightly, and worketh righteousness,”
&c.[140] And in Isaiah: “Who shall dwell with the devouring fire? He
that walketh righteously, and speaketh uprightly,” &c.[141] For these
passages describe, not the foundation which supports the faithful before
God, but the manner in which their most merciful Father introduces them
into communion with him, and preserves and confirms them in it. For as
he detests sin, and loves righteousness, those whom he unites to him he
purifies by his Spirit, in order to conform them to himself and his
kingdom. Therefore, if it be inquired what is the first cause which
gives the saints an entrance into the kingdom of God, and which makes
their continuance in it permanent, the answer is ready; Because the Lord
in his mercy has once adopted and perpetually defends them. But if the
question relate to the manner in which he does this, it will then be
necessary to advert to regeneration and its fruits, which are enumerated
in the psalm that we have just quoted.

VII. But there appears to be much greater difficulty in those places
which dignify good works with the title of _righteousness_, and assert
that a man is justified by them. Of the former kind there are many,
where the observance of the commands is denominated _justification_ or
_righteousness_. An example of the other kind we find in Moses: “And it
shall be our righteousness, if we observe to do all these
commandments.”[142] If it be objected that this is a legal promise,
which, having an impossible condition annexed to it, proves
nothing,—there are other passages which will not admit of a similar
reply; such as, “In case thou shalt deliver him the pledge, &c., it
shall be righteousness unto thee before the Lord.”[143] Similar to this
is what the Psalmist says, that the zeal of Phinehas in avenging the
disgrace of Israel, “was counted unto him for righteousness.”[144]
Therefore the Pharisees of our day suppose that these passages afford
ample ground for their clamour against us. For when we say, that if the
righteousness of faith be established, there is an end of justification
by works,—they argue, in the same manner, that if righteousness be by
works, then it is not true that we are justified by faith alone. Though
I grant that the precepts of the law are termed _righteousness_, there
is nothing surprising in this; for they are so in reality. The reader,
however, ought to be apprized that the Hebrew word חקים (_commandments_)
is not well translated by the Greek word δικαιωματα, (_righteousness_.)
But I readily relinquish all controversy respecting the word. Nor do we
deny that the Divine law contains perfect righteousness. For although,
being under an obligation to fulfil all its precepts, we should, even
after a perfect obedience to it, only be unprofitable servants,—yet,
since the Lord has honoured the observance of it with the title of
_righteousness_, we would not detract from what he has given. We freely
acknowledge, therefore, that the perfect obedience of the law is
righteousness, and that the observance of every particular command is a
part of righteousness; since complete righteousness consists of all the
parts. But we deny that such a kind of righteousness any where exists.
And therefore we reject the righteousness of the law; not that it is of
itself defective and mutilated, but because, on account of the debility
of our flesh,[145] it is no where to be found. It may be said, that the
Scripture not only calls the Divine precepts _righteousnesses_, but
gives this appellation also to the works of the saints. As where it
relates of Zacharias and his wife, that “they were both righteous before
God, walking in all his commandments:”[146] certainly, when it speaks
thus, it estimates their works rather according to the nature of the
law, than according to the actual condition of the persons. Here it is
necessary to repeat the observation which I have just made, that no rule
is to be drawn from the incautiousness of the Greek translator. But as
Luke has not thought proper to alter the common version, neither will I
contend for it. Those things which are commanded in the law, God has
enjoined upon man as necessary to righteousness; but that righteousness
we do not fulfil without observing the whole law, which is broken by
every act of transgression. Since the law, therefore, only prescribes a
righteousness, if we contemplate the law itself, all its distinct
commands are parts of righteousness; if we consider men, by whom they
are performed, they cannot obtain the praise of righteousness from one
act, while they are transgressors in many, and while that same act is
partly vicious by reason of its imperfection.

VIII. But I proceed to the second class of texts, in which the principal
difficulty lies. Paul urges nothing more forcible in proof of
justification by faith, than what is stated respecting Abraham—that he
“believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.”[147]
Since the action of Phinehas, therefore, is said to have been “counted
unto him for righteousness,”[148] we may also use the same argument
concerning works, which Paul insists on respecting faith. Therefore our
adversaries, as though they had established the point, determine that we
are justified neither without faith, nor by faith alone; and that our
righteousness is completed by works. Therefore I conjure believers, if
they know that the true rule of righteousness is to be sought in the
Scripture alone, to accompany me in a serious and solemn examination how
the Scripture may be properly reconciled with itself without any
sophistry. Paul, knowing the righteousness of faith to be the refuge of
those who are destitute of any righteousness of their own, boldly infers
that all who are justified by faith, are excluded from the righteousness
of works. It being likewise evident, on the other hand, that this is
common to all believers, he with equal confidence concludes that no man
is justified by works, but rather, on the contrary, that we are
justified independently of all works. But it is one thing to dispute
concerning the intrinsic value of works, and another, to argue
respecting the place they ought to hold after the establishment of the
righteousness of faith. If we are to determine the value of works by
their own worthiness, we say that they are unworthy to appear in the
sight of God; that there is nothing in our works of which we can glory
before God; and consequently, that being divested of all assistance from
works, we are justified by faith alone. Now, we describe this
righteousness in the following manner: That a sinner, being admitted to
communion with Christ, is by his grace reconciled to God; while, being
purified by his blood, he obtains remission of sins, and being clothed
with his righteousness, as if it were his own, he stands secure before
the heavenly tribunal. Where remission of sins has been previously
received, the good works which succeed are estimated far beyond their
intrinsic merit; for all their imperfections are covered by the
perfection of Christ, and all their blemishes are removed by his purity,
that they may not be scrutinized by the Divine judgment. The guilt,
therefore, of all transgressions, by which men are prevented from
offering any thing acceptable to God being obliterated, and the
imperfection, which universally deforms even the good works of
believers, being buried in oblivion, their works are accounted
righteous, or, which is the same thing, are imputed for righteousness.

IX. Now, if any one urge this to me as an objection, to oppose the
righteousness of faith, I will first ask him, Whether a man is reputed
righteous on account of one or two holy works, who is in the other
actions of his life a transgressor of the law. This would be too absurd
to be pretended. I shall next inquire, If he is reputed righteous on
account of many good works, while he is found guilty of any instance of
transgression. This, likewise, my adversary will not presume to
maintain, in opposition to the sanction of the law, which denounces a
curse on all those who do not fulfil every one of its precepts.[149] I
will further inquire, If there is any work which does not deserve the
charge of impurity or imperfection.[150] But how could this be possible
before those eyes, in which the stars are not sufficiently pure, nor the
angels sufficiently righteous? Thus he will be compelled to concede,
that there is not a good work to be found, which is not too much
polluted, both by its own imperfection and by the transgressions with
which it is attended, to have any claim to the honourable appellation of
_righteousness_. Now, if it be evidently in consequence of justification
by faith, that works, otherwise impure and imperfect, unworthy of the
sight of God, and much more of his approbation, are imputed for
righteousness,—why do they attempt, by boasting of the righteousness of
works, to destroy the righteousness of faith, from which all
righteousness of works proceeds? But do they wish to produce a viperous
offspring to destroy the parent? For such is the true tendency of this
impious doctrine. They cannot deny that justification by faith is the
beginning, foundation, cause, motive, and substance of the righteousness
of works; yet they conclude, that a man is not justified by faith
because good works also are imputed for righteousness. Let us therefore
leave these impertinences, and acknowledge the real state of the case;
if all the righteousness which can be attributed to works depends on
justification by faith, the latter is not only not diminished, but, on
the contrary, is confirmed by it; since its influence appears the more
extensive. But let us not suppose that works, subsequent to gratuitous
justification, are so highly esteemed, that they succeed to the office
of justifying men, or divide that office with faith. For unless
justification by faith remain always unimpaired, the impurity of their
works will be detected. Nor is there any absurdity in saying, that a man
is so justified by faith, that he is not only righteous himself, but
that even his works are accounted righteous beyond what they deserve.

X. In this way we will admit, not only a partial righteousness of works,
which our opponents maintain, but such as is approved by God, as though
it were perfect and complete. A remembrance of the foundation on which
it stands will solve every difficulty. For no work is ever acceptable,
till it be received with pardon. Now, whence proceeds pardon, but from
God’s beholding us and all our actions in Christ? When we are ingrafted
into Christ, therefore, as our persons appear righteous before God,
because our iniquities are covered by his righteousness, so our works
are accounted righteous, because the sinfulness otherwise belonging to
them is not imputed, being all buried in the purity of Christ. So we may
justly assert, that not only our persons, but even our works, are
justified by faith alone. Now, if this righteousness of works, whatever
be its nature, is consequent and dependent on faith and gratuitous
justification, it ought to be included under it, and subordinated to it,
as an effect to its cause; so far is it from deserving to be exalted,
either to destroy or to obscure the righteousness of faith. Thus Paul,
to evince that our blessedness depends on the mercy of God, and not on
our works, chiefly urges this declaration of David: “Blessed are they
whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is
the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.”[151] If, in opposition to
this, the numerous passages be adduced where blessedness seems to be
attributed to works; such as, “Blessed is the man that feareth the
Lord;[152] that hath mercy on the poor;[153] that walketh not in the
counsel of the ungodly;[154] that endureth temptation;”[155] “Blessed
are they that keep judgment;[156] the undefiled,[157] the poor in
spirit, the meek, the merciful,” &c.;[158] they will not at all weaken
the truth of what is advanced by Paul. For since no man ever attains all
these characters, so as thereby to gain the Divine approbation, it
appears that men are always miserable till they are delivered from
misery by the pardon of their sins. Since all the beatitudes celebrated
in the Scriptures are of no avail, and no man can derive any benefit
from them, till he has obtained blessedness by the remission of his
sins, which then makes room for the other beatitudes, it follows that
this is not merely the noblest and principal, but the only blessedness;
unless, indeed, we suppose it to be diminished by those which are
dependent on it. Now, we have much less reason to be disturbed by the
appellation of _righteous_, which is generally given to believers. I
acknowledge that they are denominated _righteous_ from the sanctity of
their lives; but as they rather devote themselves to the pursuit of
righteousness than actually attain to righteousness itself, it is proper
that this righteousness, such as it is, should be subordinate to
justification by faith, from which it derives its origin.

XI. But our adversaries say that we have yet more difficulty with James,
since he contradicts us in express terms. For he teaches, that “Abraham
was justified by works,” and that we are all “justified by works, and
not by faith only.”[159] What then? Will they draw Paul into a
controversy with James? If they consider James as a minister of Christ,
his declarations must be understood in some sense not at variance with
Christ when speaking by the mouth of Paul. The Spirit asserts, by the
mouth of Paul, that Abraham obtained righteousness by faith, not by
works; we likewise teach, that we are all justified by faith without the
works of the law. The same Spirit affirms by James, that both Abraham’s
righteousness and ours consists in works, and not in faith only. That
the Spirit is not inconsistent with himself is a certain truth. But what
harmony can there be between these two apparently opposite assertions?
Our adversaries would be satisfied, if they could totally subvert the
righteousness of faith, which we wish to be firmly established; but to
afford tranquillity to the disturbed conscience, they feel very little
concern. Hence we perceive, that they oppose the doctrine of
justification by faith, but at the same time fix no certain rule of
righteousness, by which the conscience may be satisfied. Let them
triumph then as they please, if they can boast no other victory but that
of having removed all certainty of righteousness. And this miserable
victory, indeed, they will obtain, where, after having extinguished the
light of truth, they are permitted by the Lord to spread the shades of
error. But, wherever the truth of God remains, they will not prevail. I
deny, therefore, that the assertion of James, which they hold up against
us as an impenetrable shield, affords them the least support. To evince
this, we shall first examine the scope of the apostle, and then remark
wherein they are deceived. Because there were many persons at that time,
and the Church is perpetually infested with similar characters, who, by
neglecting and omitting the proper duties of believers, manifestly
betrayed their real infidelity, while they continued to glory in the
false pretence of faith, James here exposes the foolish confidence of
such persons. It is not his design, then, to diminish, in any respect,
the virtue of true faith, but to show the folly of these triflers, who
were content with arrogating to themselves the vain image of it, and
securely abandoned themselves to every vice. This statement being
premised, it will be easy to discover where lies the error of our
adversaries. For they fall into two fallacies; one respecting the word
“faith,” the other respecting the word “justification.” When the apostle
gives the appellation of _faith_ to a vain notion, widely different from
true faith, it is a concession which derogates nothing from the
argument; this he shows from the beginning in these words: “What doth it
profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not
works?”[160] He does not say, If any one have faith without works; but,
If any one boast of having it. He speaks still more plainly just after,
where he ridicules it by representing it as worse than the knowledge of
devils; and lastly, when he calls it _dead_. But his meaning may be
sufficiently understood from the definition he gives: “Thou believest,”
says he, “that there is one God.” Indeed, if nothing be contained in
this creed but a belief of the Divine existence, it is not at all
surprising that it is inadequate to justification. And we must not
suppose this denial to be derogatory to Christian faith, the nature of
which is widely different. For how does true faith justify, but by
uniting us to Christ, that, being made one with him, we may participate
his righteousness? It does not, therefore, justify us, by attaining a
knowledge of God’s existence, but by a reliance on the certainty of his
mercy.

XII. But we shall not have ascertained the whole scope of the apostle,
till we have exposed the other fallacy; for he attributes justification
partly to works. If we wish to make James consistent with the rest of
the Scriptures, and even with himself, we must understand the word
“justify” in a different signification from that in which it is used by
Paul. For we are said by Paul to be justified, when the memory of our
unrighteousness is obliterated, and we are accounted righteous. If James
had alluded to this, it would have been preposterous for him to make
that quotation from Moses: “Abraham believed God,” &c.[161] For he
introduces it in the following manner: Abraham obtained righteousness by
works, because he hesitated not to sacrifice his son at the command of
God. And thus was the Scripture fulfilled, which saith, Abraham believed
God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness. If an effect
antecedent to its cause be an absurdity, either Moses falsely asserts in
that place, that Abraham’s faith was imputed to him for righteousness,
or Abraham did not obtain righteousness by his obedience, displayed in
the oblation of his son. Abraham was justified by faith, while Ishmael,
who arrived at adolescence before the birth of Isaac, was not yet
conceived. How, then, can we ascribe his justification to an act of
obedience performed so long after? Wherefore, either James improperly
inverted the order of events, (which it is unlawful to imagine,) or, by
saying that Abraham was justified, he did not mean that the patriarch
deserved to be accounted righteous. What, then, was his meaning? He
evidently appears to speak of a declaration of righteousness before men,
and not of an imputation of it in the sight of God; as though he had
said, They who are justified by true faith, prove their justification,
not by a barren and imaginary resemblance of faith, but by obedience and
good works. In a word, he is not disputing concerning the method of
justification, but requiring of believers a righteousness manifested in
good works. And as Paul contends for justification independent of works,
so James will not allow those to be accounted righteous, who are
destitute of good works. The consideration of this object will extricate
us from every difficulty. For the principal mistake of our adversaries
consists in supposing, that James describes the method of justification,
while he only endeavours to destroy the corrupt security of those who
make vain pretences to faith, in order to excuse their contempt of good
works. Into whatever forms, therefore, they pervert the words of James,
they will extort nothing but these two truths—that a vain notion of
faith cannot justify; and that the faithful, not content with such an
imagination, manifest their righteousness by their good works.

XIII. Nor can they derive the least support from a similar passage which
they cite from Paul, that “Not the hearers of the law, but the doers of
the law, shall be justified.”[162] I have no wish to evade it by the
explanation of Ambrose, that this is spoken, because faith in Christ is
the fulfilling of the law. For this I conceive to be a mere subterfuge,
which is totally unnecessary. The apostle in that place is demolishing
the foolish confidence of the Jews, who boasted of possessing the
exclusive knowledge of the law, whilst at the same time they were the
greatest despisers of it. To prevent such great self-complacence on
account of a mere acquaintance with the law, he admonishes them, that if
righteousness be sought by the law, it is requisite not only to know but
to observe it. We certainly do not question that the righteousness of
the law consists in works, nor that this righteousness consists in the
worthiness and merit of works. But still it cannot be proved that we are
justified by works, unless some person be produced who has fulfilled the
law. That Paul had no other meaning, is sufficiently evident from the
context. After having condemned the Gentiles and Jews indiscriminately
for unrighteousness, he proceeds particularly to inform us, that “as
many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law;” which
refers to the Gentiles; and that “as many as have sinned in the law
shall be judged by the law;” which belongs to the Jews. Moreover,
because they shut their eyes against their transgressions, and gloried
in their mere possession of the law, he adds, what is exceedingly
applicable, that the law was not given that men might be justified
merely by hearing its voice, but by obeying it; as though he had said,
Do you seek righteousness by the law? Plead not your having heard it,
which of itself is a very small advantage, but produce works as an
evidence that the law has not been given to you in vain. Since in this
respect they were all deficient, they were consequently deprived of
their glorying in the law. The meaning of Paul, therefore, rather
furnishes an opposite argument: Legal righteousness consists in perfect
works; no man can boast of having satisfied the law by his works;
therefore there is no righteousness by the law.

XIV. Our adversaries proceed to adduce those passages in which the
faithful boldly offer their righteousness to the examination of Divine
justice, and desire to be judged according to it. Such are the
following: “Judge me, O Lord, according to my righteousness, and
according to mine integrity that is in me.”[163] Again: “Hear the right,
O Lord. Thou hast proved mine heart; thou hast visited me in the night;
thou hast tried me, and shalt find nothing.”[164] Again: “I have kept
the ways of the Lord, and have not wickedly departed from my God. I was
also upright before him, and I kept myself from mine iniquity. Therefore
hath the Lord recompensed me according to my righteousness, according to
the cleanness of my hands.”[165] Again: “Judge me, O Lord, for I have
walked in mine integrity. I have not sat with vain persons; neither will
I go in with dissemblers. Gather not my soul with sinners, nor my life
with bloody men; in whose hands is mischief, and their right hand is
full of bribes. But as for me, I will walk in mine integrity.”[166] I
have already spoken of the confidence which the saints appear to derive
from their works. The passages now adduced will form no objection to our
doctrine, when they are explained according to the occasion of them.
Now, this is twofold. For believers who have expressed themselves in
this manner, have no wish to submit to a general examination, to be
condemned or absolved according to the whole tenor of their lives, but
they bring forward a particular cause to be judged; and they attribute
righteousness to themselves, not with reference to the Divine
perfection, but in comparison with men of impious and abandoned
characters. In the first place, in order to a man’s being justified, it
is requisite that he should have, not only a good cause in some
particular instance, but a perpetual consistency of righteousness
through life. But the saints, when they implore the judgment of God in
approbation of their innocence, do not present themselves as free from
every charge, and absolutely guiltless; but having fixed their
dependence on his goodness alone, and confiding in his readiness to
avenge the poor who are unlawfully and unjustly afflicted, they
supplicate his regard to the cause in which the innocent are oppressed.
But when they place themselves and their adversaries before the Divine
tribunal, they boast not an innocence, which, on a severe examination,
would be found correspondent to the purity of God; but knowing that
their sincerity, justice, simplicity, and purity, are pleasing and
acceptable to God, in comparison with the malice, wickedness, fraud, and
iniquity of their enemies, they are not afraid to invoke Him to judge
between them. Thus, when David said to Saul, “The Lord render to every
man his righteousness and his faithfulness”[167] he did not mean that
the Lord should examine every individual by himself, and reward him
according to his merits; but he called the Lord to witness the greatness
of his innocence in comparison with the iniquity of Saul. Nor did Paul,
when he gloried in having “the testimony of” his “conscience” that he
had conducted himself in the Church “with simplicity and godly
sincerity,”[168] intend to rely on this before God; but the calumnies of
the impious constrained him to oppose all their slanderous aspersions by
asserting his fidelity and probity, which he knew to be acceptable to
the Divine goodness. For we know what he says in another place: “I am
conscious to myself of nothing; yet am I not hereby justified.”[169]
Because, indeed, he was certain, that the judgment of God far
transcended the narrow comprehension of man. However, therefore, the
pious may vindicate their innocence against the hypocrisy of the
impious, by invoking God to be their witness and judge, yet in their
concerns with God alone, they all with one voice exclaim, “If thou,
Lord, shouldst mark iniquities, O Lord, who shall stand?”[170] Again:
“Enter not into judgment with thy servant, for in thy sight shall no man
living be justified.”[171] And, diffident of their own works, they
gladly sing, “Thy loving-kindness is better than life.”[172]

XV. There are likewise other passages, similar to the preceding, on
which some person may yet insist. Solomon says, “The just man walketh in
his integrity.”[173] Again: “In the way of righteousness there is life;
and in the pathway thereof there is no death.”[174] Thus also Ezekiel
declares, that he who “doth that which is lawful and right, shall surely
live.”[175] We neither deny nor obscure any of these. But let one of the
sons of Adam produce such an integrity. If no one can, they must either
perish from the presence of God, or flee to the asylum of mercy. Nor do
we deny, that to believers their integrity, however imperfect, is a step
toward immortality. But what is the cause of this, unless it be that
when the Lord has admitted any persons into the covenant of his grace,
he does not scrutinize their works according to their intrinsic merit,
but embraces them with paternal benignity? By this we mean, not merely
what is taught by the schoolmen, “that works receive their value from
the grace which accepts them;” for they suppose, that works, otherwise
inadequate to the attainment of salvation by the legal covenant, are
rendered sufficient for this by the Divine acceptance of them. But I
assert, that they are so defiled, both by other transgressions and by
their own blemishes, that they are of no value at all, except as the
Lord pardons both; and this is no other than bestowing on a man
gratuitous righteousness. It is irrelevant to this subject, to allege
those prayers of the apostle, in which he desires such perfection for
believers, that they may be unblamable and irreprovable in the day of
Christ.[176] These passages, indeed, the Celestines formerly perverted,
in order to prove a perfection of righteousness in the present life. We
think it sufficient briefly to reply, with Augustine, “that all the
pious ought, indeed, to aspire to this object, to appear one day
immaculate and guiltless before the presence of God; but since the
highest excellency in this life is nothing more than a progress towards
perfection, we shall never attain it, till, being divested at once of
mortality and sin, we shall fully adhere to the Lord.” Nevertheless, I
shall not pertinaciously contend with any person who chooses to
attribute to the saints the character of perfection, provided he also
defines it in the words of Augustine himself; who says, “When we
denominate the virtue of the saints perfect, to this perfection itself
belongs the acknowledgment of imperfection, both in truth and in
humility.”

Footnote 125:

Deut. vii. 12, 13.

Footnote 126:

Jer. vii. 5-7.

Footnote 127:

Deut. xi. 26; xxx. 15.

Footnote 128:

Gal. ii. 16.

Footnote 129:

Psalm xix. 12.

Footnote 130:

Psalm xxv. 10, 11.

Footnote 131:

Lev. xviii. 5.

Footnote 132:

Rom. x. 5, &c.

Footnote 133:

Acts x. 34, 35.

Footnote 134:

Gal. v. 5.

Footnote 135:

Deut. vii. 9.

Footnote 136:

1 Kings viii. 23.

Footnote 137:

Neh. i. 5.

Footnote 138:

Deut. xxix. 19, 20.

Footnote 139:

2 Sam. xxii. 20, 21.

Footnote 140:

Psalm xv. 1, 2.

Footnote 141:

Isaiah xxxiii. 14, 15.

Footnote 142:

Deut. vi. 25.

Footnote 143:

Deut. xxiv. 13.

Footnote 144:

Psalm cvi. 30, 31.

Footnote 145:

Rom. viii. 3.

Footnote 146:

Luke i. 6.

Footnote 147:

Rom. iv. 3. Gal. iii. 6.

Footnote 148:

Psalm cvi. 31.

Footnote 149:

Deut. xxvii. 26.

Footnote 150:

Job iv. 18; xv. 15; xxv. 5.

Footnote 151:

Rom. iv. 7, 8. Psalm xxxii. 1, 2.

Footnote 152:

Psalm cxii. 1.

Footnote 153:

Prov. xiv. 21.

Footnote 154:

Psalm i. 1.

Footnote 155:

James i. 12.

Footnote 156:

Psalm cvi. 3.

Footnote 157:

Psalm cxix. 1.

Footnote 158:

Matt. v. 3, 5, 7.

Footnote 159:

James ii. 21, 24.

Footnote 160:

James ii. 14.

Footnote 161:

James ii. 21-23. Gen. xv. 6.

Footnote 162:

Rom. ii. 13.

Footnote 163:

Psalm vii. 8.

Footnote 164:

Psalm xvii. 1, 3.

Footnote 165:

Psalm xviii. 21, 23, 24.

Footnote 166:

Psalm xxvi. 1, 4, 9-11.

Footnote 167:

1 Sam. xxvi. 23.

Footnote 168:

2 Cor. i. 12.

Footnote 169:

1 Cor. iv. 4.

Footnote 170:

Psalm cxxx. 3.

Footnote 171:

Psalm cxliii. 2.

Footnote 172:

Psalm lxiii. 3.

Footnote 173:

Prov. xx. 7.

Footnote 174:

Prov. xii. 28.

Footnote 175:

Ez. xxxiii. 14, 15.

Footnote 176:

1 Thess. iii. 13, et alibi.

CHAPTER XVIII.
JUSTIFICATION BY WORKS NOT TO BE INFERRED FROM THE PROMISE OF A REWARD.

Let us now proceed to those passages which affirm that “God will render
to every man according to his deeds;”[177] that “every one may receive
the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it
be good or bad.”[178] “Tribulation and anguish upon every soul that
doeth evil; but glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh
good.”[179] And, “All shall come forth; they that have done good, unto
the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the
resurrection of damnation.”[180] “Come, ye blessed of my Father; for I
was a hungered, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me
drink,” &c.[181] And with these let us also connect those which
represent eternal life as the reward of works, such as the following:
“The recompense of a man’s hands shall be rendered unto him.”[182] “He
that feareth the commandment shall be rewarded.”[183] “Rejoice and be
exceeding glad; for great is your reward in heaven.”[184] “Every one
shall receive his own reward, according to his own labour.”[185] The
declaration, that God will render to every one according to his works,
is easily explained. For that phrase indicates the order of events,
rather than the cause of them. But it is beyond all doubt, that the Lord
proceeds to the consummation of our salvation by these several
gradations of mercy: “Whom he hath predestinated, them he calls; whom he
hath called, he justifies; and whom he hath justified, he finally
glorifies.”[186] Though he receives his children into eternal life,
therefore, of his mere mercy, yet since he conducts them to the
possession of it through a course of good works, that he may fulfil his
work in them in the order he has appointed, we need not wonder if they
are said to be rewarded according to their works, by which they are
undoubtedly prepared to receive the crown of immortality. And for this
reason, they are properly said to “work out their own salvation,”[187]
while, devoting themselves to good works, they aspire to eternal life;
just as in another place they are commanded to “labor for the meat which
perisheth not,” when they obtain eternal life by believing in Christ;
and yet it is immediately added, “which the Son of man shall give unto
you.”[188] Whence it appears that the word _work_ is not opposed to
grace, but refers to human endeavours; and therefore it does not follow,
either that believers are the authors of their own salvation, or that
salvation proceeds from their works. But as soon as they are introduced,
by the knowledge of the gospel and the illumination of the Holy Spirit,
into communion with Christ, eternal life is begun in them. Now, “the
good work which” God “hath begun in” them, “he will perform until the
day of Jesus Christ.”[189] And it is performed, when they prove
themselves to be the genuine children of God by their resemblance to
their heavenly Father in righteousness and holiness.

II. We have no reason to infer from the term _reward_, that good works
are the cause of salvation. First, let this truth be established in our
minds, that the kingdom of heaven is not the stipend of servants, but
the inheritance of children, which will be enjoyed only by those whom
the Lord adopts as his children, and for no other cause than on account
of this adoption. “For the son of the bond-woman shall not be heir with
the son of the free-woman.”[190] And, therefore, in the same passages in
which the Holy Spirit promises eternal life as the reward of works, by
expressly denominating it “an inheritance,” he proves it to proceed from
another cause. Thus Christ enumerates the works which he compensates by
the reward of heaven, when he calls the elect to the possession of it;
but at the same time adds, that it is to be enjoyed by right of
inheritance.[191] So Paul encourages servants, who faithfully discharge
their duty, to hope for a reward from the Lord; but at the same time
calls it “the reward of the inheritance.”[192] We see how they, almost
in express terms, caution us against attributing eternal life to works,
instead of ascribing it to Divine adoption. Why, then, it may be asked,
do they at the same time make mention of works? This question shall be
elucidated by one example from the Scripture. Before the nativity of
Isaac, there had been promised to Abraham a seed in whom all the nations
of the earth were to be blessed, a multiplication of his posterity,
which would equal the stars of heaven and the sands of the sea, and
other similar blessings.[193] Many years after, in consequence of a
Divine command, Abraham prepares to sacrifice his son. After this act of
obedience, he receives this promise: “By myself have I sworn, saith the
Lord, for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy
son, thine only son; that in blessing I will bless thee, and in
multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as
the sand which is upon the sea-shore; and thy seed shall possess the
gate of his enemies; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth
be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice.”[194] What? did Abraham
by his obedience merit that blessing which had been promised him before
the command was delivered? Here, then, it appears, beyond all doubt,
that the Lord rewards the works of believers with those blessings which
he had already given them before their works were thought of, and while
he had no reason for his beneficence, but his own mercy.

III. Nor does the Lord deceive or trifle with us, when he says that he
will requite works with what he had freely given previously to the
performance of them. For since it is his pleasure that we be employed in
good works, while aspiring after the manifestation or enjoyment of those
things which he has promised, and that they constitute the road in which
we should travel to endeavour to attain the blessed hope proposed to us
in heaven, therefore the fruit of the promises, to the perfection of
which fruit those works conduct us, is justly assigned to them. The
apostle beautifully expressed both those ideas, when he said that the
Colossians applied themselves to the duties of charity, “for the hope
which was laid up for them in heaven, whereof they heard before in the
word, of the truth of the gospel.”[195] For his assertion, that they
knew from the gospel, that there was hope laid up for them in heaven, is
equivalent to a declaration that it depended not on any works, but on
Christ alone; which perfectly accords with the observation of Peter,
that believers “are kept by the power of God through faith unto
salvation, ready to be revealed in the last time.”[196] When it is said
that they must labour for it, it implies, that in order to attain to it,
believers have a race to run, which terminates only with their lives.
But that we might not suppose the reward promised us by the Lord to be
regulated according to the proportion of merit, he proposes a parable,
in which he has represented himself under the character of a
householder, who employs all the persons he meets in the cultivation of
his vineyard; some he hires at the first hour of the day, others at the
second, others at the third, and some even at the eleventh hour; in the
evening he pays them all the same wages.[197] A brief and just
explanation of this parable is given by the ancient writer, whoever he
was, of the treatise “On the Calling of the Gentiles,” which bears the
name of Ambrose. I shall adopt his words in preference to my own. “By
the example of this comparison, (says he,) the Lord has shown a variety
of manifold vocation pertaining to the same grace. They who, having been
admitted into the vineyard at the eleventh hour, are placed on an
equality with them who had laboured the whole day, represent the state
of those whom, to magnify the excellence of grace, God, in his mercy,
has rewarded in the decline of the day, and at the conclusion of life;
not paying them the wages due to their labour, but sending down the
riches of his goodness, in copious effusions, on them whom he has chosen
without works; that even they who have laboured the most, and have
received no more than the last, may understand theirs to be a reward of
grace, not of works.” Lastly, it is also worthy of being observed, that
in those places where eternal life is called a reward of works, it is
not to be understood simply of that communion which we have with God, as
the prelude to a happy immortality, when he embraces us in Christ with
paternal benevolence; but of the possession or fruition of ultimate
blessedness, as the very words of Christ import—“in the world to come,
eternal life.”[198] And in another place, “Come, inherit the kingdom,”
&c.[199] For the same reason, Paul applies the term _adoption_ to the
revelation of adoption, which shall be made in the resurrection; and
afterwards explains it to be “the redemption of our body.”[200]
Otherwise, as alienation from God is eternal death, so when a man is
received into the favour of God so as to enjoy communion with him and
become united to him, he is translated from death to life; which is
solely the fruit of adoption. And if they insist, with their accustomed
pertinacity, on the reward of works, we may retort against them that
passage of Peter, where eternal life is called “the end (or reward) of
faith.”[201]

IV. Let us not, therefore, imagine, that the Holy Spirit by these
promises commends the worthiness of our works, as though they merited
such a reward. For the Scripture leaves us nothing that can exalt us in
the Divine presence. Its whole tendency is rather to repress our
arrogance, and to inspire us with humility, dejection, and contrition.
But such promises assist our weakness, which otherwise would immediately
slide and fall, if it did not sustain itself by this expectation, and
alleviate its sorrows by this consolation. First, let every one reflect,
how difficult it is for a man to relinquish and renounce, not only all
that belongs to him, but even himself. And yet this is the first lesson
which Christ teaches his disciples, that is to say, all the pious.
Afterwards he gives them such tuition during the remainder of their
lives, under the discipline of the cross, that their hearts may not fix
either their desires or their dependence on present advantages. In
short, he generally manages them in such a manner, that whithersoever
they turn their views throughout the world, nothing but despair presents
itself to them on every side; so that Paul says, “If in this life only
we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.”[202] To
preserve them from sinking under these afflictions, they have the
presence of the Lord, who encourages them to raise their heads higher,
and to extend their views further, by assurances that they will find in
him that blessedness which they cannot see in the world. This
blessedness he calls _a reward_, _a recompense_; not attributing any
merit to their works, but signifying that it is a compensation for their
oppressions, sufferings, and disgrace. Wherefore there is no objection
against our following the example of the Scripture in calling eternal
life _a reward_; since in that state the Lord receives his people from
labor into rest; from affliction into prosperity and happiness; from
sorrow into joy; from poverty into affluence; from ignominy into glory;
and commutes all the evils which they have endured for blessings of
superior magnitude. So, likewise, it will occasion no inconvenience, if
we consider holiness of life as the way, not which procures our
admission into the glory of the heavenly kingdom, but through which the
elect are conducted by their God to the manifestation of it; since it is
his good pleasure to glorify them whom he has sanctified. Only let us
not imagine a reciprocal relation of merit and reward, which is the
error into which the sophists fell, for want of considering the end
which we have stated. But how preposterous is it, when the Lord calls
our attention to one end, for us to direct our views to another! Nothing
is clearer, than that the promise of a reward to good works is designed
to afford some consolation to the weakness of our flesh, but not to
inflate our minds with vain-glory. Whoever, therefore, infers from this,
that there is any merit in works, or balances the work against the
reward, errs very widely from the true design of God.

V. Therefore, when the Scripture says, that “the Lord, the righteous
Judge, shall give” to his people “a crown of righteousness,”[203] I not
only reply with Augustine—“To whom could the righteous Judge have given
a crown, if the Father of mercies had never given grace? and how would
it have been an act of righteousness, if not preceded by that grace
which justifies the ungodly? how could these due rewards be rendered,
unless those unmerited blessings were previously bestowed?” but I
further inquire—How could he impute righteousness to our works, unless
his indulgent mercy had concealed their unrighteousness? How could he
esteem them worthy of a reward, unless his infinite goodness had
abolished all their demerit of punishment? Augustine is in the habit of
designating eternal life by the word _grace_, because, when it is given
as the reward of works, it is conferred on the gratuitous gifts of God.
But the Scripture humbles us more, and at the same time exalts us. For
beside prohibiting us to glory in works, because they are the gratuitous
gifts of God, it likewise teaches us that they are always defiled by
some pollutions; so that they cannot satisfy God, if examined according
to the rule of his judgment; but it is also added, to prevent our
despondency, that they please him merely through his mercy. Now, though
Augustine expresses himself somewhat differently from us, yet that there
is no real difference of sentiment will appear from his language to
Boniface. After a comparison between two men, the one of a life holy and
perfect even to a miracle, the other a man of probity and integrity, yet
not so perfect but that many defects might be discovered, he at length
makes this inference: “The latter, whose character appears inferior to
the former, on account of the true faith in God by which he lives, and
according to which he accuses himself in all his delinquencies, and in
all his good works praises God, ascribing the glory to him, the ignominy
to himself, and deriving from him both the pardon of his sins and the
love of virtue; this man, I say, when delivered from this life, removes
into the presence of Christ. Wherefore, but on account of faith? which,
though no man be saved by it without works, (for it is not a reprobate
faith, but such as works by love,) yet produces remission of sins, for
the just lives by faith;[204] but without it, works apparently good are
perverted into sins.” Here he avows, without any obscurity, that for
which we so strenuously contend—that the righteousness of good works
depends on their acceptance by the Divine mercy.

VI. Very similar to the foregoing passages is the import of the
following: “Make to yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness;
that, when ye fail, they may receive you into everlasting
habitations.”[205] “Charge them that are rich in this world, that they
be not high-minded, nor trust in uncertain riches, but in the living
God; that they do good, that they be rich in good works; laying up in
store for themselves a good foundation against the time to come, that
they may lay hold on eternal life.” [206] Here good works are compared
to riches, which we may enjoy in the happiness of eternal life. I reply,
that we shall never arrive at the true meaning of these passages, unless
we advert to the design of the Spirit in such language. If Christ’s
declaration be true, that “where our treasure is, there will our heart
be also,”[207]—as the children of this world are generally intent on the
acquisition of those things which conduce to the comfort of the present
life, so it ought to be the concern of believers, after they have been
taught that this life will ere long vanish like a dream, to transmit
those things which they really wish to enjoy, to that place where they
shall possess a perfect and permanent life. It behoves us, therefore, to
imitate the conduct of those who determine to migrate to any new
situation, where they have chosen to reside during the remainder of
their lives; they send their property before them, without regarding the
inconvenience of a temporary absence from it; esteeming their happiness
the greater in proportion to the wealth which they possess in the place
which they intend for their permanent residence. If we believe heaven to
be our country, it is better for us to transmit our wealth thither, than
to retain it here, where we may lose it by a sudden removal. But how
shall we transmit it? Why, if we communicate to the necessities of the
poor; whatever is bestowed on them, the Lord considers as given to
himself.[208] Whence that celebrated promise, “He that hath pity upon
the poor, lendeth unto the Lord.”[209] Again: “He which soweth
bountifully shall reap also bountifully.”[210] For all things that are
bestowed on our brethren in a way of charity, are so many deposits in
the hand of the Lord; which he, as a faithful depositary, will one day
restore with ample interest. Are our acts of duty, then, it will be
asked, so valuable in the sight of God, that they are like riches
reserved in his hand for us? And who can be afraid to assert this, when
the Scripture so frequently and plainly declares it? But if any one,
from the mere goodness of God, would infer the merit of works, these
testimonies will afford no countenance to such an error. For we can
infer nothing from them except the indulgence which God in his mercy is
disposed to show us, since, in order to animate us to rectitude of
conduct, though the duties we perform are unworthy of the least notice
from him, yet he suffers not one of them to go unrewarded.

VII. But they insist more on the words of the apostle, who, to console
the Thessalonians under their tribulations, tells them that the design
of their infliction is, “that they may be counted worthy of the kingdom
of God, for which they also suffer. Seeing,” says he, “it is a righteous
thing with God to recompense tribulation to them that trouble you; and
to you who are troubled, rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be
revealed from heaven.”[211] And the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews
says, “God is not unrighteous to forget your work and labour of love,
which ye have showed toward his name, in that ye have ministered to the
saints.”[212] To the first passage I reply, That it indicates no
worthiness of merit; but since it is the will of God the Father, that
those whom he has chosen as his children be conformed to Christ his
first begotten Son;[213] as it was necessary for him first to suffer and
then to enter into the glory destined for him;[214] so “we must through
much tribulation enter into the kingdom of God.”[215] The tribulations,
therefore, which we suffer for the name of Christ, are, as it were,
certain marks impressed on us by which God usually distinguishes the
sheep of his flock. For this reason, then, we are accounted worthy of
the kingdom of God, because we bear in our body the marks of our Lord
and Master,[216] which are the badges of the children of God. The same
sentiment is conveyed in the following passages: “Bearing about in the
body the dying of the Lord Jesus, that the life also of Jesus might be
made manifest in our body.”[217] “Being made conformable unto his death,
if by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead.”[218]
The reason which the apostle subjoins tends not to establish any merit,
but to confirm the hope of the kingdom of God; as though he had said, As
it is consistent with the judgment of God to avenge on your enemies
those vexations with which they have harassed you, so it is also to
grant you respite and repose from those vexations. Of the other passage,
which represents it as becoming the righteousness of God not to forget
our services, so as almost to imply that he would be unrighteous if he
did forget them, the meaning is, that in order to arouse our indolence,
God has assured us that the labour which we undergo for the glory of his
name shall not be in vain. And we should always remember that this
promise, as well as all others, would be fraught with no benefit to us,
unless it were preceded by the gratuitous covenant of mercy, on which
the whole certainty of our salvation must depend. But relying on that
covenant, we may securely confide, that our services, however unworthy,
will not go without a reward from the goodness of God. To confirm us in
that expectation, the apostle asserts that God is not unrighteous, but
will perform the promise he has once made. This righteousness,
therefore, refers rather to the truth of the Divine promise, than to the
equity of rendering to us any thing that is our due. To this purpose
there is a remarkable observation of Augustine; and as that holy man has
not hesitated frequently to repeat it as deserving of remembrance, so I
deem it not unworthy of a constant place in our minds. “The Lord,” says
he, “is faithful, who has made himself our debtor, not by receiving any
thing from us, but by promising all things to us.”

VIII. Our Pharisees adduce the following passages of Paul: “Though I
have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity,
I am nothing.” Again: “Now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three;
but the greatest of these is charity.”[219] Again: “Above all these
things, put on charity, which is the bond of perfectness.”[220] From the
first two passages they contend that we are justified rather by charity
than by faith; that is, by the superior virtue, as they express it. But
this argument is easily overturned. For we have already shown, that what
is mentioned in the first passage, has no reference to true faith. The
second we explain to signify true faith, than which he calls charity
greater, not as being more meritorious, but because it is more fruitful,
more extensive, more generally serviceable, and perpetual in its
duration; whereas the use of faith is only temporary. In respect of
excellence, the preëminence must be given to the love of God, which is
not in this place the subject of Paul’s discourse. For the only point
which he urges is, that with reciprocal charity we mutually edify one
another in the Lord. But let us suppose that charity excels faith in all
respects, yet what person possessed of sound judgment, or even of the
common exercise of reason, would argue from this that it has a greater
concern in justification? The power of justifying, attached to faith,
consists not in the worthiness of the act. Our justification depends
solely on the mercy of God and the merit of Christ, which when faith
apprehends, it is said to justify us. Now, if we ask our adversaries in
what sense they attribute justification to charity, they will reply,
that because it is a duty pleasing to God, the merit of it, being
accepted by the Divine goodness, is imputed to us for righteousness.
Here we see how curiously their argument proceeds. We assert that faith
justifies, not by procuring us a righteousness through its own merit,
but as the instrument by which we freely obtain the righteousness of
Christ. These men, passing over in silence the mercy of God, and making
no mention of Christ, in whom is the substance of righteousness, contend
that we are justified by the virtue of charity, because it is more
excellent than faith; just as though any one should insist that a king,
in consequence of his superior rank, is more expert at making a shoe
than a shoemaker. This one argument affords an ample proof that all the
Sorbonic schools are destitute of the least experience of justification
by faith. But if any wrangler should yet inquire, why we understand Paul
to use the word _faith_ in different acceptations in the same discourse,
I am prepared with a substantial reason for such an interpretation. For
since those gifts which Paul enumerates, are in some respect connected
with faith and hope, because they relate to the knowledge of God, he
summarily comprises them all under those two words; as though he had
said, The end of prophecy, and of tongues, of knowledge, and of the gift
of interpretation, is to conduct us to the knowledge of God. But we know
God in this life only by hope and faith. Therefore, when I mention faith
and hope, I comprehend all these things under them. “And now abideth
faith, hope, charity, these three;” that is, all gifts, whatever may be
their variety, are referred to these. “But the greatest of these is
charity.” From the third passage they infer, that if “charity is the
bond of perfectness,” it is therefore the bond of righteousness, which
is no other than perfection. Now, to refrain from observing that what
Paul calls _perfectness_, is the mutual connection which subsists
between the members of a well-constituted church, and to admit that
charity constitutes our perfection before God; yet what new advantage
will they gain? On the contrary, I shall always object, that we never
arrive at that perfection, unless we fulfil all the branches of charity;
and hence I shall infer, that since all men are at an immense distance
from complete charity, they are destitute of all hope of perfection.

IX. I have no inclination to notice all the passages of Scripture, which
the folly of the modern Sorbonists seizes as they occur, and without any
reason employs against us. For some of them are so truly ridiculous,
that I could not even mention them, unless I wished to be accounted a
fool. I shall therefore conclude this subject after having explained a
sentence uttered by Christ, with which they are wonderfully pleased. To
a lawyer, who asked him what was necessary to salvation, he replied, “If
thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.”[221] What can we wish
more, say they, when the Author of grace himself commands to obtain the
kingdom of heaven by an observance of the commandments? As though it
were not evident, that Christ adapted his replies to those with whom he
conversed. Here a doctor of the law inquires the method of obtaining
happiness, and that not simply, but what men must _do_ in order to
attain it. Both the character of the speaker and the inquiry itself
induced the Lord to make this reply. The inquirer, persuaded of the
righteousness of the law, possessed a blind confidence in his works.
Besides, he only inquired what were those works of righteousness by
which salvation might be procured. He is therefore justly referred to
the law, which contains a perfect mirror of righteousness. We also
explicitly declare, that if life be sought by works, it is indispensably
requisite to keep the commandments. And this doctrine is necessary to be
known by Christians; for how should they flee for refuge to Christ, if
they did not acknowledge themselves to have fallen from the way of life
upon the precipice of death? And how could they know how far they have
wandered from the way of life, without a previous knowledge of what that
way of life is? It is then, therefore, that Christ is presented to them
as the asylum of salvation, when they perceive the vast difference
between their own lives and the Divine righteousness, which consists in
the observance of the law. The sum of the whole is, that if we seek
salvation by works, we must keep the commandments, by which we are
taught perfect righteousness. But to stop here, would be failing in the
midst of our course; for to keep the commandments is a task to which
none of us are equal. Being excluded, then, from the righteousness of
the law, we are under the necessity of resorting to some other refuge,
namely, to faith in Christ. Wherefore, as the Lord, knowing this doctor
of the law to be inflated with a vain confidence in his works, recalls
his attention to the law, that it may teach him his own character as a
sinner, obnoxious to the tremendous sentence of eternal death, so, in
another place, addressing those who have already been humbled under this
knowledge, he omits all mention of the law, and consoles them with a
promise of grace—“Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden,
and I will give you rest; and ye shall find rest unto your souls.”[222]

X. At length, after our adversaries have wearied themselves with
perversions of Scripture, they betake themselves to subtleties and
sophisms. They cavil, that faith is in some places called a work,[223]
and hence they infer that we improperly oppose faith to works. As though
faith procured righteousness for us by its intrinsic merit, as an act of
obedience to the Divine will, and not rather because, by embracing the
Divine mercy, it seals to our hearts the righteousness of Christ, which
that mercy offers to us in the preaching of the gospel. The reader will
pardon me for not dwelling on the confutation of such follies; for they
require nothing to refute them but their own weakness. But I wish
briefly to answer one objection, which has some appearance of reason, to
prevent its being the source of any difficulty to persons who have had
but little experience. Since common sense dictates that opposites are
subject to similar rules, and as all sins are imputed to us for
unrighteousness, they maintain it to be reasonable, on the other hand,
that all good works should be imputed to us for righteousness. Those who
reply, that the condemnation of men proceeds from unbelief alone, and
not from particular sins, do not satisfy me. I agree with them, that
incredulity is the fountain and root of all evils. For it is the
original defection from God, which is afterwards followed by particular
transgressions of the law. But as they appear to fix one and the same
rule for good and evil works in forming a judgment of righteousness or
unrighteousness, here I am obliged to dissent from them. For the
righteousness of works is the perfect obedience of the law. We cannot
therefore be righteous by works, unless we follow this straight line
throughout the whole of our lives. The first deviation from it is a
lapse into unrighteousness. Hence it appears that righteousness arises
not from one or a few works, but from an inflexible and indefatigable
observance of the Divine will. But the rule of judging of
unrighteousness is very different. For he who has committed fornication
or theft, is for one transgression liable to the sentence of death,
because he has offended against the divine Majesty. These disputants of
ours, therefore, fall into an error for want of adverting to the
decision of James, that “whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet
offend in one point, he is guilty of all.” For he that said, “Do not
commit adultery,” said also, “Do not kill,” &c.[224] It ought not,
therefore, to be deemed absurd, when we say, that death is the reward
justly due to every sin, because they are all and every one deserving of
the indignation and vengeance of God. But it will be a weak argument to
infer, on the contrary, that one good work will reconcile a man to God,
whose wrath he has incurred by a multitude of sins.

Footnote 177:

Rom. ii. 6. Matt. xvi. 27.

Footnote 178:

2 Cor. v. 10.

Footnote 179:

Rom. ii. 9, 10.

Footnote 180:

John v. 29.

Footnote 181:

Matt. xxv. 34-36.

Footnote 182:

Prov. xii. 14.

Footnote 183:

Prov. xiii. 13.

Footnote 184:

Matt. v. 12. Luke vi. 23.

Footnote 185:

1 Cor. iii. 8.

Footnote 186:

Rom. viii. 30.

Footnote 187:

Phil. ii. 12.

Footnote 188:

John vi. 27.

Footnote 189:

Phil. i. 6.

Footnote 190:

Gal. iv. 30.

Footnote 191:

Matt. xxv. 34.

Footnote 192:

Col. iii. 24.

Footnote 193:

Gen. xii. 2, 3; xiii. 16; xv. 5.

Footnote 194:

Gen. xxii. 16-18.

Footnote 195:

Col. i. 4, 5.

Footnote 196:

1 Peter i. 5.

Footnote 197:

Matt. xx. 1, &c.

Footnote 198:

Mark x. 30.

Footnote 199:

Matt. xxv. 34.

Footnote 200:

Rom. viii. 23.

Footnote 201:

1 Peter i. 9.

Footnote 202:

1 Cor. xv. 19.

Footnote 203:

2 Tim. iv. 8.

Footnote 204:

Heb. x. 38.

Footnote 205:

Luke xvi. 9.

Footnote 206:

1 Tim. vi. 17-19.

Footnote 207:

Matt. vi. 21.

Footnote 208:

Matt. xxv. 40.

Footnote 209:

Prov. xix. 17.

Footnote 210:

2 Cor. ix. 6.

Footnote 211:

2 Thess. i. 5-7.

Footnote 212:

Heb. vi. 10.

Footnote 213:

Rom. viii. 29.

Footnote 214:

Luke xxiv. 26.

Footnote 215:

Acts xiv. 22.

Footnote 216:

Gal. vi. 17.

Footnote 217:

2 Cor. iv. 10.

Footnote 218:

Phil. iii. 10, 11.

Footnote 219:

1 Cor. xiii. 2, 13.

Footnote 220:

Col. iii. 14.

Footnote 221:

Matt. xix. 17.

Footnote 222:

Matt. xi. 28, 29.

Footnote 223:

John vi. 29.

Footnote 224:

James ii. 10, 11.

CHAPTER XIX.
ON CHRISTIAN LIBERTY.

We have now to treat of Christian liberty, an explanation of which ought
not to be omitted in a treatise which is designed to comprehend a
compendious summary of evangelical doctrine. For it is a subject of the
first importance, and unless it be well understood, our consciences
scarcely venture to undertake any thing without doubting, experience in
many things hesitation and reluctance, and are always subject to
fluctuations and fears. But especially it is an appendix to
justification, and affords no small assistance towards the knowledge of
its influence. Hence they who sincerely fear God will experience the
incomparable advantage of that doctrine, which impious scoffers pursue
with their railleries; because in the spiritual intoxication with which
they are seized, they allow themselves the most unbounded impudence.
Wherefore this is the proper time to introduce the subject; and though
we have slightly touched upon it on some former occasions, yet it was
useful to defer the full discussion of it to this place; because, as
soon as any mention is made of Christian liberty, then either inordinate
passions rage, or violent emotions arise, unless timely opposition be
made to those wanton spirits, who most nefariously corrupt things which
are otherwise the best. For some, under the pretext of this liberty,
cast off all obedience to God, and precipitate themselves into the most
unbridled licentiousness; and some despise it, supposing it to be
subversive of all moderation, order, and moral distinctions. What can we
do in this case, surrounded by such difficulties? Shall we entirely
discard Christian liberty, and so preclude the occasion of such dangers?
But, as we have observed, unless this be understood, there can be no
right knowledge of Christ, or of evangelical truth, or of internal peace
of mind. We should rather exert ourselves to prevent the suppression of
such a necessary branch of doctrine, and at the same time to obviate
those absurd objections which are frequently deduced from it.

II. Christian liberty, according to my judgment, consists of three
parts. The first part is, that the consciences of believers, when
seeking an assurance of their justification before God, should raise
themselves above the law, and forget all the righteousness of the law.
For since the law, as we have elsewhere demonstrated, leaves no man
righteous, either we must be excluded from all hope of justification, or
it is necessary for us to be delivered from it, and that so completely
as not to have any dependence on works. For he who imagines, that in
order to obtain righteousness he must produce any works, however small,
can fix no limit or boundary, but renders himself a debtor to the whole
law. Avoiding, therefore, all mention of the law, and dismissing all
thought of our own works, in reference to justification, we must embrace
the Divine mercy alone, and turning our eyes from ourselves, fix them
solely on Christ. For the question is, not how we can be righteous, but
how, though unrighteous and unworthy, we can be considered as righteous.
And the conscience that desires to attain any certainty respecting this,
must give no admission to the law. Nor will this authorize any one to
conclude, that the law is of no use to believers, whom it still
continues to instruct and exhort, and stimulate to duty, although it has
no place in their consciences before the tribunal of God. For these two
things, being very different, require to be properly and carefully
distinguished by us. The whole life of Christians ought to be an
exercise of piety, since they are called to sanctification.[225] It is
the office of the law to remind them of their duty, and thereby to
excite them to the pursuit of holiness and integrity. But when their
consciences are solicitous how God may be propitiated, what answer they
shall make, and on what they shall rest their confidence, if called to
his tribunal, there must then be no consideration of the requisitions of
the law, but Christ alone must be proposed for righteousness, who
exceeds all the perfection of the law.

III. On this point turns almost the whole argument of the Epistle to the
Galatians. For that they are erroneous expositors, who maintain, that
Paul there contends only for liberty from ceremonies, may be proved from
the topics of his reasoning. Such as these: “Christ hath redeemed us
from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us.”[226] Again:
“Stand fast, therefore, in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us
free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage. Behold, I
Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you
nothing. Every man that is circumcised is a debtor to do the whole law.
Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified
by the law; ye are fallen from grace.”[227] These passages certainly
comprehend something more exalted than a freedom from ceremonies. I
confess, indeed, that Paul is there treating of ceremonies, because he
is contending with the false apostles, who attempted to introduce again
into the Christian Church the ancient shadows of the law, which had been
abolished by the advent of Christ. But for the decision of this question
it was necessary to discuss some higher topics, in which the whole
controversy lay. First, because the brightness of the gospel was
obscured by those Jewish shadows, he shows that in Christ we have a
complete exhibition of all those things which were adumbrated by the
ceremonies of Moses. Secondly, because these impostors instilled into
the people the very pernicious opinion, that this ceremonial obedience
was sufficient to merit the Divine favour, he principally contends, that
believers ought not to suppose that they can obtain righteousness before
God by any works of the law, much less by those inferior elements. And
he at the same time teaches, that from the condemnation of the law,
which otherwise impends over all men, they are delivered by the cross of
Christ, that they may rely with perfect security on him alone—a topic
which properly belongs to our present subject. Lastly, he asserts the
liberty of the consciences of believers, which ought to be laid under no
obligation in things that are not necessary.

IV. The second part of Christian liberty, which is dependent on the
first, is, that their consciences do not observe the law, as being under
any legal obligation; but that, being liberated from the yoke of the
law, they yield a voluntary obedience to the will of God. For being
possessed with perpetual terrors, as long as they remain under the
dominion of the law, they will never engage with alacrity and
promptitude in the service of God, unless they have previously received
this liberty. We shall more easily and clearly discover the design of
these things from an example. The precept of the law is, “Thou shalt
love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and
with all thy might.”[228] That this command may be fulfilled, our soul
must be previously divested of every other perception and thought, our
heart must be freed from all desires, and our might must be collected
and contracted to this one point. Those who, compared with others, have
made a very considerable progress in the way of the Lord, are yet at an
immense distance from this perfection. For though they love God with
their soul, and with sincere affection of heart, yet they have still
much of their heart and soul occupied by carnal desires, which retard
their progress towards God. They do indeed press forward with strong
exertions, but the flesh partly debilitates their strength, and partly
attracts it to itself. What can they do in this case, when they perceive
that they are so far from observing the law? They wish, they aspire,
they endeavour, but they do nothing with the perfection that is
required. If they advert to the law, they see that every work they
attempt or meditate is accursed. Nor is there the least reason for any
person to deceive himself, by concluding that an action is not
necessarily altogether evil, because it is imperfect, and that therefore
the good part of it is accepted by God. For the law, requiring perfect
love, condemns all imperfection, unless its rigour be mitigated. Let him
consider his work, therefore, which he wished to be thought partly good,
and he will find that very work to be a transgression of the law,
because it is imperfect.

V. See how all our works, if estimated according to the rigour of the
law, are subject to its curse. How, then, could unhappy souls apply
themselves with alacrity to any work for which they could expect to
receive nothing but a curse? On the contrary, if they are liberated from
the severe exaction of the law, or rather from the whole of its rigour,
and hear God calling them with paternal gentleness, then with
cheerfulness and prompt alacrity they will answer to his call and follow
his guidance. In short, they who are bound by the yoke of the law, are
like slaves who have certain daily tasks appointed by their masters.
They think they have done nothing, and presume not to enter into the
presence of their masters without having finished the work prescribed to
them. But children, who are treated by their parents in a more liberal
manner, hesitate not to present to them their imperfect, and in some
respects faulty works, in confidence that their obedience and
promptitude of mind will be accepted by them, though they have not
performed all that they wished. Such children ought we to be, feeling a
certain confidence that our services, however small, rude, and
imperfect, will be approved by our most indulgent Father. This he also
confirms to us by the prophet: “I will spare them,” saith he, “as a man
spareth his own son that serveth him;”[229] where it is evident, from
the mention of _service_, that the word _spare_ is used to denote
indulgence, or an overlooking of faults. And we have great need of this
confidence, without which all our endeavours will be vain; for God
considers us as serving him in none of our works, but such as are truly
done by us to his honour. But how can this be done amidst those terrors,
where it is a matter of doubt whether our works offend God or honour
him?

VI. This is the reason why the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews
refers to faith, and estimates only by faith, all the good works which
are recorded of the holy patriarchs.[230] On this liberty there is a
remarkable passage in the Epistle to the Romans, where Paul reasons that
sin ought not to have dominion over us, because we are not under the
law, but under grace.[231] For after he had exhorted believers, “Let not
sin, therefore, reign in your mortal body; neither yield ye your members
as instruments of unrighteousness; but yield yourselves unto God, as
those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of
righteousness unto God,”[232]—they might, on the contrary, object that
they yet carried about with them the flesh full of inordinate desires,
and that sin dwelt in them; but he adds the consolation furnished by
their liberty from the law; as though he had said, Although you do not
yet experience sin to be destroyed, and righteousness living in you in
perfection, yet you have no cause for terror and dejection of mind, as
if God were perpetually offended on account of your remaining sin;
because by grace you are emancipated from the law, that your works may
not be judged according to that rule. But those, who infer that we may
commit sin because we are not under the law, may be assured that they
have no concern with this liberty, the end of which is to animate us to
virtue.

VII. The third part of Christian liberty teaches us, that we are bound
by no obligation before God respecting external things, which in
themselves are indifferent; but that we may indifferently sometimes use,
and at other times omit them. And the knowledge of this liberty also is
very necessary for us; for without it we shall have no tranquillity of
conscience, nor will there be any end of superstitions. Many in the
present age think it a folly to raise any dispute concerning the free
use of meats, of days, and of habits, and similar subjects, considering
these things as frivolous and nugatory; but they are of greater
importance than is generally believed. For when the conscience has once
fallen into the snare, it enters a long and inextricable labyrinth, from
which it is afterwards difficult to escape; if a man begin to doubt the
lawfulness of using flax in sheets, shirts, handkerchiefs, napkins, and
table cloths, neither will he be certain respecting hemp, and at last he
will doubt of the lawfulness of using tow; for he will consider with
himself whether he cannot eat without table cloths or napkins, whether
he cannot do without handkerchiefs. If any one imagine delicate food to
be unlawful, he will ere long have no tranquillity before God in eating
brown bread and common viands, while he remembers that he might support
his body with meat of a quality still inferior. If he hesitate
respecting good wine, he will afterwards be unable with any peace of
conscience to drink the most vapid; and at last he will not presume even
to touch purer and sweeter water than others. In short, he will come to
think it criminal to step over a twig that lies across his path. For
this is the commencement of no trivial controversy; but the dispute is
whether the use of certain things be agreeable to God, whose will ought
to guide all our resolutions and all our actions. The necessary
consequence is, that some are hurried by despair into a vortex of
confusion, from which they see no way of escape; and some, despising
God, and casting off all fear of him, make a way of ruin for themselves.
For all, who are involved in such doubts, which way soever they turn
their views, behold something offensive to their consciences presenting
itself on every side.

VIII. “I know,” says Paul, “that there is nothing unclean of itself; but
to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is
unclean.”[233] In these words he makes all external things subject to
our liberty, provided that our minds have regard to this liberty before
God. But if any superstitious notion cause us to scruple, those things
which were naturally pure become contaminated to us. Wherefore he
subjoins, “Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that which he
alloweth. And he that doubteth is condemned if he eat, because he eateth
not of faith; for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.”[234] Are not they,
who in these perplexities show their superior boldness by the security
of their presumption, guilty of departing from God? whilst they who are
deeply affected with the true fear of God, when they are even
constrained to admit many things to which their own consciences are
averse, are filled with terror and consternation. No persons of this
description receive any of the gifts of God with thanksgiving, by which
alone Paul, nevertheless, declares them to be all sanctified to our
use.[235] I mean a thanksgiving proceeding from a mind which
acknowledges the beneficence and goodness of God in the blessings he
bestows. For many of them, indeed, apprehend the good things which they
use to be from God, whom they praise in his works; but not being
persuaded that they are _given_ to them, how could they give thanks to
God as the giver of them? We see, in short, the tendency of this
liberty, which is, that without any scruple of conscience or
perturbation of mind, we should devote the gifts of God to that use for
which he has given them; by which confidence our souls may have peace
with him, and acknowledge his liberality towards us. For this
comprehends all ceremonies, the observation of which is left free, that
the conscience may not be bound by any obligation to observe them, but
may remember that by the goodness of God it may use them, or abstain
from them, as shall be most conducive to edification.

IX. Now, it must be carefully observed, that Christian liberty is in all
its branches a spiritual thing; all the virtue of which consists in
appeasing terrified consciences before God, whether they are disquieted
and solicitous concerning the remission of their sins, or are anxious to
know if their works, which are imperfect and contaminated by the
defilements of the flesh, be acceptable to God; or are tormented
concerning the use of things that are indifferent. Wherefore they are
guilty of perverting its meaning, who either make it the pretext of
their irregular appetites, that they may abuse the Divine blessings to
the purposes of sensuality, or who suppose that there is no liberty but
what is used before men, and therefore in the exercise of it totally
disregard their weak brethren. The former of these sins is the more
common in the present age. There is scarcely any one, whom his wealth
permits to be sumptuous, who is not delighted with luxurious splendour
in his entertainments, in his dress, and in his buildings; who does not
desire a preëminence in every species of luxury; who does not strangely
flatter himself on his elegance. And all these things are defended under
the pretext of Christian liberty. They allege that they are things
indifferent; this I admit, provided they be indifferently used. But
where they are too ardently coveted, proudly boasted, or luxuriously
lavished, these things, of themselves otherwise indifferent, are
completely polluted by such vices. This passage of Paul makes an
excellent distinction respecting things which are indifferent: “Unto the
pure all things are pure; but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving
is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled.”[236]
For why are curses denounced on rich men, who “receive their
consolation,” who are “satiated,” who “now laugh,” who “lie on beds of
ivory,” who “join field to field,” who “have the harp, and the lyre, and
the tabret, and wine in their feasts?”[237] Ivory and gold, and riches
of all kinds, are certainly blessings of Divine Providence, not only
permitted, but expressly designed for the use of men; nor are we any
where prohibited to laugh, or to be satiated with food, or to annex new
possessions to those already enjoyed by ourselves or by our ancestors,
or to be delighted with musical harmony, or to drink wine. This indeed
is true; but amidst an abundance of all things, to be immersed in
sensual delights, to inebriate the heart and mind with present
pleasures, and perpetually to grasp at new ones,—these things are very
remote from a legitimate use of the Divine blessings. Let them banish,
therefore, immoderate cupidity, excessive profusion, vanity, and
arrogance; that with a pure conscience they may make a proper use of the
gifts of God. When their hearts shall be formed to this sobriety, they
will have a rule for the legitimate enjoyment of them. On the contrary,
without this moderation, even common and ordinary pleasures are
chargeable with excess. For it is truly observed, that a proud heart
frequently dwells under coarse and ragged garments, and that simplicity
and humility are sometimes concealed under purple and fine linen. Let
all men, in their respective stations, whether of poverty, of
competence, or of splendour, live in the remembrance of this truth, that
God confers his blessings on them for the support of life, not for
luxury; and let them consider this as the law of Christian liberty, that
they learn the lesson which Paul had learned, when he said, “I have
learned, in whatsoever state I am, therewith to be content. I know both
how to be abased, and I know how to abound: every where and in all
things I am instructed, both to be full and to be hungry, both to abound
and to suffer need.”[238]

X. Many persons err likewise in this respect, that, as if their liberty
would not be perfectly secure unless witnessed by men, they make an
indiscriminate and imprudent use of it—a disorderly practice, which
occasions frequent offence to their weak brethren. There are some to be
found, in the present day, who imagine their liberty would be abridged,
if they were not to enter on the enjoyment of it by eating animal food
on Friday. Their eating is not the subject of my reprehension; but their
minds require to be divested of this false notion; for they ought to
consider, that they obtain no advantage from their liberty before men,
but with God; and that it consists in abstinence as well as in use. If
they apprehend it to be immaterial in God’s view, whether they eat
animal food or eggs, whether their garments be scarlet or black, it is
quite sufficient. The conscience, to which the benefit of this liberty
was due, is now emancipated. Therefore, though they abstain from flesh,
and wear but one color, during all the rest of their lives, this is no
diminution of their freedom. Nay, because they are free, they therefore
abstain with a free conscience. But they fall into a very pernicious
error in disregarding the infirmity of their brethren, which it becomes
us to bear, so as not rashly to do any thing which would give them the
least offence. But it will be said, that it is sometimes right to assert
our liberty before men. This I confess; yet the greatest caution and
moderation must be observed, lest we cast off all concern for the weak,
whom God has so strongly recommended to our regards.

XI. I shall now, therefore, make some observations concerning offences;
how they are to be discriminated, what are to be avoided, and what are
to be disregarded; whence we may afterwards determine what room there is
for our liberty in our intercourse with mankind. I approve of the common
distinction between an offence given and an offence taken, since it is
plainly countenanced by Scripture, and is likewise sufficiently
significant of the thing intended to be expressed. If you do any thing
at a wrong time or place, or with an unseasonable levity, or wantonness,
or temerity, by which the weak and inexperienced are offended, it must
be termed an offence given by you; because it arises from your fault.
And an offence is always said to be given in any action, the fault of
which proceeds from the performer of that action. An offence taken is,
when any transaction, not otherwise unseasonable or culpable, is,
through malevolence, or some perverse disposition, construed into an
occasion of offence. For in this instance the offence is not given, but
taken without reason by such perverseness of construction. The first
species of offence affects none but the weak; the second is created by
moroseness of temper, and Pharisaical superciliousness. Wherefore we
shall denominate the former, the offence of the weak, the latter, that
of Pharisees; and we shall so temper the use of our liberty, that it
ought to submit to the ignorance of weak brethren, but not at all to the
austerity of Pharisees. For our duty to the weak, Paul fully shows in
many places. “Him that is weak in the faith receive ye.” Again: “Let us
not therefore judge one another any more; but judge this rather, that no
man put a stumbling-block or an occasion to fall in his brother’s
way;”[239] and much more to the same import, which were better examined
in its proper connection than recited here. The sum of all is, that “we,
then, that are strong, ought to bear the infirmities of the weak, and
not to please ourselves. Let every one of us please his neighbour for
his good to edification.”[240] In another place: “But take heed lest by
any means this liberty of yours become a stumbling-block to them that
are weak.”[241] Again: “Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat;
asking no questions for conscience’ sake; conscience, I say, not thine
own, but of the other.” In short, “Give none offence, neither to the
Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the Church of God.”[242] In another
place also: “Brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not
liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one
another.”[243] The meaning of this is, that our liberty is not given us
to be used in opposition to our weak neighbours, to whom charity obliges
us to do every possible service; but rather in order that, having peace
with God in our minds, we may also live peaceably among men. But how
much attention should be paid to an offence taken by Pharisees, we learn
from our Lord’s injunction, “Let them alone; they be blind leaders of
the blind.”[244] The disciples had informed him, that the Pharisees were
offended with his discourse. He replies that they are to be let alone,
and their offence disregarded.

XII. But the subject is still pending in uncertainty, unless we know
whom we are to account weak, and whom we are to consider as Pharisees;
without which distinction, I see no use of liberty in the midst of
offences, but such as must be attended with the greatest danger. But
Paul appears to me to have very clearly decided, both by doctrine and
examples, how far our liberty should be either moderated or asserted on
the occurrence of offences. When he made Timothy his associate, he
circumcised him;[245] but could not be induced to circumcise Titus.[246]
Here was a difference in his proceedings, but no change of mind or of
purpose. In the circumcision of Timothy, “though he was free from all
men, yet he made himself servant unto all;” and says he, “Unto the Jews
I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under
the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the
law: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save
some.”[247] Thus we have a proper moderation of liberty, if it may be
indifferently restricted with any advantage. His reason for resolutely
refraining from circumcising Titus, he declares in the following words:
“But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be
circumcised; and that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who
came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus,
that they might bring us into bondage; to whom we gave place by
subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might
continue with you.”[248] We also are under the necessity of vindicating
our liberty, if it be endangered in weak consciences by the iniquitous
requisitions of false apostles. We must at all times study charity, and
keep in view the edification of our neighbour. “All things (says Paul)
are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are
lawful for me, but all things edify not. Let no man seek his own, but
every man another’s.”[249] Nothing can be plainer than this rule, that
our liberty should be used, if it conduces to our neighbour’s
edification; but that if it be not beneficial to our neighbour, it
should be abridged. There are some, who pretend to imitate the prudence
of Paul in refraining from the exercise of liberty, while they are doing
any thing but exercising the duties of charity. For to promote their own
tranquillity, they wish all mention of liberty to be buried; whereas it
is no less advantageous to our neighbours sometimes to use our liberty
to their benefit and edification, than at other times to moderate it for
their accommodation. But a pious man considers this liberty in external
things as granted him in order that he may be the better prepared for
all the duties of charity.

XIII. But whatever I have advanced respecting the avoidance of offences,
I wish to be referred to indifferent and unimportant things; for
necessary duties must not be omitted through fear of any offence: as our
liberty should be subject to charity, so charity itself ought to be
subservient to the purity of faith. It becomes us, indeed, to have
regard to charity; but we must not offend God for the love of our
neighbour. We cannot approve the intemperance of those who do nothing
but in a tumultuous manner, and who prefer violent measures to lenient
ones. Nor must we listen to those, who, while they show themselves the
leaders in a thousand species of impiety, pretend that they are obliged
to act in such a manner, that they may give no offence to their
neighbours; as though they are not at the same time fortifying the
consciences of their neighbours in sin; especially since they are always
sticking in the same mire without any hope of deliverance. And whether
their neighbour is to be instructed by doctrine or by example, they
maintain that he ought to be fed with milk, though they are infecting
him with the worst and most pernicious notions. Paul tells the
Corinthians, “I have fed you with milk;”[250] but if the Popish mass had
been then introduced among them, would he have united in that pretended
sacrifice in order to feed them with milk? Certainly not; for milk is
not poison. They are guilty of falsehood, therefore, in saying that they
feed those whom they cruelly murder under the appearance of such
flatteries. But admitting that such dissimulation is to be approved for
a time, how long will they feed their children with the same milk? For
if they never grow, so as to be able to bear even some light meat, it is
a clear proof that they were never fed with milk. I am prevented from
pushing this controversy with them any further at present, by two
reasons—first, because their absurdities scarcely deserve a refutation,
being justly despised by all men of sound understanding; secondly,
having done this at large in particular treatises, I am unwilling to
travel the same ground over again. Only let the readers remember, that
with whatever offences Satan and the world may endeavour to divert us
from the ordinances of God, or to retard our pursuit of what he enjoins,
yet we must nevertheless strenuously advance; and moreover, that
whatever dangers threaten us, we are not at liberty to deviate even a
hair’s breadth from his command, and that it is not lawful under any
pretext to attempt any thing but what he permits.

XIV. Now, since the consciences of believers, being privileged with the
liberty which we have described, have been delivered by the favour of
Christ from all necessary obligation to the observance of those things
in which the Lord has been pleased they should be left free, we conclude
that they are exempt from all human authority. For it is not right that
Christ should lose the acknowledgments due to such kindness, or our
consciences the benefit of it. Neither is that to be accounted a trivial
thing, which we see cost Christ so much; which he estimated not with
gold or silver, but with his own blood;[251] so that Paul hesitates not
to assert, that his death is rendered vain, if we suffer our souls to be
in subjection to men.[252] For his sole object in some chapters of his
Epistle to the Galatians is to prove that Christ is obscured, or rather
abolished, with respect to us, unless our consciences continue in their
liberty; from which they are certainly fallen, if they can be insnared
in the bonds of laws and ordinances at the pleasure of men.[253] But as
it is a subject highly worthy of being understood, so it needs a more
diffuse and perspicuous explanation. For as soon as a word is mentioned
concerning the abrogation of human establishments, great tumults are
excited, partly by seditious persons, partly by cavillers; as though all
obedience of men were at once subverted and destroyed.

XV. To prevent any one from falling into this error, let us therefore
consider, in the first place, that man is under two kinds of
government—one spiritual, by which the conscience is formed to piety and
the service of God; the other political, by which a man is instructed in
the duties of humanity and civility, which are to be observed in an
intercourse with mankind. They are generally, and not improperly,
denominated the spiritual and the temporal jurisdiction; indicating that
the former species of government pertains to the life of the soul, and
that the latter relates to the concerns of the present state; not only
to the provision of food and clothing, but to the enactment of laws to
regulate a man’s life among his neighbours by the rules of holiness,
integrity, and sobriety. For the former has its seat in the interior of
the mind, whilst the latter only directs the external conduct: one may
be termed a spiritual kingdom, and the other a political one. But these
two, as we have distinguished them, always require to be considered
separately; and while the one is under discussion, the mind must be
abstracted from all consideration of the other. For man contains, as it
were, two worlds, capable of being governed by various rulers and
various laws. This distinction will prevent what the gospel inculcates
concerning spiritual liberty from being misapplied to political
regulations; as though Christians were less subject to the external
government of human laws, because their consciences have been set at
liberty before God; as though their freedom of spirit necessarily
exempted them from all carnal servitude. Again, because even in those
constitutions which seem to pertain to the spiritual kingdom, there may
possibly be some deception, it is necessary to discriminate between
these also; which are to be accounted legitimate, as according with the
Divine word, and which, on the contrary, ought not to be received among
believers. Of civil government I shall treat in another place. Of
ecclesiastical laws also I forbear to speak at present; because a full
discussion of them will be proper in the Fourth Book, where we shall
treat of the power of the Church. But we shall conclude the present
argument in the following manner: The question, which, as I have
observed, is in itself not very obscure or intricate, greatly perplexes
many, because they do not distinguish with sufficient precision between
the external jurisdiction and the court of conscience. The difficulty is
increased by Paul’s injunction to obey magistrates “not only for wrath,
but also for conscience’ sake;”[254] from which it should follow, that
the conscience also is bound by political laws. But if this were true,
it would supersede all that we have already said, or are now about to
say, respecting spiritual government. For the solution of this
difficulty, it will be of use, first, to know what conscience is. And
the definition of it must be derived from the etymology of the word. For
as, when men apprehend the knowledge of things in the mind and
understanding, they are thence said _scire_, “to know,” whence is
derived the word _scientia_, “science” or “knowledge;” so when they have
a sense of Divine justice, as an additional witness, which permits them
not to conceal their sins, or to elude accusation at the tribunal of the
supreme Judge, this sense is termed _conscientia_, “conscience.” For it
is a kind of medium between God and man; because it does not suffer a
man to suppress what he knows within himself, but pursues him till it
brings him to conviction. This is what Paul means by “their conscience
also bearing witness, and their thoughts accusing, or else excusing, one
another.”[255] Simple knowledge might remain, as it were, confined
within a man. This sentiment, therefore, which places man before the
Divine tribunal, is appointed, as it were, to watch over man, to observe
and examine all his secrets, that nothing may remain enveloped in
darkness. Hence the old proverb, Conscience is as a thousand witnesses.
For the same reason Peter speaks of “the answer of a good conscience
towards God,”[256] to express our tranquillity of mind, when, persuaded
of the favour of Christ, we present ourselves with boldness in the
presence of God. And the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews expresses
absolution or freedom from every future charge of sin, by “having no
more conscience of sin.”[257]

XVI. Therefore, as works respect men, so conscience regards God; so that
a good conscience is no other than inward integrity of heart. In which
sense Paul says, that “the end of the commandment is charity, out of a
pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned.”[258]
Afterwards also, in the same chapter, he shows how widely it differs
from understanding, saying, that “some, having put away a good
conscience, concerning faith have made shipwreck.”[259] For these words
indicate that it is a lively inclination to the service of God, and a
sincere pursuit of piety and holiness of life. Sometimes, indeed, it is
likewise extended to men; as when the same apostle declares, “Herein do
I exercise myself, to have always a conscience void of offence toward
God and toward men.”[260] But the reason of this assertion is, that the
fruits of a good conscience reach even to men. But in strict propriety
of speech it has to do with God alone, as I have already observed. Hence
it is that a law, which simply binds a man without relation to other
men, or any consideration of them, is said to bind the conscience. For
example, God not only enjoins the preservation of the mind chaste and
pure from every libidinous desire, but prohibits all obscenity of
language and external lasciviousness. The observance of this law is
incumbent on my conscience, though there were not another man existing
in the world. Thus he who transgresses the limits of temperance, not
only sins by giving a bad example to his brethren, but contracts guilt
on his conscience before God. Things in themselves indifferent are to be
guided by other considerations. It is our duty to abstain from them, if
they tend to the least offence, yet without violating our liberty of
conscience. So Paul speaks concerning meat consecrated to idols: “If any
man say unto you, This is offered in sacrifice to idols, eat not for
conscience’ sake; conscience, I say, not thine own, but of the
other.”[261] A pious man would be guilty of sin, who, being previously
admonished, should, nevertheless, eat such meat. But though, with
respect to his brother, abstinence is necessary for him, as it is
enjoined by God, yet he ceases not to retain liberty of conscience. We
see, then, how this law, though it binds the external action, leaves the
conscience free.

Footnote 225:

Ephes. i. 4. 1 Thess. iv. 3, 7.

Footnote 226:

Gal. iii. 13.

Footnote 227:

Gal. v. 1-4.

Footnote 228:

Deut. vi. 5.

Footnote 229:

Mal. iii. 17.

Footnote 230:

Heb. xi. 2.

Footnote 231:

Rom. vi. 14.

Footnote 232:

Rom. vi. 12, 13.

Footnote 233:

Rom. xiv. 14.

Footnote 234:

Rom. xiv. 22, 23.

Footnote 235:

1 Tim. iv. 5.

Footnote 236:

Titus i. 15.

Footnote 237:

Luke vi. 24, 25. Amos vi. 1, &c. Isaiah v. 8, &c.

Footnote 238:

Phil. iv. 11, 12.

Footnote 239:

Rom. xiv. 1, 13.

Footnote 240:

Rom. xv. 1, 2.

Footnote 241:

1 Cor. viii. 9.

Footnote 242:

1 Cor x. 25, 29, 32.

Footnote 243:

Gal. v. 13.

Footnote 244:

Matt. xv. 14.

Footnote 245:

Acts xvi. 3.

Footnote 246:

Gal. ii. 3.

Footnote 247:

1 Cor. ix. 19, 20, 22.

Footnote 248:

Gal. ii. 3-5.

Footnote 249:

1 Cor. x. 23, 24.

Footnote 250:

1 Cor. iii. 2.

Footnote 251:

1 Peter i. 18, 19.

Footnote 252:

Gal. v. 1, 4.

Footnote 253:

1 Cor. vii. 23.

Footnote 254:

Rom. xiii. 1, 5.

Footnote 255:

Rom. ii. 15.

Footnote 256:

1 Peter iii. 21.

Footnote 257:

Heb. x. 2.

Footnote 258:

1 Tim. i. 5.

Footnote 259:

1 Tim. i. 19.

Footnote 260:

Acts xxiv. 16.

Footnote 261:

1 Cor. x. 28, 29.

CHAPTER XX.
ON PRAYER, THE PRINCIPAL EXERCISE OF FAITH, AND THE MEDIUM OF OUR DAILY
RECEPTION OF DIVINE BLESSINGS.

From the subjects already discussed, we clearly perceive how utterly
destitute man is of every good, and in want of all the means of
salvation. Wherefore, if he seek for relief in his necessities, he must
go out of himself, and obtain it from some other quarter. It has been
subsequently stated, that the Lord voluntarily and liberally manifests
himself in his Christ, in whom he offers us all felicity instead of our
misery, and opulence instead of our poverty; in whom he opens to our
view the treasures of heaven, that our faith may be wholly engaged in
the contemplation of his beloved Son, that all our expectation may
depend upon him, and that in him all our hope may rest and be fully
satisfied. This, indeed, is that secret and recondite philosophy, which
cannot be extracted from syllogisms; but is well understood by those
whose eyes God has opened, that in his light they may see light. But
since we have been taught by faith to acknowledge, that whatever we want
for the supply of our necessities is in God and our Lord Jesus Christ,
in whom it has pleased the Father all the fulness of his bounty should
dwell, that we may all draw from it, as from a most copious fountain, it
remains for us to seek in him, and by prayers to implore of him, that
which we have been informed resides in him. Otherwise to know God as the
Lord and Giver of every good, who invites us to supplicate him, but
neither to approach him nor to supplicate him, would be equally
unprofitable, as for a man to neglect a treasure discovered to him
buried in the earth. Wherefore the apostle, to show that true faith
cannot but be engaged in calling upon God, has laid down this
order—that, as faith is produced by the gospel, so by faith our hearts
are brought to invoke the name of the Lord.[262] And this is the same as
he had a little before said, that the “Spirit of adoption,” who seals
the testimony of the gospel in our hearts, encourages our spirits, so
that they venture to pour out their desires before God, excite
“groanings that cannot be uttered,” and cry with confidence, “Abba,
Father.”[263] This last subject, therefore, having been before only
cursorily mentioned and slightly touched, requires now to be treated
more at large.

II. By means of prayer, then, we penetrate to those riches which are
reserved with our heavenly Father for our use. For between God and men
there is a certain communication; by which they enter into the sanctuary
of heaven, and in his immediate presence remind him of his promises, in
order that his declarations, which they have implicitly believed, may in
time of necessity be verified in their experience. We see, therefore,
that nothing is revealed to us, to be expected from the Lord, for which
we are not likewise enjoined to pray; so true is it, that prayer digs
out those treasures, which the gospel of the Lord discovers to our
faith. Now, the necessity and various utility of the exercise of prayer
no language can sufficiently explain. It is certainly not without reason
that our heavenly Father declares, that the only fortress of salvation
consists in invocation of his name; by which we call to our aid the
presence of his providence, which watches over all our concerns; of his
power, which supports us when weak and ready to faint; and of his
goodness, which receives us into favour, though miserably burdened with
sins; in which, finally, we call upon him to manifest his presence with
us in all his attributes. Hence our consciences derive peculiar peace
and tranquillity; for when the affliction which oppressed us is
represented to the Lord, we feel abundant composure even from this
consideration—that none of our troubles are concealed from him, whom we
know to possess both the greatest readiness and the greatest ability to
promote our truest interest.

III. But some will say, Does he not, without information, know both our
troubles and our necessities; so that it may appear unnecessary to
solicit him with our prayers, as if he were inattentive or sleeping,
till aroused by our voice? But such reasoners advert not to the Lord’s
end in teaching his people to pray; for he has appointed it not so much
for his own sake as for ours. It is his pleasure indeed, as is highly
reasonable, that his right be rendered to him, by their considering him
as the Author of all that is desired and found useful by men, and by
their acknowledgments of this in their prayers. But the utility of this
sacrifice, by which he is worshipped, returns to us. The greater the
confidence, therefore, with which the ancient saints gloried in the
Divine benefits to themselves and others, with so much the more
earnestness were they incited to pray. The single example of Elijah
shall suffice, who, though certain of God’s design, having already with
sufficient authority promised rain to king Ahab, yet anxiously prays
between his knees, and sends his servant seven times to look for
it;[264] not with an intention to discredit the Divine oracle, but under
a conviction of his duty to prevent his faith becoming languid and
torpid, by pouring out his prayers before God. Wherefore, although, when
we are stupid and insensible to our own miseries, he vigilantly watches
and guards us, and sometimes affords us unsolicited succour, yet it
highly concerns us assiduously to supplicate him, that our heart may be
always inflamed with a serious and ardent desire of seeking, loving, and
worshipping him, while we accustom ourselves in all our necessities to
resort to him as our sheet anchor. Further, that no desire or wish,
which we should be ashamed for him to know, may enter our minds; when we
learn to present our wishes, and so to pour out our whole heart in his
presence. Next, that we may be prepared to receive his blessings with
true gratitude of soul, and even with grateful acknowledgments; being
reminded by our praying that they come from his hand. Moreover, that
when we have obtained what we sought, the persuasion that he has
answered our requests may excite us to more ardent meditations on his
goodness, and produce a more joyful welcome of those things which we
acknowledge to be the fruits of our prayers. Lastly, that use and
experience itself may yield our minds a confirmation of his providence
in proportion to our imbecility, while we apprehend that he not only
promises never to forsake us, and freely opens a way of access for our
addressing him in the very moment of necessity; but that his hand is
always extended to assist his people, whom he does not feed with mere
words, but supports with present aid. On these accounts our most
merciful Father, though liable to no sleep or languor, yet frequently
appears as if he were sleepy or languid, in order to exercise us, who
are otherwise slothful and inactive, in approaching, supplicating, and
earnestly importuning him to our own advantage. It is extremely absurd,
therefore, in them who, with a view to divert the minds of men from
praying to God, pretend that it is useless for us by our interruptions
to weary the Divine Providence, which is engaged in the conservation of
all things; whereas the Lord declares, on the contrary, that he “is nigh
to all that call upon him in truth.”[265] And equally nugatory is the
objection of others, that it is superfluous to petition for those things
which the Lord is ready voluntarily to bestow; whereas even those very
things, which flow to us from his spontaneous liberality, he wishes us
to consider as granted to our prayers. This is evinced by that memorable
passage in the Psalms, as well as by many other correspondent
texts,—“The eyes of the Lord are upon the righteous, and his ears are
open unto their cry;”[266] which celebrates the Divine Providence as
spontaneously engaged to accomplish the salvation of believers; yet does
not omit the exercise of faith, by which sloth is expelled from the
minds of men. The eyes of God, then, are vigilant to succour the
necessity of the blind; but he is likewise willing to hear our groans,
to give a better proof of his love towards us. And thus it is equally
true, that “he that keepeth Israel neither slumbers nor sleeps,” and yet
that he remains, as it were, forgetful of us, while he beholds us
slothful and dumb.

IV. Now, for conducting prayer in a right and proper manner, the first
rule is, that our heart and mind be composed to a suitable frame,
becoming those who enter into conversation with God. This state of mind
we shall certainly attain, if, divested of all carnal cares and
thoughts, that tend to divert and seduce it from a right and clear view
of God, it not only devotes itself entirely to the solemn exercise, but
is likewise as far as possible elevated and carried above itself. Nor do
I here require a mind so disengaged as to be disturbed by no solicitude;
since there ought, on the contrary, most anxiously to be kindled within
us a fervency of prayer, (as we see the holy servants of God discover
great solicitude, and even anguish, when they say they utter their
complaints to the Lord from the deep abysses of affliction and the very
jaws of death.) But I maintain the necessity of dismissing all foreign
and external cares, by which the wandering mind may be hurried hither
and thither, and dragged from heaven down to earth. It ought to be
elevated above itself, that it may not intrude into the Divine presence
any of the imaginations of our blind and foolish reason, nor confine
itself within the limits of its own vanity, but rise to purity worthy of
God.

V. Both these things are highly worthy of observation—first, that
whoever engages in prayer, should apply all his faculties and attention
to it, and not be distracted, as is commonly the case, with wandering
thoughts; nothing being more contrary to a reverence for God than such
levity, which indicates a licentious spirit, wholly unrestrained by
fear. In this case our exertions must be great in proportion to the
difficulty we experience. For no man can be so intent on praying, but he
may perceive many irregular thoughts intruding on him, and either
interrupting, or by some oblique digression retarding, the course of his
devotions. But here let us consider what an indignity it is, when God
admits us to familiar intercourse with him, to abuse such great
condescension by a mixture of things sacred and profane, while our
thoughts are not confined to him by reverential awe; but as if we were
conversing with a mean mortal, we quit him in the midst of our prayer,
and make excursions on every side. We may be assured, therefore, that
none are rightly prepared for the exercise of prayer, but those who are
so affected by the Divine Majesty as to come to it divested of all
earthly cares and affections. And this is indicated by the ceremony of
lifting up the hands, that men may remember that they are at a great
distance from God, unless they lift up their thoughts on high. As it is
also expressed in the psalm, “Unto thee do I lift up my soul.”[267] And
the Scripture frequently uses this mode of expression, “to lift up one’s
prayer;” that they, who desire to be heard by God, may not sink into
lethargic inactivity. To sum up the whole, the greater the liberality of
God towards us, in gently inviting us to disburden ourselves of our
cares by casting them on him, the less excusable are we, unless his
signal and incomparable favour preponderate with us beyond every thing
else, and attract us to him in a serious application of all our
faculties and attention to the duty of prayer; which cannot be done
unless our mind by strenuous exertion rise superior to every impediment.
Our second proposition is, that we must pray for no more than God
permits. For though he enjoins us to pour out our hearts before
him,[268] yet he does not carelessly give the reins to affections of
folly and depravity; and when he promises to “fulfil the desire”[269] of
believers, he does not go to such an extreme of indulgence, as to
subject himself to their caprice. But offences against both these rules
are common and great; for most men not only presume, without modesty or
reverence, to address God concerning their follies, and impudently to
utter at his tribunal whatever has amused them in their reveries or
dreams, but so great is their folly or stupidity, that they dare to
obtrude upon God all their foulest desires, which they would be
exceedingly ashamed to reveal to men. Some heathens have ridiculed and
even detested this presumption, but the vice itself has always
prevailed; and hence it was that the ambitious chose Jupiter as their
patron; the avaricious, Mercury; the lovers of learning, Apollo and
Minerva; the warlike, Mars; and the libidinous, Venus; just as in the
present age (as I have lately hinted) men indulge a greater license to
their unlawful desires in their prayers, than if they were conversing in
a jocular manner with their equals. God suffers not his indulgence to be
so mocked, but asserts his power, and subjects our devotions to his
commands. Therefore we ought to remember this passage in John: “This is
the confidence that we have in him, that, if we ask any thing according
to his will, he heareth us.”[270] But as our abilities are very unequal
to such great perfection, we must seek some remedy to relieve us. As the
attention of the mind ought to be fixed on God, so it is necessary that
it should be followed by the affection of the heart. But they both
remain far below this elevation; or rather, to speak more consistently
with truth, they grow weary and fail in the ascent, or are carried a
contrary course. Therefore, to assist this imbecility, God gives us the
Spirit, to be the director of our prayers, to suggest what is right, and
to regulate our affections. For “the Spirit helpeth our infirmities; for
we know not what we should pray for as we ought; but the Spirit itself
maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered;”[271]
not that he really prays or groans; but he excites within us confidence,
desires, and sighs, to the conception of which our native powers were
altogether inadequate. Nor is it without reason that Paul terms those
“groanings,” which arise from believers under the influence of the
Spirit, “unutterable;” because they who are truly engaged in prayers,
are not ignorant that they are so perplexed with dubious anxieties, that
they can scarcely decide what it is expedient to utter; and even while
they are attempting to lisp, they stammer and hesitate; whence it
follows that the ability of praying rightly is a peculiar gift. These
things are not said in order that we may indulge our own indolence,
resigning the office of prayer to the Spirit of God, and growing torpid
in that negligence to which we are too prone; according to the impious
errors of some, that we should wait in indolent supineness till he call
our minds from other engagements and draw them to himself; but rather
that, wearied with our sloth and inactivity, we may implore such
assistance of the Spirit. Nor does the apostle, when he exhorts us to
“pray in the Holy Ghost,”[272] encourage us to remit our vigilance;
signifying, that the inspiration of the Spirit operates in the formation
of our prayers, so as not in the least to impede or retard our own
exertions; since it is the will of God to prove in this instance the
efficacious influence of faith on our hearts.

VI. Let this be the second rule: That in our supplications we should
have a real and permanent sense of our indigence, and seriously
considering our necessity of all that we ask, should join with the
petitions themselves a serious and ardent desire of obtaining them. For
multitudes carelessly recite a form of prayer, as though they were
discharging a task imposed on them by God; and though they confess that
this is a remedy necessary for their calamities, since it would be
certain destruction to be destitute of the Divine aid which they
implore, yet that they perform this duty merely in compliance with
custom, is evident from the coldness of their hearts, and their
inattention to the nature of their petitions. They are led to this by
some general and confused sense of their necessity, which nevertheless
does not excite them to implore a relief for their great need as a case
of present urgency. Now, what can we imagine more odious or execrable to
God than this hypocrisy, when any man prays for the pardon of sins, who
at the same time thinks he is not a sinner, or at least does not think
that he is a sinner? which is an open mockery of God himself. But such
depravity, as I have before observed, pervades the whole human race,
that as a matter of form they frequently implore of God many things
which they either expect to receive from some other source independent
of his goodness, or imagine themselves already to possess. The crime of
some others appears to be smaller, but yet too great to be tolerated;
who, having only imbibed this principle, that God must be propitiated by
devotions, mutter over their prayers without meditation. But believers
ought to be exceedingly cautious, never to enter into the presence of
God to present any petition, without being inflamed with a fervent
affection of soul, and feeling an ardent desire to obtain it from him.
Moreover, although in those things which we request only for the Divine
glory, we do not at the first glance appear to regard our own necessity,
yet it is incumbent on us to pray for them with equal fervour and
vehemence of desire. As when we pray that his name may be hallowed, or
sanctified, we ought (so to speak) ardently to hunger and thirst for
that sanctification.

VII. If any man object, that we are not always urged to pray by the same
necessity, this I grant, and this distinction is usefully represented to
us by James: “Is any among you afflicted? let him pray. Is any merry?
let him sing psalms.”[273] Common sense itself therefore dictates, that
because of our extreme indolence, we are the more vigorously stimulated
by God to earnestness in prayer according to the exigencies of our
condition. And this David calls “a time when God may be found,”[274]
because (as he teaches in many other places) the more severely we are
oppressed by troubles, disasters, fears, and other kinds of temptations,
we have the greater liberty of access to God, as though he then
particularly invited us to approach him. At the same time, it is equally
true that we ought to be, as Paul says, “praying always,”[275] because,
how great soever we may believe the prosperity of our affairs, and
though we are surrounded on every side by matter of joy, yet there is no
moment of time in which our necessity does not furnish incitements to
prayer. Does any one abound in wine and corn? Since he cannot enjoy a
morsel of bread but by the continual favour of God, his cellars or barns
afford no objection to his praying for daily bread. Now, if we reflect
how many dangers threaten us every moment, fear itself will teach us
that there is no time in which prayer is unsuitable to us. Yet this may
be discovered still better in spiritual concerns. For when will so many
sins, of which we are conscious, suffer us to remain in security,
without humbly deprecating both the guilt and the punishment? When will
temptations grant us a truce, so that we need not be in haste to obtain
assistance? Besides, an ardent desire of the Divine kingdom and glory
ought irresistibly to attract us, not by intervals, but without
intermission, rendering every season equally suitable. It is not in
vain, therefore, that assiduity in prayer is so frequently enjoined. I
speak not yet of perseverance, which shall be mentioned hereafter; but
the scriptural admonitions to “pray without ceasing” are so many
reproofs of our sloth; because we feel not our need of this care and
diligence. This rule precludes and banishes from prayer, hypocrisy,
subtilty, and falsehood. God promises that he will be near to all who
call upon him in truth, and declares he will be found by those who seek
him with their whole heart. But to this, persons pleased with their own
impurity never aspire. Legitimate prayer, therefore, requires
repentance. Whence it is frequently said in the Scriptures, that God
hears not the wicked, and that their prayers are an abomination; as are
also their sacrifices; for it is reasonable, that they who shut up their
own hearts, should find the ears of God closed against them; and God
should be inflexible to them who provoke his rigour by their obduracy.
In Isaiah, he threatens thus: “When ye make many prayers, I will not
hear: your hands are full of blood.”[276] Again in Jeremiah: “I
protested, yet they inclined not their ear. Therefore, though they shall
cry unto me, I will not hearken unto them.”[277] Because he considers
himself grossly insulted by the wicked boasting of his covenant, while
they are continually dishonouring his sacred name. Wherefore he
complains, in Isaiah, “This people draw near me with their mouth, but
have removed their heart far from me.”[278] He does not restrict this
solely to prayer; but asserts his abhorrence of hypocrisy in every
branch of his worship. Which is the meaning of this passage in James:
“Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may consume it
upon your lusts.”[279] It is true, indeed, (as we shall presently again
see,) that the prayers of the faithful depend not on their personal
worthiness; yet this does not supersede the admonition of John:
“Whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his
commandments;”[280] because an evil conscience shuts the gate against
us. Whence it follows, that none pray aright, and that no others are
heard, but the sincere worshippers of God. Whosoever therefore engages
in prayer, should be displeased with himself on account of his sins, and
assume, what he cannot do without repentance, the character and
disposition of a beggar.

VIII. To these must be added a third rule—That whoever presents himself
before God for the purpose of praying to him, must renounce every idea
of his own glory, reject all opinion of his own merit, and, in a word,
relinquish all confidence in himself, giving, by this humiliation of
himself, all the glory entirely to God; lest, arrogating any thing,
though ever so little, to ourselves, we perish from his presence in
consequence of our vanity. Of this submission, which prostrates every
high thought, we have frequent examples in the servants of God; of whom
the most eminent for holiness feel the greatest consternation on
entering into the presence of the Lord. Thus Daniel, whom the Lord
himself has so highly commended, said, “We do not present our
supplications before thee for our righteousness, but for thy great
mercies. O Lord, hear; O Lord, forgive; O Lord, hearken and do; defer
not, for thine own sake, O my God; for thy city and thy people are
called by thy name.”[281] Nor does he, as is generally the case,
confound himself with the multitude, as one of the people; but makes a
separate confession of his own guilt, resorting as a suppliant to the
asylum of pardon; as he expressly declares, “Whilst I was confessing my
sin, and the sin of my people.”[282] We are taught the same humility
also by the example of David: “Enter not into judgment with thy servant;
for in thy sight shall no man living be justified.”[283] In this manner
Isaiah prays: “Behold, thou art wroth; for we have sinned: in thy ways
is continuance, and we shall be saved. For we are all as an unclean
thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do
fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.
And there is none that calleth upon thy name, that stirreth up himself
to take hold of thee; for thou hast hid thy face from us, and hast
consumed us, because of our iniquities. But now, O Lord, thou art our
Father; we are the clay, and thou our potter; and we all are the work of
thy hand. Be not wroth very sore, O Lord, neither remember iniquity for
ever; behold, see, we beseech thee, we are all thy people.”[284]
Observe, they have no dependence but this; that considering themselves
as God’s children, they despair not of his future care of them. Thus
Jeremiah: “Though our iniquities testify against us, do thou it for thy
name’s sake.”[285] For that is equally consistent with the strictest
truth and holiness, which was written by an uncertain author, but is
ascribed to the prophet Baruch: “A soul sorrowful and desolate for the
greatness of its sin, bowed down and infirm, a hungry soul and fainting
eyes give glory to thee, O Lord. Not according to the righteousnesses of
our fathers do we pour out our prayers in thy sight, and ask mercy
before thy face, O Lord, our God; but because thou art merciful, have
mercy upon us, for we have sinned against thee.”[286]

IX. Finally, the commencement and even introduction to praying rightly
is a supplication for pardon with an humble and ingenuous confession of
guilt. For neither is there any hope that even the holiest of men can
obtain any blessing of God till he be freely reconciled to him, nor is
it possible for God to be propitious to any, but those whom he pardons.
It is no wonder, then, if believers with this key open to themselves the
gate of prayer; as we learn from many places in the Psalms. For David,
when requesting another thing, says, “Remember not the sins of my youth,
nor my transgressions: according to thy mercy remember thou me, for thy
goodness’ sake, O Lord.” Again: “Look upon mine affliction and my pain;
and forgive all my sins.”[287] Where we likewise perceive, that it is
not sufficient for us to call ourselves to a daily account for recent
sins, unless we remember those which might seem to have been long buried
in oblivion. For the same Psalmist, in another place,[288] having
confessed one grievous crime, takes occasion thence to revert to his
mother’s womb, where he had contracted his original pollution; not in
order to extenuate his guilt by the corruption of his nature, but that,
accumulating all the sins of his life, he may find God the more ready to
listen to his prayers in proportion to the severity of his
self-condemnation. But though the saints do not always in express terms
pray for remission of sins, yet if we diligently examine their prayers
recited in the Scriptures, it will easily appear, as I assert, that they
derived their encouragement to pray from the mere mercy of God, and so
always began by deprecating his displeasure; for if every man examine
his own conscience, he is so far from presuming familiarly to
communicate his cares to God, that he trembles at every approach to him,
except in a reliance on his mercy and forgiveness. There is also,
indeed, another special confession, when they wish for an alleviation of
punishments, which is tacitly praying for the pardon of their sins;
because it were absurd to desire the removal of an effect, while the
cause remains. For we must beware of imitating foolish patients, who are
only solicitous for the cure of the symptoms, but neglect the radical
cause of the disease. Besides, we should first seek for God to be
propitious to us, previously to any external testimonies of his favour;
because it is his own will to observe this order, and it would be of
little advantage to us to receive benefits from him, unless a discovery
to the conscience of his being appeased towards us rendered him
altogether amiable in our view. Of this we are likewise apprized by the
reply of Christ; for when he had determined to heal a paralytic person,
he said, “Thy sins be forgiven thee;”[289] thereby calling our attention
to that which ought to be the chief object of desire, that God may
receive us into his favour, and then, by affording us assistance,
discover the effect of reconciliation. But beside the special confession
of present guilt, in which believers implore the pardon of every sin and
the remission of every punishment, that general preface, which
conciliates a favourable attention to our prayers, is never to be
omitted; because, unless they be founded on God’s free mercy, they will
all be unavailing. To this topic we may refer that passage of John—“If
we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and
to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.”[290] Wherefore, under the law,
prayers are required to be consecrated by an atonement of blood, to
render them acceptable, and to remind the people that they were unworthy
of so great and honourable a privilege, till, purified from their
pollutions, they should derive confidence in prayer from the mere mercy
of God.

X. But when the saints sometimes appear to urge their own righteousness
as an argument in their supplications with God,—as when David says,
“Preserve my soul; for I am holy;”[291] and Hezekiah, “I beseech thee, O
Lord, remember now how I have walked before thee in truth, and have done
that which is good in thy sight,”[292]—their only design in such modes
of expression is, from their regeneration to prove themselves to be
servants and sons of God, to whom he declares he will be propitious. He
tells us by the Psalmist, (as we have already seen,) that “his eyes are
upon the righteous, and that his ears are open unto their cry;”[293] and
again, by the apostle, that “whatsoever we ask, we receive of him,
because we keep his commandments;”[294] in which passages he does not
determine the value of prayer according to the merit of works; but
intends by them to establish the confidence of those who are conscious
to themselves, as all believers ought to be, of unfeigned integrity and
innocence. For the observation in John, made by the blind man who
received his sight, that “God heareth not sinners,”[295] is a principle
of Divine truth, if we understand the word _sinners_, in the common
acceptation of Scripture, to signify those who are all asleep and
content in their sins, without any desire of righteousness; since no
heart can ever break out into a sincere invocation of God, unaccompanied
with aspirations after piety. To such promises, therefore, correspond
those declarations of the saints, in which they introduce the mention of
their own purity or innocence, that they may experience a manifestation
to themselves of what is to be expected by all the servants of God.
Besides, they are generally found in the use of this species of prayer,
when before the Lord they compare themselves with their enemies, from
whose iniquity they desire him to deliver them. Now, in this comparison,
we need not wonder, if they produce their righteousness and simplicity
of heart, in order to prevail upon him by the justice of their cause to
yield the more ready assistance. We object not, therefore, to the pious
heart of a good man making use before the Lord of the consciousness of
his own purity for his confirmation in the promises which the Lord has
given for the consolation and support of his true worshippers; but his
confidence of success we wish to be independent of every consideration
of personal merit, and to rest solely on the Divine clemency.

XI. The fourth and last rule is, That thus prostrate with true humility,
we should nevertheless be animated to pray by the certain hope of
obtaining our requests. It is indeed an apparent contradiction, to
connect a certain confidence of God’s favour with a sense of his
righteous vengeance; though these two things are perfectly consistent,
if persons oppressed by their own guilt be encouraged solely by the
Divine goodness. For as we have before stated, that repentance and
faith, of which one terrifies, and the other exhilarates, are
inseparably connected, so their union is necessary in prayer. And this
agreement is briefly expressed by David: “I will come (says he) into thy
house in the multitude of thy mercy; and in thy fear will I worship
toward thy holy temple.”[296] Under the “goodness of God,” he
comprehends faith, though not to the exclusion of fear; for his majesty
not only commands our reverence, but our own unworthiness makes us
forget all pride and security, and fills us with fear. I do not mean a
confidence which delivers the mind from all sense of anxiety, and
soothes it into pleasant and perfect tranquillity; for such a placid
satisfaction belongs to those whose prosperity is equal to their wishes,
who are affected by no care, corroded by no desire, and alarmed by no
fear. And the saints have an excellent stimulus to calling upon God,
when their necessities and perplexities harass and disquiet them, and
they are almost despairing in themselves, till faith opportunely
relieves them; because, amidst such troubles, the goodness of God is so
glorious in their view, that though they groan under the pressure of
present calamities, and are likewise tormented with the fear of greater
in future, yet a reliance on it alleviates the difficulty of bearing
them, and encourages a hope of deliverance. The prayers of a pious man,
therefore, must proceed from both these dispositions, and must also
contain and discover them both; though he must groan under present
evils, and is anxiously afraid of new ones, yet at the same time he must
resort for refuge to God, not doubting his readiness to extend the
assistance of his hand. For God is highly incensed by our distrust, if
we supplicate him for blessings which we have no expectation of
receiving. There is nothing, therefore, more suitable to the nature of
prayers, than that they be conformed to this rule—not to rush forward
with temerity, but to follow the steps of faith. To this principle
Christ calls the attention of us all in the following passage: “I say
unto you, What things soever ye desire, when ye pray, believe that ye
receive them, and ye shall have them.”[297] This he confirms also in
another place: “Whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall
receive.”[298] With which James agrees: “If any of you lack wisdom, let
him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not.
But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering.”[299] Where, by opposing
“faith” to “wavering,” he very aptly expresses its nature. And equally
worthy of attention is what he adds, that they avail nothing, who call
upon God in perplexity and doubt, and are uncertain in their minds
whether they shall be heard or not; whom he even compares to waves,
which are variously tossed and driven about with the wind. Whence he
elsewhere calls a legitimate prayer “the prayer of faith.”[300] Besides,
when God so frequently affirms, that he will give to every man according
to his faith, he implies that we can obtain nothing without faith.
Finally, it is faith that obtains whatever is granted in answer to
prayer. This is the meaning of that famous passage of Paul, to which
injudicious men pay little attention: “How shall they call on him, in
whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in him, of whom
they have not heard? So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the
word of God.”[301] For by a regular deduction of prayer originally from
faith, he evidently contends, that God cannot be sincerely invoked by
any, but those to whom his clemency and gentleness have been revealed
and familiarly discovered by the preaching of the gospel.

XII. This necessity our adversaries never consider. Therefore, when we
inculcate on believers a certain confidence of mind that God is
propitious and benevolent towards them, they consider us as advancing
the greatest of all absurdities. But if they were in the habit of true
prayer, they would certainly understand, that there can be no proper
invocation of God without such a strong sense of the Divine benevolence.
But since no man can fully discover the power of faith without an
experience of it in his heart, what advantage can arise from disputing
with such men, who plainly prove that they never had any other than a
vain imagination? For the value and necessity of that assurance which we
require, is chiefly learned by prayer; and he who does not perceive
this, betrays great stupidity of conscience. Leaving, then, this class
of blinded mortals, let us ever abide by the decision of Paul, that God
cannot be called upon, but by those who receive from the gospel a
knowledge of his mercy, and a certain persuasion that it is prepared for
them. For what kind of an address would this be? “O Lord, I am truly in
doubt, whether thou be willing to hear me; but since I am oppressed with
anxiety, I flee to thee, that if I be worthy thou mayest assist me.”
This does not resemble the solicitude of the saints, whose prayers we
read in the Scriptures. Nor is it agreeable to the teaching of the Holy
Spirit by the apostle, who commands us “to come boldly to the throne of
grace, that we may find grace;”[302] and informs us, that “we have
boldness and access, with confidence, by the faith of Christ.”[303] This
assurance of obtaining what we implore, therefore, which is both
commanded by the Lord himself, and taught by the example of the saints,
it becomes us to hold fast with all our might, if we would pray to any
good purpose. For that prayer alone is accepted by God, which arises (if
I may use the expression) from such a presumption of faith, and is
founded on an undaunted assurance of hope. He might, indeed, have
contented himself with the simple mention of “faith;” yet he has not
only added “confidence,” but furnished that confidence with liberty or
“boldness” to distinguish by this criterion between us and unbelievers,
who do indeed pray to God in common with us, but entirely at an
uncertainty. For which reason, the whole Church prays in the psalm, “Let
thy mercy, O Lord, be upon us, according as we hope in thee.”[304] The
Psalmist elsewhere introduces the same idea: “This I know; for God is
for me.”[305] Again: “In the morning will I direct my prayer unto thee,
and will look up.”[306] For from these words we gather, that prayers are
but empty sounds, if unattended by hope, from which, as from a
watch-tower, we quietly look out for God. With which corresponds the
order of Paul’s exhortation; for before exhorting believers to “pray
always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit,” he first directs
them to “take the shield of faith, the helmet of salvation, and the
sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.”[307] Now, let the reader
recollect, what I have before asserted, that faith is not at all
weakened by being connected with an acknowledgment of our misery,
poverty, and impurity. For believers feel themselves oppressed by a
grievous load of sins, while destitute of every thing which could
conciliate the favour of God, and burdened with much guilt, which might
justly render him an object of their dread; yet they cease not to
present themselves before him; nor does this experience terrify them
from resorting to him, since there is no other way of access to him. For
prayer was instituted, not that we might arrogantly exalt ourselves in
the presence of God, or form a high opinion of any thing of our own; but
that we might confess our guilt to him, and deplore our miseries with
the familiarity of children confiding their complaints to their parents.
The immense accumulation of our distresses should operate as so many
incitements to urge us to pray; as we are taught likewise by the example
of the Psalmist: “Heal my soul; for I have sinned against thee.”[308] I
confess, indeed, that the operation of such incentives would be fatal,
were it not for the Divine aid; but our most benevolent Father, in his
incomparable mercy, has afforded a timely remedy, that allaying all
perturbation, alleviating all cares, and dispelling all fears, he might
gently allure us to himself, and facilitate our approach to him, by the
removal of every obstacle and every doubt.

XIII. And in the first place, when he enjoins us to pray, the
commandment itself implies a charge of impious contumacy, if we disobey
it. No command can be more precise than that in the psalm: “Call upon me
in the day of trouble.”[309] But as the Scripture recommends no one of
the duties of piety more frequently, it is unnecessary to dwell any
longer upon it. “Ask, (says our Lord,) and it shall be given you; knock,
and it shall be opened unto you.”[310] To this precept, however, there
is also annexed a promise, which is very necessary; for though all men
acknowledge obedience to be due to a precept, yet the greater part of
them would neglect the calls of God, if he did not promise to be
propitious to them, and even to advance to meet them. These two
positions being proved, it is evident that all those who turn their
backs on God, or do not directly approach him, are not only guilty of
disobedience and rebellion, but also convicted of unbelief; because they
distrust the promises; which is the more worthy of observation, since
hypocrites, under the pretext of humility and modesty, treat the command
of God with such haughty contempt as to give no credit to his kind
invitation, and even defraud him of a principal part of his worship. For
after having refused sacrifices, in which all holiness then appeared to
consist, he declares the principal and most acceptable part of his
service to be, “calling upon him in the day of trouble.” Wherefore, when
he requires what is due to him, and animates us to a cheerful obedience,
there are no pretexts for diffidence or hesitation sufficiently specious
to excuse us. The numerous texts of Scripture, therefore, which enjoin
us to call upon God, are as so many banners placed before our eyes to
inspire us with confidence. It were temerity to rush into the presence
of God, without a previous invitation from him. He therefore opens a way
for us by his own word: “I will say, It is my people; and they shall
say, The Lord is my God.”[311] We see how he leads his worshippers, and
desires them to follow him; and therefore that there is no reason to
fear lest the melody, which he dictates, should not be agreeable to him.
Let us particularly remember this remarkable character of God, by a
reliance on which we shall easily surmount every obstacle: “O thou that
hearest prayer, unto thee shall all flesh come.”[312] For what is more
amiable or attractive than for God to bear this character, which assures
us, that nothing is more agreeable to his nature, than to grant the
requests of humble suppliants? Hence the Psalmist concludes that the way
is open, not to a few only, but to all men; because he addresses all in
these words: “Call upon me in the day of trouble: I will deliver thee,
and thou shalt glorify me.”[313] According to this rule, David, in order
to obtain his request, pleads the promise that had been given him:
“Thou, O Lord, hast revealed to thy servant—; therefore hath thy servant
found in his heart to pray.”[314] Whence we conclude that he would have
been fearful, had he not been encouraged by the promise. So in another
place he furnishes himself with this general doctrine: “He will fulfil
the desire of them that fear him.”[315] In the Psalms we may likewise
observe the connection of prayer as it were interrupted, and sudden
transitions made, sometimes to the power of God, sometimes to his
goodness, and sometimes to the truth of his promises. It might appear as
though David mutilated his prayers by an unseasonable introduction of
such passages; but believers know by experience, that the ardour of
devotion languishes, unless it be supported by fresh supplies; and
therefore a meditation on the nature and the word of God is far from
being useless in the midst of our prayers. Let us not hesitate, then, to
follow the example of David in the introduction of topics calculated to
reanimate languid souls with new vigour.

XIV. And it is wonderful that we are no more affected with promises so
exceedingly sweet; that the generality of men, wandering through a
labyrinth of errors, after having forsaken the fountain of living
waters, prefer hewing out for themselves cisterns incapable of
containing any water, to embracing the free offers of Divine goodness.
“The name of the Lord (says Solomon) is a strong tower: the righteous
runneth into it, and is safe.”[316] And Joel, after having predicted the
speedy approach of a dreadful destruction, adds this memorable sentence:
“Whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord, shall be delivered;”[317]
which we know properly refers to the course of the gospel. Scarcely one
man in a hundred is induced to advance to meet the Lord. He proclaims by
Isaiah, “Before they call, I will answer; and while they are yet
speaking, I will hear.”[318] And in another place he dignifies the whole
Church in general with the same honour; as it belongs to all the members
of Christ: “He shall call upon me, and I will answer him: I will be with
him in trouble: I will deliver him.”[319] As I have before said,
however, my design is not to enumerate all the texts, but to select the
most remarkable, from which we may perceive the condescending kindness
of God in inviting us to him, and the circumstances of aggravation
attending our ingratitude, while our indolence still lingers in the
midst of such powerful incitements. Wherefore let these words
perpetually resound in our ears: “The Lord is nigh unto all them that
call upon him, to all that call upon him in truth;”[320] as well as
those which we have cited from Isaiah and Joel; in which God affirms,
that he is inclined to hear prayers, and is delighted, as with a
sacrifice of a sweet savour, when we cast our cares upon him. We derive
this singular benefit from the Divine promises, when our prayers are
conceived without doubt or trepidation; but in reliance on his word,
whose majesty would otherwise terrify us, we venture to call upon him as
our Father, because he deigns to suggest to us this most delightful
appellation. Favoured with such invitations, it remains for us to know
that they furnish us with sufficient arguments to enforce our petitions;
since our prayers rest on no intrinsic merit; but all their worthiness,
as well as all our hope of obtaining our requests, is founded in, and
dependent upon, the Divine promises; so that there is no need of any
other support or further anxiety. Therefore we may be fully assured,
that though we equal not the sanctity so celebrated in holy patriarchs,
prophets, and apostles, yet, since the command to pray is common to us
as well as to them, and we are partakers of the same common faith, if we
rely on the Divine word, we are associated with them in this privilege.
For God’s declaration, (already noticed,) that he will be gentle and
merciful to all, gives all, even the most miserable, a hope of obtaining
the objects of their supplications; and therefore we should remark the
general forms of expression, by which no man, from the greatest to the
least, is excluded; only let him possess sincerity of heart,
self-abhorrence, humility, and faith; and let not our hypocrisy profane
the name of God by a pretended invocation of him; our most merciful
Father will not reject those whom he exhorts to approach him, and even
urges by every possible mode of solicitation. Hence the argument of
David’s prayer, just recited: “Thou, O Lord, hast revealed to thy
servant—; therefore hath thy servant found in his heart to pray this
prayer unto thee. And now, O Lord God, thou art that God, and thy words
be true, and thou hast promised this goodness unto thy servant:” begin
therefore and do it.[321] As also in another place: “Let thy kindness be
according to thy word unto thy servant.”[322] And all the Israelites
together, whenever they fortify themselves with a recollection of the
covenant, sufficiently declare that fear ought to be banished from our
devotions, because it is contrary to the Divine injunction; and in this
respect they imitated the examples of the patriarchs, particularly of
Jacob, who, after having confessed himself “not worthy of the least of
all the mercies” he had received from the hand of God, yet declares
himself animated to pray for still greater blessings, because God had
promised to grant them.[323] But whatever be the pretences of
unbelievers, for not applying to God under the pressure of every
necessity, for not seeking him or imploring his aid, they are equally
chargeable with defrauding him of the honour due to him, as if they had
fabricated for themselves new gods and idols; for by this conduct, they
deny him to be the Author of all their blessings. On the contrary, there
is nothing more efficacious to deliver believers from every scruple,
than this consideration, that no impediment ought to prevent their
acting according to the command of God, who declares that nothing is
more agreeable to him than obedience. These observations tend more fully
to elucidate what I have advanced before; that a spirit of boldness in
prayer is perfectly consistent with fear, reverence, and solicitude; and
that there is no absurdity in God’s exalting those who are abased. This
establishes an excellent agreement between those apparently repugnant
forms of expression. Both Jeremiah and Daniel use this phrase: “Make
prayers fall” before God; for so it is in the original.[324] Jeremiah
also: “Let our supplication fall before thee.”[325] Again: believers are
frequently said to “lift up their prayer.”[326] So says Hezekiah, when
requesting the prophet to intercede for him. And David desires that his
prayer may ascend “as incense.”[327] For though, under a persuasion of
God’s fatherly love, they cheerfully commit themselves to his
faithfulness, and hesitate not to implore the assistance he freely
promises, yet they are not impudently elated with careless security, but
ascend upwards by the steps of the promises, yet in such a manner, that
they still continue to be suppliant and self-abased.

XV. Here several questions are started. The Scripture relates that the
Lord has complied with some prayers, which nevertheless did not arise
from a calm or well-regulated heart. Jotham, for a just cause indeed,
but from the impulse of rage, resentment, and revenge, devoted the
inhabitants of Shechem to the destruction which afterwards fell upon
them:[328] the Lord, by fulfilling this curse, seems to approve of such
disorderly sallies of passion. Samson also was hurried away by similar
fervour when he said, “O Lord, strengthen me, that I may be avenged of
the Philistines.”[329] For though there was some mixture of honest zeal,
yet it was a violent, and therefore sinful, avidity of revenge which
predominated. God granted the request. Whence it seems deducible, that
prayers not conformable to the rules of the Divine word, are
nevertheless efficacious. I reply, first, that a permanent rule is not
annulled by particular examples; secondly, that peculiar emotions have
sometimes been excited in a few individuals, causing a distinction
between them and men in general. For the answer of Christ to his
disciples, who inconsiderately wished to emulate the example of Elias,
“that they knew not what spirit they were of,” is worthy of observation.
But we must remark, further, that God is not always pleased with the
prayers which he grants; but that, as far as examples are concerned,
there are undeniable evidences of the Scripture doctrine, that he
succours the miserable, and hears the groans of those who under the
pressure of injustice implore his aid; that he therefore executes his
judgments, when the complaints of the poor arise to him, though they are
unworthy of the least favourable attention. For how often, by punishing
the cruelty, rapine, violence, lust, and other crimes of the impious, by
restraining their audacity and fury, and even subverting their
tyrannical power, has he manifestly assisted the victims of unrighteous
oppression, though they have been beating the air with supplications to
an unknown God! And one of the Psalmists clearly teaches that some
prayers are not ineffectual, which nevertheless do not penetrate into
heaven by faith.[330] For he collects those prayers which necessity
naturally extorts from unbelievers as well as from believers, but to
which the event shows God to be propitious. Does he by such
condescension testify that they are acceptable to him? No; he designs to
amplify or illustrate his mercy by this circumstance, that even the
requests of unbelievers are not refused; and likewise to stimulate his
true worshippers to greater diligence in prayer, while they see that
even the lamentations of the profane are not unattended with advantage.
Yet there is no reason why believers should deviate from the rule given
them by God, or envy unbelievers, as though they had made some great
acquisition when they have obtained the object of their wishes. In this
manner we have said that the Lord was moved by the hypocritical
penitence of Ahab, in order to prove by this example how ready he is to
grant the prayers of his own elect, when they seek reconciliation with
him by true conversion. Therefore in the Psalms he expostulates with the
Jews, because, after having experienced his propitiousness to their
prayers, they had almost immediately returned to their native
perverseness.[331] It is evident, also, from the history of the Judges,
that whenever they wept, though their tears were hypocritical, yet they
were delivered from the hands of their enemies. As the Lord, therefore,
“maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good,”[332]
promiscuously, so he despises not the lamentations of those whose cause
is just, and whose afflictions deserve relief. At the same time his
attention to them is no more connected with salvation, than his
furnishing food to the despisers of his goodness. The question relative
to Abraham and Samuel is attended with more difficulty; the former of
whom prayed for the inhabitants of Sodom without any Divine direction,
and the latter for Saul even contrary to a plain prohibition.[333] The
same is the case of Jeremiah, who deprecated the destruction of the
city.[334] For though they suffered a repulse, yet it seems harsh to
deny them to have been under the influence of faith. But the modest
reader will, I hope, be satisfied with this solution; that mindful of
the general principles by which God enjoins them to be merciful even to
the unworthy, they were not entirely destitute of faith, though in a
particular instance their opinion may have disappointed them. Augustine
has somewhere this judicious observation: “How do the saints pray in
faith, when they implore of God that which is contrary to his decrees?
It is because they pray according to his will, not that hidden and
immutable will, but that with which he inspires them, that he may hear
them in a different way, as he wisely discriminates.” This is an
excellent remark; because, according to his incomprehensible designs, he
so regulates the events of things, that the prayers of the saints, which
contain a mixture of faith and error, are not in vain. Yet this no more
affords an example for imitation, than a sufficient plea to excuse the
saints themselves, whom I admit to have transgressed the bounds of duty.
Wherefore, when no certain promise can be found, we should present our
supplications to God in a conditional way; which is implied in this
petition of David: “Awake to the judgment that thou hast
commanded;”[335] because he suggests that he was directed by a
particular revelation to pray for a temporal blessing.

XVI. It will also be of use to remark, that the things I have delivered
concerning the four rules for praying aright, are not required by God
with such extreme rigour as to cause the rejection of all prayers, in
which he does not find a perfection of faith or repentance, united with
ardent zeal and well-regulated desires. We have said, that although
prayer is a familiar intercourse between God and pious men, yet
reverence and modesty must be preserved, that we may not give a loose to
all our wishes, nor even in our desires exceed the Divine permission;
and to prevent the majesty of God being lessened in our view, our minds
must be raised to a pure and holy veneration of him. This no man has
ever performed with the purity required; for, to say nothing of the
multitude, how many complaints of David savour of intemperance of
spirit! not that he would designedly remonstrate with God, or murmur at
his judgments; but he faints in consequence of his infirmity, and finds
no better consolation than to pour his sorrows into the Divine bosom.
Moreover, God bears with our lisping, and pardons our ignorance,
whenever any inconsiderate expressions escape us; and certainly without
this indulgence there could be no freedom of prayer. But though it was
David’s intention to submit himself wholly to the Divine will, and his
patience in prayer was equal to his desire of obtaining his requests,
yet we sometimes perceive the appearance and ebullition of turbulent
passions, very inconsistent with the first rule we have laid down. We
may discover, particularly from the conclusion of the thirty-ninth
psalm, with what vehemence of grief this holy man was hurried away
beyond all the bounds of propriety. “O spare me (says he) before I go
hence, and be no more.”[336] One might be ready to say, that the man,
being in despair, desires nothing but the removal of God’s hand, that he
may putrefy in his own iniquities and miseries. He does not intend to
rush into intemperance of language, or, as is usual with the reprobate,
desire God to depart from him; he only complains that he cannot bear the
Divine wrath. In these temptations, also, the saints often drop
petitions, not sufficiently conformable to the rule of God’s word, and
without due reflection on what is right and proper. All prayers polluted
with these blemishes deserve to be rejected; yet if the saints mourn,
correct themselves, and return to themselves again, God forgives them.
Thus they offend likewise against the second rule; because they
frequently have to contend with their own indifference; nor do their
poverty and misery sufficiently incite them to seriousness of devotion.
Now, their minds frequently wander, and are almost absorbed in vanity;
and they also need pardon in this respect, lest languid, or mutilated,
or interrupted and desultory prayers should meet with a repulse. God has
naturally impressed the minds of men with a conviction that prayers
require to be attended with an elevation of heart. Hence the ceremony of
elevating the hands, as before observed, which has been common in all
ages and nations, and still continues; but where is the person, who,
while lifting up the hands, is not conscious of dulness, because his
heart cleaves to the earth? As to praying for the remission of sins,
though none of the faithful omit this article, yet they who have been
truly engaged in prayers, perceive that they scarcely offer the tenth
part of the sacrifices mentioned by David: “The sacrifices of God are a
broken spirit; a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not
despise.”[337] Thus they have always to pray for a twofold forgiveness;
both because they are conscious of many transgressions, with which they
are not so deeply affected as to be sufficiently displeased with
themselves, and as they are enabled to advance in repentance and the
fear of God, humbled with just sorrow for their offences, they deprecate
the vengeance of the Judge. But above all, the weakness or imperfection
of their faith would vitiate the prayers of believers, were it not for
the Divine indulgence; but we need not wonder that this defect is
forgiven by God, who frequently exercises his children with severe
discipline, as if he fully designed to annihilate their faith. It is a
very sharp temptation, when believers are constrained to cry, “How long
wilt thou be angry against the prayer of thy people?”[338] as though
even their prayers were so many provocations of Divine wrath. So when
Jeremiah says, “God shutteth out my prayer,”[339] he was undoubtedly
agitated with severe trouble. Innumerable examples of this kind occur in
the Scriptures, from which it appears that the faith of the saints is
often mingled and agitated with doubts, so that amidst the exercises of
faith and hope, they nevertheless betray some remains of unbelief; but
since they cannot attain all that is to be wished, it becomes them to be
increasingly diligent, in order that, correcting their faults, they may
daily make nearer approaches to the perfect rule of prayer, and at the
same time to consider into what an abyss of evils they must have been
plunged, who even in their very remedies contract new diseases; since
there is no prayer which God would not justly disdain, if he did not
overlook the blemishes with which they are all deformed. I mention these
things, not that believers may securely forgive themselves any thing
sinful, but that, by severely correcting themselves, they may strive to
surmount these obstacles; and that, notwithstanding the endeavours of
Satan to obstruct them in all their ways, with a view to prevent them
from praying, they may nevertheless break through all opposition,
certainly persuaded, that, though they experience many impediments, yet
God is pleased with their efforts, and approves of their prayers,
provided they strenuously aim at that which they do not immediately
attain.

XVII. But since there is no one of the human race worthy to present
himself to God, and to enter into his presence, our heavenly Father
himself, to deliver us at once from shame and fear, which might justly
depress all our minds, has given us his Son Jesus Christ our Lord to be
our Advocate and Mediator with him;[340] introduced by whom we may
boldly approach him, confident, with such an Intercessor, that nothing
we ask in his name will be denied us, as nothing can be denied to him by
his Father. And to this must be referred all that we have hitherto
advanced concerning faith; because, as the promise recommends Christ to
us as the Mediator, so, unless our hope of success depend on him, it
deprives itself of all the benefit of prayer. For as soon as we reflect
on the terrible majesty of God, we cannot but be exceedingly afraid, and
driven away from him by a consciousness of our unworthiness, till we
discover Christ as the Mediator, who changes the throne of dreadful
glory into a throne of grace; as the apostle also exhorts us to “come
boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find
grace to help in time of need.”[341] And as there is a rule given for
calling upon God, as well as a promise that they shall be heard who call
upon him, so we are particularly enjoined to invoke him in the name of
Christ; and we have an express promise, that what we ask in his name we
shall obtain. “Hitherto (says he) ye have asked nothing in my name: ask,
and ye shall receive. At that day ye shall ask in my name; and
whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may
be glorified in the Son.”[342] Hence it is plain beyond all controversy,
that they who call upon God in any other name than that of Christ, are
guilty of a contumacious neglect of his precepts, and a total disregard
of his will; and that they have no promise of any success. For, as Paul
says of Christ, “All the promises of God in him are yea, and in him
amen;” that is, are confirmed and fulfilled.[343]

XVIII. And we must carefully remark the circumstance of the time when
Christ commands his disciples to apply to his intercession, which was to
be after his ascension to heaven; “At that day (says he) ye shall ask in
my name.” It is certain that from the beginning no prayers had been
heard but for the sake of the Mediator. For this reason the Lord had
appointed in the law, that the priest alone should enter the sanctuary,
bearing on his shoulders the names of the tribes of Israel and the same
number of precious stones before his breast; but that the people should
stand without in the court, and there unite their prayers with those of
the priest.[344] The use of the sacrifice was to render their prayers
effectual. The meaning, therefore, of that shadowy ceremony of the law
was, that we are all banished from the presence of God, and therefore
need a mediator to appear in our name, to bear us on his shoulders, and
bind us to his breast, that we may be heard in his person; and,
moreover, that the sprinkling of his blood purifies our prayers, which
have been asserted to be otherwise never free from defilement. And we
see that the saints, when they wished to obtain any thing by prayer,
founded their hope on the sacrifices; because they knew them to be the
confirmations of all their prayers. David says, “The Lord remember all
thy offerings, and accept thy burnt-sacrifice.”[345] Hence we conclude,
that God has from the beginning been appeased by the intercession of
Christ, so as to accept the devotions of believers. Why, then, does
Christ assign a new period, when his disciples shall begin to pray in
his name, but because this grace, being now become more illustrious,
deserves to be more strongly recommended to us? In this same sense he
had just before said, “Hitherto ye have asked nothing in my name;
ask.”[346] Not that they were totally unacquainted with the office of
the Mediator, (since all the Jews were instructed in these first
principles,) but because they did not yet clearly understand that
Christ, on his ascension to heaven, would be more evidently the advocate
of the Church than he was before. Therefore, to console their sorrow for
his absence with some signal advantage, he claims the character of an
advocate, and teaches them that they have hitherto wanted the principal
benefit, which it shall be given them to enjoy, when they shall call
upon God with greater freedom in a reliance on his intercession; as the
apostle says that this new way is consecrated by his blood.[347] So much
the more inexcusable is our perverseness, unless we embrace with the
greatest alacrity such an inestimable benefit, which is particularly
destined for us.

XIX. Moreover, since he is the only way of access by which we are
permitted to approach God, to them who deviate from this road, and
desert this entrance, there remains no other way of access to God, nor
any thing on his throne but wrath, judgment, and terror. Finally, since
the Father has appointed him to be our Head and Leader, they who in any
respect decline or turn aside from him, endeavour, as far as they can,
to deface and obliterate a character impressed by God. Thus Christ is
appointed as the one Mediator, by whose intercession the Father is
rendered propitious and favourable to us. The saints have likewise their
intercessions, in which they mutually commend each other’s interests to
God, and which are mentioned by the apostle;[348] but these are so far
from detracting any thing from the intercession of Christ, that they are
entirely dependent on it. For as they arise from the affection of love,
reciprocally felt by us towards each other as members of one body, so
likewise they are referred to the unity of the Head. Being made also in
the name of Christ, what are they but a declaration, that no man can be
benefited by any prayers at all, independently of Christ’s intercession?
And as the intercession of Christ is no objection to our mutually
pleading for each other, in our prayers in the Church, so let it be
considered as a certain maxim, that all the intercessions of the whole
Church should be directed to that principal one. We ought to beware of
ingratitude particularly on this head, because God, pardoning our
unworthiness, not only permits us to pray each one for himself, but even
admits us as intercessors for one another. For, when those who richly
deserve to be rejected, if they should privately pray each for himself,
are appointed by God as advocates of his Church, what pride would it
betray to abuse this liberality to obscure the honour of Christ!

XX. Now, the cavil of the sophists is quite frivolous, that Christ is
the Mediator of redemption, but believers of intercession; as if Christ,
after performing a temporary mediation, had left to his servants that
which is eternal and shall never die. They who detract so diminutive a
portion of honour from him, treat him, doubtless, very favourably. But
the Scripture, with the simplicity of which a pious man, forsaking these
impostors, ought to be contented, speaks very differently; for when John
says, “If any man sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus
Christ,”[349] does he only mean that he has been heretofore an Advocate
for us, or does he not rather ascribe to him a perpetual intercession?
What is intended by the assertion of Paul, that he “is even at the right
hand of God, and also maketh intercession for us?”[350] And when he
elsewhere calls him the “one Mediator between God and man,” does he not
refer to prayers, which he has mentioned just before?“[351] For having
first asserted that intercessions should be made for all men, he
immediately adds, in confirmation of that idea, that all have one God
and one Mediator. Consistent with which is the explanation of Augustine,
when he thus expresses himself: “Christian men in their prayers mutually
recommend each other to the Divine regard. That person, for whom no one
intercedes, while he intercedes for all, is the true and only Mediator.
The apostle Paul, though a principal member under the Head, yet because
he was a member of the body of Christ, and knew the great and true High
Priest of the Church had entered, not typically, into the recesses
within the veil, the holy of holies, but truly and really into the
interior recesses of heaven, into a sanctuary not emblematical, but
eternal,—Paul, I say, recommends himself to the prayers of believers.
Neither does he make himself a mediator between God and the people, but
exhorts all the members of the body of Christ mutually to pray for one
another; since the members have a mutual solicitude for each other; and
if one member suffers, the rest sympathize with it. And so should the
mutual prayers of all the members, who are still engaged in the labours
of the present state, ascend on each other’s behalf to the Head, who is
gone before them into heaven, and who is the propitiation for our sins.
For if Paul were a mediator, the other apostles would likewise sustain
the same character; and so there would be many mediators; and Paul’s
argument could not be supported, when he says, ‘For there is one God,
and one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; in whom we
also are one, if we keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.’”
Again, in another place: “But if you seek a priest, he is above the
heavens, where he now intercedes for you, who died for you on earth.”
Yet we do not dream that he intercedes for us in suppliant prostration
at the Father’s feet; but we apprehend, with the apostle, that he
appears in the presence of God for us in such a manner, that the virtue
of his death avails as a perpetual intercession for us; yet so as that,
being entered into the heavenly sanctuary, he continually, till the
consummation of all things, presents to God the prayers of his people,
who remain, as it were, at a distance in the court.

XXI. With respect to the saints who are dead in the flesh, but live in
Christ, if we attribute any intercession to them, let us not imagine
that they have any other way of praying to God than by Christ, who is
the only way, or that their prayers are accepted by God in any other
name. Therefore, since the Scripture calls us away from all others to
Christ alone,—since it is the will of our heavenly Father to gather
together all things in him,—it would be a proof of great stupidity, not
to say insanity, to be so desirous of procuring an admission by the
saints, as to be seduced from him, without whom they have no access
themselves. But that this has been practised in some ages, and is now
practised wherever Popery prevails, who can deny? Their merits are
frequently obtruded to conciliate the Divine favour; and in general
Christ is totally neglected, and God is addressed through their names.
Is not this transferring to them that office of exclusive intercession,
which we have before asserted to be peculiar to Christ? Again, who,
either angel or demon, ever uttered to any of the human race a syllable
concerning such an intercession as they pretend? for the Scripture is
perfectly silent respecting any such thing. What reason, then, was there
for its invention? Certainly, when the human mind thus seeks assistances
for itself, in which it is not warranted by the word of God, it
evidently betrays its want of faith. Now, if we appeal to the
consciences of all the advocates for the intercession of saints, we
shall find that the only cause of it is, an anxiety in their minds, as
if Christ could fail of success, or be too severe in this business. By
which perplexity they, in the first place, dishonour Christ, and rob him
of the character of the only Mediator, which, as it has been given by
the Father as his peculiar prerogative, ought therefore not to be
transferred to any other. And by this very conduct they obscure the
glory of his nativity, and frustrate the benefit of his cross; in a
word, they divest and defraud him of the praise which is due to him for
all his actions and all his sufferings; since the end of them all is,
that he may really be, and be accounted, the sole Mediator. They at the
same time reject the goodness of God, who exhibits himself as their
Father; for he is not a father to them, unless they acknowledge Christ
as their brother. Which they plainly deny, unless they believe
themselves to be the objects of his fraternal affection, than which
nothing can be more mild or tender. Wherefore the Scripture offers him
alone to us, sends us to him, and fixes us in him. “He,” says Ambrose,
“is our mouth, with which we address the Father; our eye, by which we
behold the Father; our right hand, by which we present ourselves to the
Father. Without whose mediation, neither we, nor any of all the saints,
have the least intercourse with God.” If they reply, that the public
prayers in the churches are finished by this conclusion, “through Christ
our Lord,” it is a frivolous subterfuge; because the intercession of
Christ is not less profaned when it is confounded with the prayers and
merits of the dead, than if it were wholly omitted, and the dead alone
mentioned. Besides, in all their litanies, both verse and prose, where
every honour is ascribed to dead saints, there is no mention of Christ.

XXII. But their folly rises to such a pitch, that we have here a
striking view of the genius of superstition, which, when it has once
shaken off the reins, places in general no limits to its excursions. For
after men had begun to regard the intercession of saints, they by
degrees gave to each his particular attributes, so that sometimes one,
sometimes another, might be invoked as intercessor, according to the
difference of the cases; then they chose each his particular saint, to
whose protection they committed themselves as to the care of tutelary
gods. Thus they not only set up (as the prophet anciently accused
Israel) gods according to the number of their cities,[352] but even
according to the multitude of persons. But, since the saints refer all
their desires solely to the will of God, and observe it, and acquiesce
in it, he must entertain foolish and carnal, and even degrading thoughts
of them, who ascribes to them any other prayer, than that in which they
pray for the advent of the kingdom of God; very remote from which is
what they pretend concerning them—that every one of them is disposed by
a private affection more particularly to regard his own worshippers. At
length multitudes fell even into horrid sacrilege, by invoking them, not
as subordinate promoters, but as principal agents, in their salvation.
See how low wretched mortals fall, when they wander from their lawful
station, the word of God. I omit the grosser monstrosities of impiety,
for which, though they render them detestable to God, angels, and men,
they do not yet feel either shame or grief. Prostrate before the statue
or picture of Barbara, Catharine, and others, they mutter _Pater
Noster_, “Our Father.” This madness the pastors are so far from
endeavouring to remedy or to restrain, that, allured by the charms of
lucre, they approve and applaud it. But though they attempt to remove
from themselves the odium of so foul a crime, yet what plea will they
urge in defence of this, that Eligius and Medardus are supplicated to
look down from heaven on their servants, and to assist them? and the
holy Virgin to command her Son to grant their petitions? It was
anciently forbidden at the Council of Carthage, that at the altar any
prayers should be made directly to the saints; and it is probable that,
when those holy men could not wholly subdue the force of depraved
custom, they imposed this restraint, that the public prayers might not
be deformed by this phrase, “Saint Peter, pray for us.” But to how much
greater lengths of diabolical absurdity have they proceeded, who
hesitate not to transfer to dead men what exclusively belongs to God and
Christ!

XXIII. But when they attempt to make this intercession appear to be
founded on the authority of Scripture, they labour in vain. We
frequently read, they say, of the prayers of angels; and not only so,
but the prayers of believers are said to be carried by their hands into
the presence of God. But if they would compare saints deceased to
angels, they ought to prove that they are the ministering spirits who
are delegated to superintend the concerns of our salvation, whose
province it is to keep us in all our ways, who surround us, who advise
and comfort us, who watch over us; all of which offices are committed to
angels, but not to departed saints.[353] How preposterously they include
dead saints with angels, fully appears from so many different functions,
by which the Scripture distinguishes some from others. No man will
presume, without previous permission, to act the part of an advocate
before an earthly judge: whence, then, have worms so great a license to
obtrude on God as intercessors those who are not recorded to have been
appointed to that office? God has been pleased to appoint the angels to
attend to our salvation, whence they frequent the sacred assemblies, and
the Church is to them a theatre, in which they admire the various and
“manifold wisdom of God.”[354] Those who transfer to others that which
is peculiar to them, certainly confound and pervert the order
established by God, which ought to be inviolable. With equal dexterity
they proceed to cite other testimonies. God said to Jeremiah, “Though
Moses and Samuel stood before me, yet my mind could not be toward this
people.”[355] How, they say, could he thus have spoken concerning
persons deceased, unless he knew that they were accustomed to intercede
for the living? But I, on the contrary, deduce this conclusion—That
since it appears that neither Moses nor Samuel interceded for the
Israelites, there was then no intercession of the dead. For who of the
saints must we believe to be concerned for the salvation of the people,
when this ceases to be the case with Moses, who far surpassed all others
in this respect while alive? But if they pursue such minute subtleties,
that the dead intercede for the living, because the Lord has said,
“Though they interceded,” I shall argue, with far greater plausibility,
in this manner—In the people’s extreme necessity, no intercession was
made by Moses, of whom it is said, Though he interceded. Therefore it is
highly probable, that no intercession is made by any other, since they
are all so far from possessing the gentleness, kindness, and paternal
solicitude of Moses. This is indeed the consequence of their cavilling,
that they are wounded with the same weapons with which they thought
themselves admirably defended. But it is very ridiculous, that a plain
sentence should be so distorted; only because the Lord declares that he
will not spare the crimes of the people, even though their cause had
been pleaded by Moses or Samuel, to whose prayers he had shown himself
so very propitious. This idea is very clearly deduced from a similar
passage of Ezekiel—“Though these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were
in the land, they should deliver but their own souls by their
righteousness, saith the Lord God;”[356] where he undoubtedly meant to
signify, if two of them should return to life again; for the third was
then alive, namely, Daniel, who is well known to have given an
incomparable specimen of his piety, even in the flower of his youth. Let
us then leave them, whom the Scripture clearly shows to have finished
their course. Therefore Paul, when speaking of David, does not say that
he assists posterity by his prayers, but only that “he served his own
generation.”[357]

XXIV. They further object—Shall we then divest them of every benevolent
wish, who through the whole course of their lives breathed only
benevolence and mercy? Truly, as I do not wish too curiously to inquire
into their actions or thoughts, so it is by no means probable that they
are agitated by the impulse of particular wishes, but rather that with
fixed and permanent desires they aspire after the kingdom of God; which
consists no less in the perdition of the impious, than in the salvation
of believers. If this be true, their charity also is comprehended within
the communion of the body of Christ, and extends no further than the
nature of that communion permits. But though I grant that in this
respect they pray for us, yet they do not therefore relinquish their own
repose, to be distracted with earthly cares; and much less are they
therefore to be the objects of our invocation. Neither is it a necessary
consequence of this, that they must imitate the conduct of men on earth
by mutually praying for one another. For this conduces to the
cultivation of charity among them, while they divide, as it were,
between them, and reciprocally bear their mutual necessities. And in
this, indeed, they act according to God’s precept, and are not destitute
of his promise; which two are always the principal points in prayer. No
such considerations have any relation to the dead; whom when the Lord
has removed from our society, he has left us no intercourse with them,
nor them, indeed, as far as our conjectures can reach, any with us.[358]
But if any one plead, that they cannot but retain the same charity
towards us, as they are united with us by the same faith, yet who has
revealed that they have ears long enough to reach our voices, and eyes
so perspicacious as to watch over our necessities? They talk in the
schools of I know not what refulgence of the Divine countenance
irradiating them, in which, as in a mirror, they behold from heaven the
affairs of men. But to affirm this, especially with the presumption with
which they dare to assert it, what is it but an attempt, by the
infatuated dreams of our own brains, forcibly to penetrate into the
secret appointments of God, without the authority of his word, and to
trample the Scripture under our feet? which so frequently pronounces our
carnal wisdom to be hostile to the wisdom of God; totally condemns the
vanity of our mind; and directs all our reason to be laid in the dust,
and the Divine will to be the sole object of our regard.

XXV. The other testimonies of Scripture which they adduce in defence of
this false doctrine, they distort with the greatest perverseness. But
Jacob (they say) prays that his own name, and the name of his fathers,
Abraham and Isaac, might be named on his posterity.[359] Let us first
inquire the form of this naming, or calling on their names, among the
Israelites; for they do not invoke their fathers to assist them; but
they beseech God to remember his servants Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
Their example, therefore, is no vindication of those who address the
saints themselves. But as these stupid mortals understand neither what
it is to name the name of Jacob, nor for what reason it should be named,
we need not wonder that they so childishly err even in the form itself.
This phraseology more than once occurs in the Scriptures. For Isaiah
says, that the name of the husband is “called upon” the wife who lives
under his care and protection. The naming or calling, therefore, of the
name of Abraham upon the Israelites, consists in their deducing their
genealogy from him, and revering and celebrating his memory as their
great progenitor. Neither is Jacob actuated by a solicitude for
perpetuating the celebrity of his name, but by a knowledge that all the
happiness of his posterity consisted in the inheritance of that covenant
which God had made with him: and perceiving that this would be the
greatest of all blessings to them, he prays that they may be numbered
among his children; which is only transmitting to them the succession of
the covenant. They, on their part, when they introduce the mention of
this in their prayers, do not recur to the intercessions of the dead,
but put the Lord in remembrance of his covenant, in which their most
merciful Father has engaged to be propitious and beneficent to them, for
the sake of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. How little the saints depended in
any other sense on the merits of their fathers, is evinced by the public
voice of the Church in the prophet: “Thou art our Father, though Abraham
be ignorant of us, and Israel acknowledge us not: thou, O Lord, art our
Father, our Redeemer.”[360] And when they thus express themselves, they
add at the same time, “O Lord, return, for thy servants’ sake;” yet not
entertaining a thought of any intercession, but adverting to the
blessing of the covenant. But now, since we have the Lord Jesus, in
whose hand the eternal covenant of mercy is not only made but confirmed
to us,—whose name should we rather plead in our prayers? And since these
good doctors contend that the patriarchs are in these words represented
as intercessors, I wish to be informed by them, why, in such a vast
multitude, no place, not even the lowest among them, is allotted to
Abraham, the father of the Church? From what vile source they derive
their advocates, is well known. Let them answer me by proving it right,
that Abraham, whom God has preferred to all others, and elevated to the
highest degree of honour, should be neglected and suppressed. The truth
is, that since this practice was unknown in the ancient Church, they
thought proper, in order to conceal its novelty, to be silent respecting
the ancient fathers; as though the difference of names were a valid
excuse for a recent and corrupt custom. But the objection urged by some,
that God is entreated to have mercy on the people for the sake of David,
is so far from supporting their error, that it is a decisive refutation
of it. For if we consider the character sustained by David, he is
selected from the whole company of the saints, that God may fulfil the
covenant which he made with him; so that it refers to the covenant,
rather than to the person, and contains a figurative declaration of the
sole intercession of Christ. For it is certain that what was peculiar to
David, as being a type of Christ, is inapplicable to any others.

XXVI. But it seems that some are influenced by the frequent declarations
which we read, that the prayers of the saints are heard. Why? Truly
because they have prayed. “They cried unto thee,” says the Psalmist,
“and were delivered; they trusted in thee, and were not
confounded.”[361] Therefore, let us likewise pray after their example,
that we may obtain a similar audience. But these men preposterously
argue, that none will be heard but such as have been once already heard.
How much more properly does James say, “Elias was a man subject to like
passions as we are, and he prayed earnestly that it might not rain; and
it rained not on the earth by the space of three years and six months.
And he prayed again, and the heaven gave rain, and the earth brought
forth her fruit.”[362] What! does he infer any peculiar privilege of
Elias, to which we should have recourse? Not at all; but he shows the
perpetual efficacy of pure and pious prayer, to exhort us to pray in a
similar manner. For we put a mean construction on the promptitude and
benignity of God in hearing them, unless we be encouraged by such
instances to a firmer reliance on his promises; in which he promises to
hear, not one or two, or even a few, but all who call upon his name. And
this ignorance is so much the less excusable, because they appear almost
professedly to disregard so many testimonies of Scripture. David
experienced frequent deliverances by the Divine power; was it that he
might arrogate it to himself, in order to deliver us by his
interposition? He makes some very different declarations: “The righteous
shall compass me about; for thou shalt deal bountifully with me.”[363]
Again: “They looked unto him, and were lightened; and their faces were
not ashamed. This poor man cried, and the Lord heard him, and saved him
out of all his troubles.”[364] The Psalms contain many such prayers, in
which he implores God to grant his requests from this consideration,
that the righteous may not be put to shame, but may be encouraged by his
example to entertain a good hope. Let us be contented at present with
one instance: “For this shall every one that is godly pray unto thee in
a time when thou mayest be found;”[365] a text which I have the more
readily cited, because the hireling and cavilling advocates of Popery
have not been ashamed to plead it to prove the intercession of the dead.
As though David had any other design than to show the effect which would
proceed from the Divine clemency and goodness when his prayers should be
heard. And in general it must be maintained, that an experience of the
grace of God, both to ourselves and to others, affords no small
assistance to confirm our faith in his promises. I do not recite
numerous passages, where he proposes to himself the past blessings of
God as a ground of present and future confidence, since they will
naturally occur to those who peruse the Psalms. Jacob by his example had
long before taught the same lesson: “I am not worthy of the least of all
the mercies, and of all the truth, which thou hast showed unto thy
servant; for with my staff I passed over this Jordan; and now I am
become two bands.”[366] He mentions the promise indeed, but not alone;
he likewise adds the effect, that he may in future confide with the
greater boldness in the continuance of the Divine goodness towards him.
For God is not like mortals, who grow weary of their liberality, or
whose wealth is exhausted; but is to be estimated by his own nature, as
is judiciously done by David, when he says, “Thou hast redeemed me, O
Lord God of truth.”[367] After ascribing to him the praise of his
salvation, he adds, that he is a God of truth; because, unless he were
perpetually and uniformly consistent with himself, there could not be
derived from his benefits a sufficient argument for confiding in him,
and praying to him. But when we know that every act of assistance, which
he affords us, is a specimen and proof of his goodness and faithfulness,
we shall have no reason to fear lest our hopes be confounded or our
expectations disappointed.

XXVII. Let us conclude this argument in the following manner: Since the
Scripture represents the principal part of Divine worship to be an
invocation of God, as he, in preference to all sacrifices, requires of
us this duty of piety, no prayer can without evident sacrilege be
directed to any other. Wherefore also the Psalmist says, “If we have
stretched out our hands to a strange god, shall not God search this
out?”[368] Besides, since God will only be invoked in faith, and
expressly commands prayers to be conformed to the rule of his word;
finally, since faith founded on the word is the source of true
prayer,—as soon as the least deviation is made from the word, there must
necessarily be an immediate corruption of prayer. But it has been
already shown, that if the whole Scripture be consulted, this honour is
there claimed for God alone. With respect to the office of intercession,
we have also seen, that it is peculiar to Christ, and that no prayer is
acceptable to God, unless it be sanctified by this Mediator. And though
believers mutually pray to God for their brethren, we have proved that
this derogates nothing from the sole intercession of Christ; because
they all commend both themselves and others to God in a reliance upon
it. Moreover we have argued, that this is injudiciously applied to the
dead, of whom we nowhere read that they are commanded to pray for us.
The Scripture frequently exhorts us to the mutual performance of this
duty for each other; but concerning the dead there is not even a
syllable; and James, by connecting these two things, “Confess your
faults one to another, and pray one for another,” tacitly excludes the
dead.[369] Wherefore, to condemn this error, this one reason is
sufficient, that right prayer originates in faith, and that faith is
produced by hearing the word of God, where there is no mention of this
fictitious intercession; for the temerity of superstition has chosen
itself advocates, who were not of Divine appointment. For whilst the
Scripture abounds with many forms of prayer, there is not to be found an
example of this advocacy, without which the Papists believe there can be
no prayer at all. Besides, it is evident that this superstition has
arisen from a want of faith, because they either were not content with
Christ as their intercessor, or entirely denied him this glory. The
latter of these is easily proved from their impudence; for they adduce
no argument more valid to show that we need the mediation of the saints,
than when they object that we are unworthy of familiar access to God.
Which indeed we acknowledge to be strictly true; but we thence conclude,
that they rob Christ of every thing, who consider his intercession as
unavailing without the assistance of George and Hippolytus, and other
such phantasms.

XXVIII. But though prayer is properly restricted to wishes and
petitions, yet there is so great an affinity between petition and
thanksgiving, that they may be justly comprehended under the same name.
For the species which Paul enumerates, fall under the first member of
this division. In requests and petitions we pour out our desires before
God, imploring those things which tend to the propagation of his glory
and the illustration of his name, as well as those benefits which
conduce to our advantage. In thanksgiving we celebrate his beneficence
towards us with due praises, acknowledging all the blessings we have
received as the gifts of his liberality. Therefore David has connected
these two parts together: “Call upon me in the day of trouble: I will
deliver thee, and thou shalt glorify me.”[370] The Scripture, not
without reason, enjoins us the continual use of both; for we have
elsewhere said that our want is so great, and experience itself
proclaims that we are molested and oppressed on every side with such
numerous and great perplexities, that we all have sufficient cause for
unceasing sighs, and groans, and ardent supplications to God. For though
they enjoy a freedom from adversity, yet the guilt of their sins, and
the innumerable assaults of temptation, ought to stimulate even the most
eminent saints to pray for relief. But of the sacrifice of praise and
thanksgiving there can be no interruption, without guilt; since God
ceases not to accumulate on us his various benefits, according to our
respective cases, in order to constrain us, inactive and sluggish as we
are, to the exercise of gratitude. Finally, we are almost overwhelmed
with such great and copious effusions of his beneficence; we are
surrounded, whithersoever we turn our eyes, by such numerous and amazing
miracles of his hand, that we never want matter of praise and
thanksgiving. And to be a little more explicit on this point, since all
our hopes and all our help are in God, (which has already been
sufficiently proved,) so that we cannot enjoy prosperity, either in our
persons or in any of our affairs, without his benediction,—it becomes us
assiduously to commend to him ourselves and all our concerns. Further,
whatever we think, speak, or act, let all our thoughts, words, and
actions be under his direction, subject to his will, and finally in hope
of his assistance. For the curse of God is denounced on all, who
deliberate and decide on any enterprise in a reliance on themselves or
on any other, who engage in or attempt to begin any undertaking
independently of his will, and without invoking his aid. And since it
has already been several times observed, that he is justly honoured when
he is acknowledged to be the Author of all blessings, it thence follows
that they should all be so received from his hand, as to be attended
with unceasing thanksgiving; and that there is no other proper method of
using the benefits which flow to us from his goodness, but by continual
acknowledgments of his praise, and unceasing expressions of our
gratitude. For Paul, when he declares that they are “sanctified by the
word of God and prayer,” at the same time implies, that they are not at
all holy and pure to us without the word and prayer;[371] the word being
metonymically used to denote faith. Wherefore David, after experiencing
the goodness of the Lord, beautifully declares, “He hath put a new song
in my mouth;”[372] in which he certainly implies that we are guilty of a
criminal silence, if we omit to praise him for any benefit; since, in
every blessing he bestows on us, he gives us additional cause to bless
his name. Thus also Isaiah, proclaiming the unparalleled grace of God,
exhorts believers to a new and uncommon song.[373] In which sense David
elsewhere says, “O Lord, open thou my lips; and my mouth shall show
forth thy praise.”[374] Hezekiah likewise, and Jonah, declare that the
end of their deliverance shall be to sing the Divine goodness in the
temple.[375] David prescribes the same general rule for all the saints.
“What shall I render (says he) unto the Lord for all his benefits
towards me? I will take the cup of salvation, and call upon the name of
the Lord.”[376] And this is followed by the Church in another psalm:
“Save us, O Lord our God, to give thanks unto thy holy name, and to
triumph in thy praise.”[377] Again: “He will regard the prayer of the
destitute, and not despise their prayer. This shall be written for the
generation to come; and the people which shall be created shall praise
the Lord. To declare the name of the Lord in Zion, and his praise in
Jerusalem.”[378] Moreover, whenever believers entreat the Lord to do any
thing “for his name’s sake,” as they profess themselves unworthy to
obtain any blessing on their own account, so they lay themselves under
an obligation to thanksgiving; and promise that the Divine beneficence
shall be productive of this proper effect on them, even to cause them to
celebrate its fame. Thus Hosea, speaking of the future redemption of the
Church, addresses the Lord: “Take away all iniquity, and receive us
graciously; so will we render the calves of our lips.”[379] Nor do the
Divine blessings only claim the praises of the tongue, but naturally
conciliate our love. “I love the Lord (says David) because he hath heard
my voice and my supplications.”[380] In another place also, enumerating
the assistances he had experienced, “I will love thee, O Lord, my
strength.”[381] Nor will any praises ever please God, but such as flow
from this ardour of love. We must likewise remember the position of
Paul, that all petitions, to which thanksgiving is not annexed, are
irregular and faulty. For thus he speaks: “In every thing by prayer and
supplication with thanksgiving, let your requests be made known unto
God.”[382] For since moroseness, weariness, impatience, pungent sorrow
and fear, impel many to mutter petitions, he enjoins such a regulation
of the affections, that believers may cheerfully bless God, even before
they have obtained their requests. If this connection ought to exist in
circumstances apparently adverse, God lays us under a still more sacred
obligation to sing his praises, whenever he grants us the enjoyment of
our wishes. But as we have asserted that our prayers, which had
otherwise been defiled, are consecrated by the intercession of Christ,
so the apostle, when he exhorts us “by Christ to offer the sacrifice of
praise,”[383] admonishes us that our lips are not sufficiently pure to
celebrate the name of God, without the intervention of the priesthood of
Christ. Whence we infer, how prodigious must be the fascination of the
Papists, the majority of whom wonder that Christ is called an Advocate.
This is the reason why Paul directs to “pray without ceasing,” and “in
every thing to give thanks;”[384] because he desires that all men, with
all possible assiduity, at every time and in every place, and in all
circumstances and affairs, may direct their prayers to God, expecting
all from him, and ascribing to him the praise of all, since he affords
us perpetual matter of prayer and praise.

XXIX. But this diligence in prayer, although it chiefly respects the
particular and private devotions of each individual, has,
notwithstanding, some reference also to the public prayers of the
Church. But these cannot be unceasing, nor ought they to be conducted
otherwise than according to the polity which is appointed by the common
consent. This, indeed, I confess. For therefore also certain hours are
fixed and prescribed, though indifferent with God, yet necessary to the
customs of men, that the benefit of all may be regarded, and all the
affairs of the Church be administered, according to the direction of
Paul, “decently and in order.”[385] But this by no means prevents it
from being the duty of every Church often to stimulate themselves to a
greater frequency of prayer, and also to be inflamed with more ardent
devotion on the pressure of any necessity unusually great. But the place
to speak of perseverance, which is nearly allied to unceasing diligence,
will be towards the end. Moreover these things afford no encouragement
to those vain repetitions which Christ has chosen to interdict us;[386]
for he does not forbid us to pray long or frequently, or with great
fervour of affection; but he forbids us to confide in our ability to
extort any thing from God by stunning his ears with garrulous loquacity,
as though he were to be influenced by the arts of human persuasion. For
we know that hypocrites, who do not consider that they are concerned
with God, are as pompous in their prayers as in a triumph. For that
Pharisee, who thanked God that he was not like other men,[387]
undoubtedly flattered himself in the eyes of men, as if he wished to
gain by his prayer the reputation of sanctity. Hence that βαττολογια
(_vain repetition_) which from a similar cause at present prevails among
the Papists; while some vainly consume the time by reiterating the same
oraisons, and others recommend themselves among the vulgar by a tedious
accumulation of words. Since this garrulity is a puerile mocking of God,
we need not wonder that it is prohibited in the Church, that nothing may
be heard there but what is serious, and proceeds from the very heart.
Very similar to this corrupt practice is another, which Christ condemns
at the same time; that hypocrites, for the sake of ostentation, seek
after many witnesses of their devotions, and rather pray in the
market-place, than that their prayers should want the applause of the
world. But as it has been already observed that the end of prayer is to
elevate our minds towards God, both in a confession of his praise and in
a supplication of his aid, we may learn from this that its principal
place is in the mind and heart; or, rather, that prayer itself is the
desire of the inmost heart, which is poured out and laid before God the
searcher of hearts. Wherefore our heavenly Teacher, as has already been
mentioned, when he intended to deliver the best rule respecting prayer,
gave the following command: “Enter into thy closet, and when thou hast
shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father
which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.”[388] For when he has
dissuaded from imitating the example of hypocrites, who endeavoured by
the ambitious ostentation of their prayers to gain the favour of men, he
immediately adds a better direction, which is, to enter into our closet,
and there to pray with the door shut. In which words, as I understand
them, he has taught us to seek retirement, that we may be enabled to
descend into our own hearts, with all our powers of reflection, and
promised us that God, whose temples our bodies ought to be, will accede
to the desires of our souls. For he did not intend to deny the
expediency of praying also in other places; but shows that prayer is a
kind of secret thing, which lies principally in the heart, and requires
a tranquillity of mind undisturbed by all cares. It was not without
reason, therefore, that the Lord himself, when he would engage in an
unusual vehemence of devotion, retired to some solitary place, far from
the tumult of men; but with a view to admonish us by his own example,
that we ought not to neglect these helps, by which our hearts, naturally
too inconstant, are more intensely fixed on the devotional exercise. But
notwithstanding, as he did not refrain from praying even in the midst of
a multitude, if at any time the occasion required it, so we, in all
places where it may be necessary, should “lift up holy hands.”[389] And
so it is to be concluded, that whoever refuses to pray in the solemn
assembly of the saints, knows nothing of private prayer, either solitary
or domestic. And again, that he who neglects solitary and private
prayer, how sedulously soever he may frequent the public assemblies,
only forms there such as are mere wind, because he pays more deference
to the opinion of men than to the secret judgment of God. In the mean
time, that the common prayers of the Church might not sink into
contempt, God anciently distinguished them by splendid titles,
especially when he called the temple a “house of prayer.”[390] For by
this expression he taught both that the duty of prayer is a principal
part of his worship, and that the temple had been erected as a standard
for believers, in order that they might engage in it with one consent.
There was also added a remarkable promise: “Praise waiteth for thee, O
God, in Sion; and unto thee shall the vow be performed;”[391] in which
words the Psalmist informs us that the prayers of the Church are never
in vain, because the Lord supplies his people with perpetual matter of
praise and joy. But though the legal shadows have ceased, yet since it
has been the Divine will by this ceremony to maintain a unity of faith
among us also, the same promise undoubtedly belongs to us, Christ having
confirmed it with his own mouth, and Paul having represented it as
perpetually valid.

XXX. Now, as God in his word commands believers to unite in common
prayers, so also it is necessary that public temples be appointed for
performing them; where they who refuse to join with the people of God in
their devotions, have no just reason for abusing this pretext, that they
enter into their closets, in obedience to the Divine mandate. For he who
promises to grant whatever shall be implored by two or three persons
convened in his name,[392] proves that he is far from despising prayers
offered in public; provided they be free from ostentation and a desire
of human applause, and accompanied with a sincere and real affection
dwelling in the secret recesses of the heart. If this be the legitimate
use of temples, as it certainly is, there is need of great caution, lest
we either consider them as the proper habitations of the Deity, where he
may be nearer to us to hear our prayers,—an idea which has begun to be
prevalent for several ages,—or ascribe to them I know not what
mysterious sanctity, which might be supposed to render our devotions
more holy in the Divine view. For since we are ourselves the true
temples of God, we must pray within ourselves, if we wish to invoke him
in his holy temple. But let us, who are directed to worship the Lord “in
spirit and in truth,”[393] without any difference of place, relinquish
those gross ideas of religion to the Jews or pagans. There was, indeed,
anciently a temple dedicated, by Divine command, to the oblation of
prayers and sacrifices: at that time the truth was figuratively
concealed under such shadows; but now, having been plainly discovered to
us, it no longer permits an exclusive attachment to any material temple.
Nor, indeed, was the temple recommended to the Jews that they might
enclose the Divine presence within its walls, but that they might be
employed in contemplating a representation of the true temple. Therefore
Isaiah and Stephen have sharply reprehended those who suppose that God
dwells in any respect “in temples made with hands.”[394]

XXXI. Hence it is moreover clearly evident, that neither voice nor
singing, if used in prayer, has any validity, or produces the least
benefit with God, unless it proceed from the inmost desire of the heart.
But they rather provoke his wrath against us, if they be only emitted
from the lips and throat; since that is an abuse of his sacred name, and
a derision of his majesty; as we conclude from the words of Isaiah,
which, though their meaning be more extensive, contain also a reproof of
this offence: “The Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near me with
their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their
heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of
men,—therefore, behold, I will proceed to do a marvellous work among
this people, even a marvellous work and a wonder; for the wisdom of
their wise men shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent men
shall be hid.”[395] Nor do we here condemn the use of the voice, or
singing, but rather highly recommend them, provided they accompany the
affection of the heart. For they exercise the mind in Divine meditation,
and fix the attention of the heart; which by its lubricity and
versatility is easily relaxed and distracted to a variety of objects,
unless it be supported by various helps. Besides, as the glory of God
ought in some respect to be manifested in every part of our bodies, to
this service, both in singing and in speaking, it becomes us especially
to addict and devote our tongues, which were created for the express
purpose of declaring and celebrating the Divine praises. Nevertheless
the principal use of the tongue is in the public prayers which are made
in the congregations of believers; the design of which is, that with one
common voice, and as it were with the same mouth, we may all at once
proclaim the glory of God, whom we worship in one spirit and with the
same faith; and this is publicly done, that all interchangeably, each
one of his brother, may receive the confession of faith, and be invited
and stimulated by his example.

XXXII. Now, the custom of singing in churches (to speak of it by the
way) not only appears to be very ancient, but that it was even used by
the apostles, may be concluded from these words of Paul: “I will sing
with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also.”[396]
Again, to the Colossians: “Teaching and admonishing one another in
psalms, and hymns, and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your
hearts to the Lord.”[397] For in the former passage he inculcates
singing with the voice and with the heart; and in the latter he
recommends spiritual songs, which may conduce to the mutual edification
of the saints. Yet that it was not universal is proved by Augustine, who
relates that in the time of Ambrose, the church at Milan first adopted
the practice of singing, when, during the persecution of the orthodox
faith by Justina, the mother of Valentinian, the people were unusually
assiduous in their vigils; and that the other Western churches followed.
For he had just before mentioned that this custom had been derived from
the churches of the East. He signifies also, in the second book of his
Retractations, that in his time it was received in Africa. “One Hilary,
(says he,) who held the tribunitial office, took every opportunity of
loading with malicious censures the custom which was then introduced at
Carthage, that hymns from the Book of Psalms should be sung at the
altar, either before the oblation, or while that which had been offered
was distributed to the people. In obedience to the commands of my
brethren, I answered him.” And certainly if singing be attempered to
that gravity which becomes the presence of God and of angels, it adds a
dignity and grace to sacred actions, and is very efficacious in exciting
the mind to a true concern and ardour of devotion. Yet great caution is
necessary, that the ears be not more attentive to the modulation of the
notes, than the mind to the spiritual import of the words. With which
danger Augustine confesses himself to have been so affected, as
sometimes to have wished for the observance of the custom instituted by
Athanasius, who directed that the reader should sound the words with
such a gentle inflection of voice, as would be more nearly allied to
rehearsing than to singing. But when he recollected the great benefit
which himself had received from singing, he inclined to the other side.
With the observance, therefore, of this limitation, it is without doubt
an institution of great solemnity and usefulness. As, on the reverse,
whatever music is composed only to please and delight the ear, is
unbecoming the majesty of the Church, and cannot but be highly
displeasing to God.

XXXIII. Hence also it plainly appears, that public prayers are to be
composed, not in Greek among the Latins, nor in Latin among the French
or English, as has hitherto been universally practised; but in the
vernacular tongue, which may be generally understood by the whole
congregation; for it ought to be conducted to the edification of the
whole Church, to whom not the least benefit can result from sounds which
they do not understand. But they who disregard the voice both of charity
and of humanity, ought at least to discover some little respect for the
authority of Paul, whose words are free from all ambiguity: “When thou
shalt bless with the Spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the
unlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not
what thou sayest? For thou verily givest thanks well, but the other is
not edified.”[398] Who, then, can sufficiently wonder at the unbridled
license of the Papists, who, notwithstanding this apostolic caution
against it, are not afraid to bellow their verbose prayers in a foreign
language, of which they neither sometimes understand a syllable
themselves, nor wish a syllable to be understood by others! But Paul
directs to a different practice: “What is it then? (says he) I will pray
with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will
sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also.”[399]
Signifying by the word _spirit_ the peculiar gift of tongues, which was
abused by some of its possessors, when they separated it from
understanding. Thus it must be fully admitted, that both in public and
in private prayer, the tongue, unaccompanied by the heart, cannot but be
highly displeasing to God; and likewise that the mind ought to be
incited, in the ardour of meditation, to rise to a much higher elevation
than can ever be attained by the expression of the tongue; lastly, that
the tongue is indeed not necessary to private prayer, any further than
as the mind is insufficient to arouse itself, or as the vehemence of its
emotions irresistibly carries the tongue along with them. For though
some of the best prayers are not vocal, yet it is very common, under
strong emotions, for the tongue to break forth into sounds, and the
other members into gestures, without the least ostentation. Hence the
uncertain muttering of Hannah,[400] somewhat similar to which is
experienced by the saints in all ages, when they break forth into abrupt
and imperfect sounds. The corporeal gestures usually observed in prayer,
such as kneeling and uncovering the head, are customs designed to
increase our reverence of God.

XXXIV. Now, we must learn not only a certain rule, but also the form of
praying; even that which our heavenly Father has given us by his beloved
Son;[401] in which we may recognize his infinite goodness and clemency.
For beside advising and exhorting us to seek him in all our necessities,
as children, whenever they are afflicted with any distress, are
accustomed to have recourse to the protection of their parents; seeing
that we did not sufficiently perceive how great was our poverty, what it
was right to implore, or what would be suitable to our condition, he has
provided a remedy even for this our ignorance, and abundantly supplied
the deficiencies of our capacity. For he has prescribed for us a form,
in which he gives a statement of all that it is lawful to desire of him,
all that is conducive to our benefit, and all that it is necessary to
ask. From this kindness of his, we derive great consolation in the
persuasion that we pray for nothing absurd, nothing injurious or
unseasonable; in a word, nothing but what is agreeable to him; since our
petitions are almost in his own words. Plato, observing the ignorance of
men in presenting their supplications to God, which if granted were
frequently very detrimental to them, pronounces this to be the best
method of praying, borrowed from an ancient poet: “King Jupiter, give us
those things which are best, whether we pray for them or not; but
command evil things to remain at a distance from us, even though we
implore them.” And indeed the wisdom of that heathen is conspicuous in
this instance, since he considers it as very dangerous to supplicate the
Lord to gratify all the dictates of our appetites; and at the same time
discovers our infelicity, who cannot, without danger, even open our
mouths in the presence of God, unless we be instructed by the Spirit in
the right rule of prayer.[402] And this privilege deserves to be the
more highly valued by us, since the only begotten Son of God puts words
into our mouths, which may deliver our minds from all hesitation.

XXXV. This form or rule of prayer, whichever appellation be given to it,
is composed of six petitions. For my reason for not agreeing with those
who divide it into seven parts is, that the Evangelist appears, by the
insertion of the adversative conjunction, to connect together these two
clauses; as though he had said, Suffer us not to be oppressed with
temptation, but rather succour our weakness, and deliver us, that we may
not fall. The ancient writers of the Church also are of our opinion; so
that what is now added in Matthew in the seventh place, must be
explained as belonging to the sixth petition. Now, though the whole
prayer is such, that in every part of it the principal regard must be
paid to the glory of God, yet to this the first three petitions are
particularly devoted, and to this alone we ought to attend in them,
without any consideration of our own interest. The remaining three
concern ourselves, and are expressly assigned to supplications for those
things which tend to our benefit. As when we pray that God’s name may be
hallowed, since he chooses to prove whether our love and worship of him
be voluntary, or dictated by mercenary motives, we must then think
nothing of our own interest, but his glory must be proposed as the only
object of our fixed attention; nor is it lawful for us to be differently
affected in the other petitions of this class. And this indeed conduces
to our great benefit; because, when the Divine name is hallowed or
sanctified as we pray, it becomes likewise our sanctification. But our
eyes should overlook, and be, as it were, blind to such advantage, so as
not to pay the least regard to it. And even if we were deprived of all
hope of private benefit, yet this hallowing, and the other things which
pertain to the glory of God, ought still to be the objects of our
desires and of our prayers. This is conspicuous in the examples of Moses
and Paul,[403] who felt a pleasure in averting their minds and eyes from
themselves, and in praying with vehement and ardent zeal for their own
destruction, that they might promote the kingdom and glory of God even
at the expense of their own happiness. On the other hand, when we pray
that our daily bread may be given us, although we wish for what is
beneficial to ourselves, yet here also we ought principally to aim at
the glory of God, so as not even to ask it, unless it tend to his glory.
Now, let us attempt an explanation of the prayer itself.

XXXVI. OUR FATHER, WHO ART IN HEAVEN, &c. The first idea that occurs is,
what we have before asserted, that we ought never to present a prayer to
God but in the name of Christ, since no other name can recommend it to
his regard. For by calling God our Father, we certainly plead the name
of Christ. For with what confidence could any one call God his Father?
who could proceed to such a degree of temerity, as to arrogate to
himself the dignity of a son of God, if we had not been adopted as the
children of his grace in Christ? who, being his true Son, has been given
by him to us as our brother, that the character which properly belongs
to him by nature, may become ours by the blessing of adoption, if we
receive this inestimable favour with a steady faith; as John says, that
to them is given “power to become the sons of God, even to them that
believe on the name of the only begotten of the Father.”[404] Therefore
he denominates himself our Father, and wishes us to give him the same
appellation; delivering us from all diffidence by the great sweetness of
this name, since the affection of love can nowhere be found in a
stronger degree than in the heart of a father. Therefore he could not
give us a more certain proof of his infinite love towards us, than by
our being denominated the sons of God. But his love to us is as much
greater and more excellent than all the love of our parents, as he is
superior to all men in goodness and mercy;[405] so that though all the
fathers in the world, divested of every emotion of paternal affection,
should leave their children destitute, he will never forsake us, because
“he cannot deny himself.”[406] For we have his promise, “If ye, then,
being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much
more shall your Father which is in heaven?”[407] Again, in the prophet:
“Can a woman forget her child? Yea, they may forget, yet will I not
forget thee.”[408] But if we are his sons, then, as a son cannot commit
himself to the protection of a stranger and an alien, without at the
same time complaining of the cruelty or poverty of his father, so
neither can we seek supplies for our wants from any other quarter than
from him, without charging him with indigence and inability, or with
cruelty and excessive austerity.

XXXVII. Neither let us plead that we are justly terrified by a
consciousness of our sins, which may cause even a merciful, kind Father
to be daily offended with us. For if, among men, a son can conduct his
cause with his father by no better advocate, can conciliate and recover
his lost favour by no better mediator, than by approaching him as an
humble suppliant, acknowledging his own guilt, and imploring his
father’s mercy, (for the bowels of a father could not conceal their
emotions at such supplications,) what will he do, who is “the Father of
mercies, and the God of all comfort?”[409] Will he not hear the cries
and groans of his children when they deprecate his displeasure for
themselves, especially since it is to this that he invites and exhorts
us; rather than attend to any intercessions of others, to which they
resort in great consternation, not without some degree of despair,
arising from a doubt of the kindness and clemency of their Father? Of
this exuberance of paternal kindness, he gives us a beautiful
representation in a parable;[410] where a father meets and embraces a
son who had alienated himself from his family, who had dissolutely
lavished his substance, who had grievously offended him in every
respect: nor does he wait till he actually supplicates for pardon, but
anticipates him, recognizes him when returning at a great distance,
voluntarily runs to meet him, consoles him, and receives him into
favour. For by proposing to our view an example of such great kindness
in a man, he intended to teach us how much more abundant compassion we
ought, notwithstanding our ingratitude, rebellion, and wickedness, to
expect from him, who is not only our Father, but the most benevolent and
merciful of all fathers, provided we only cast ourselves on his mercy.
And to give us the more certain assurance that he is such a Father, if
we be Christians, he will be called not only “Father,” but expressly
“Our Father;” as though we might address him in the following manner: O
Father, whose affection towards thy children is so strong, and whose
readiness to pardon them is so great, we thy children invoke thee and
pray to thee, under the assurance and full persuasion that thou hast no
other than a paternal affection towards us, how unworthy soever we are
of such a Father. But because the contracted capacities of our minds
cannot conceive of a favour of such immense magnitude, we not only have
Christ as the pledge and earnest of adoption, but as a witness of this
adoption he gives us the Spirit, by whom we are enabled with a loud
voice freely to cry, “Abba, Father.”[411] Whenever, therefore, we may be
embarrassed by any difficulty, let us remember to supplicate him, that
he will correct our timidity, and give us this spirit of magnanimity to
enable us to pray with boldness.

XXXVIII. But since we are not instructed, that every individual should
appropriate him to himself exclusively as his Father, but rather that we
should all in common call him Our Father, we are thereby admonished how
strong a fraternal affection ought to prevail among us, who, by the same
privilege of mercy and free grace, are equally the children of such a
Father. For if we all have one common Father,[412] from whom proceeds
every blessing we enjoy, there ought to be nothing exclusively
appropriated by any among us, but what we should be ready to communicate
to each other with the greatest alacrity of heart, whenever necessity
requires. Now, if we desire, as we ought, to exert ourselves for our
mutual assistance, there is nothing in which we can better promote the
interests of our brethren, than by commending them to the providential
care of our most benevolent Father, with whose mercy and favour no other
want can be experienced. And, indeed, this is a debt which we owe to our
Father himself. For as he who truly and cordially loves any father of a
family, feels likewise a love and friendship for his whole household, in
the same manner, our zeal and affection towards this heavenly Father
must be shown towards his people, his family, his inheritance, whom he
has dignified with the honourable appellation of the “fulness” of his
only begotten Son.[413] Let a Christian, then, regulate his prayers by
this rule, that they be common, and comprehend all who are his brethren
in Christ; and not only those whom he at present sees and knows to be
such, but all men in the world; respecting whom, what God has determined
is beyond our knowledge; only that to wish and hope the best concerning
them, is equally the dictate of piety and of humanity. It becomes us,
however, to exercise a peculiar and superior affection “unto them who
are of the household of faith;” whom the apostle has in every case
recommended to our particular regards.[414] In a word, all our prayers
ought to be such, as to respect that community which our Lord has
established in his kingdom and in his family.

XXXIX. Yet this is no objection to the lawfulness of particular prayers,
both for ourselves and for other certain individuals; provided our minds
be not withdrawn from a regard to this community, nor even diverted from
it, but refer every thing to this point. For though the words of them be
singular, yet as they are directed to this end, they cease not to be
common. All this may be rendered very intelligible by a similitude. God
has given a general command to relieve the wants of all the poor; and
yet this is obeyed by them who to that end succour the indigence of
those whom they either know or see to be labouring under poverty; even
though they pass by multitudes who are oppressed with necessities
equally severe, because neither their knowledge nor ability can extend
to all. In the same manner, no opposition is made to the Divine will by
them who, regarding and considering this common society of the Church,
present such particular prayers, in which, with a public spirit, but in
particular terms, they recommend to God themselves or others, whose
necessity he has placed within their more immediate knowledge. However,
there is not a perfect similarity in every respect between prayer and
donation of alms, for munificence cannot be exercised but towards them
whose wants we have perceived; but we may assist by our prayers even the
greatest strangers, and those with whom we are the most unacquainted,
how distant soever they may be from us. This is done by that general
form of prayer, which comprehends all the children of God, among whom
they also are numbered. To this may be referred the exhortation which
Paul gives believers of his age, “that men pray every where, lifting up
holy hands without wrath;”[415] because by admonishing them, that
discord shuts the gate against prayers, he advises them unanimously to
unite all their petitions together.

XL. It is added, THAT HE IS IN HEAVEN. From which it is not hastily to
be inferred, that he is included and circumscribed within the
circumference of heaven, as by certain barriers. For Solomon confesses,
that “the heaven of heavens cannot contain” him.[416] And he says
himself, by the prophet, “The heaven is my throne, and the earth is my
footstool.”[417] By which he clearly signifies that he is not limited to
any particular region, but diffused throughout all space. But because
the dulness of our minds could not otherwise conceive of his ineffable
glory, it is designated to us by the heaven, than which we can behold
nothing more august or more majestic. Since, then, wherever our senses
apprehend any thing, there they are accustomed to fix it, God is
represented as beyond all place, that when we seek him we may be
elevated above all reach of both body and soul. Moreover, by this form
of expression, he is exalted above all possibility of corruption or
mutation: finally, it is signified, that he comprehends and contains the
whole world, and governs the universe by his power. Wherefore, this is
the same as if he had been said to be possessed of an incomprehensible
essence, infinite magnitude or sublimity, irresistible power, and
unlimited immortality. But when we hear this, our thoughts must be
raised to a higher elevation when God is mentioned; that we may not
entertain any terrestrial or carnal imaginations concerning him, that we
may not measure him by our diminutive proportions, or judge of his will
by our affections. We should likewise be encouraged to place the most
implicit reliance on him, by whose providence and power we understand
both heaven and earth to be governed. To conclude: under the name of
“Our Father” is represented to us, that God who has appeared to us in
his own image, that we might call upon him with a steady faith; and the
familiar appellation of Father is not only adapted to produce
confidence, but also efficacious to prevent our minds from being seduced
to dubious or fictitious deities, and to cause them to ascend from the
only begotten Son to the common Father of angels and of saints;
moreover, when his throne is placed in heaven, we are reminded by his
government of the world, that it is not in vain for us to approach to
him who makes us the objects of his present and voluntary care. “He that
cometh to God (says the apostle) must believe that he is, and that he is
a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.”[418] Christ asserts both
these of his Father, that we may have first a firm faith in his
existence, and then a certain persuasion that, since he deigns to extend
his providence to us, he will not neglect our salvation. By these
principles, Paul prepares us for praying in right manner; for his
exhortation, “Let your requests be made known unto God,” is thus
prefaced: “The Lord is at hand. Be careful for nothing.”[419] Whence it
appears, that their prayers must be attended with great doubt and
perplexity of mind, who are not well established in this truth, that
“the eyes of the Lord are upon the righteous.”[420]

XLI. The first petition is, THAT GOD’S NAME MAY BE HALLOWED; the
necessity of which is connected with our great disgrace. For what is
more shameful, than that the Divine glory should be obscured partly by
our ingratitude, partly by our malignity, and, as far as possible,
obliterated by our presumption, infatuation, and perverseness?
Notwithstanding all the sacrilegious rage and clamours of the impious,
yet the refulgence of holiness still adorns the Divine name. Nor does
the Psalmist without reason exclaim, “According to thy name, O God, so
is thy praise unto the ends of the earth.”[421] For wherever God may be
known, there must necessarily be a manifestation of his perfections of
power, goodness, wisdom, righteousness, mercy, and truth, which command
our admiration and excite us to celebrate his praise. Therefore, because
God is so unjustly robbed of his holiness on earth, if it is not in our
power to assert it for him, we are at least commanded to regard it in
our prayers. The substance of it is, that we wish God to receive all the
honour that he deserves, that men may never speak or think of him but
with the highest reverence; to which is opposed that profanation, which
has always been too common in the world, as it continues to be in the
present age. And hence the necessity of this petition, which, if we were
influenced by only a tolerable degree of piety, ought to be superfluous.
But if the name of God be truly hallowed, when separated from all others
it breathes pure glory, we are here commanded to pray, not only that God
will vindicate his holy name from all contempt and ignominy, but also
that he will constrain all mankind to revere it. Now, as God manifests
himself to us partly by his word, and partly by his works, he is no
otherwise hallowed by us, than if we attribute to him in both instances
that which belongs to him, and so receive whatever proceeds from him;
ascribing, moreover, equal praise to his severity and to his clemency;
since on the multiplicity and variety of his works he has impressed
characters of his glory, which should draw from every tongue a
confession of his praise. Thus will the Scripture obtain a just
authority with us, nor will any event obstruct the benedictions which
God deserves in the whole course of his government of the world. The
tendency of the petition is, further, that all impiety which sullies
this holy name, may be utterly abolished; that whatever obscures or
diminishes this hallowing, whether detraction or derision, may
disappear; and that while God restrains all sacrilege, his majesty may
shine with increasing splendour.

XLII. The second petition is, THAT THE KINGDOM OF GOD MAY COME; which,
though it contains nothing new, is yet not without reason distinguished
from the first; because, if we consider our inattention in the most
important of all concerns, it is useful for that which ought of itself
to have been most intimately known to us, to be inculcated in a variety
of words. Therefore, after we have been commanded to pray to God to
subdue, and at length utterly to destroy, every thing that sullies his
holy name, there is now added another petition, similar and almost
identically the same—That his kingdom may come. Now, though we have
already given a definition of this kingdom, I now briefly repeat, that
God reigns when men, renouncing themselves and despising the world and
the present state, submit themselves to his righteousness, so as to
aspire to the heavenly state. Thus this kingdom consists of two parts;
the one, God’s correcting by the power of his Spirit all our carnal and
depraved appetites, which oppose him in great numbers; the other, his
forming all our powers to an obedience to his commands. No others
therefore observe a proper order in this petition, but they who begin
from themselves, that is, that they may be purified from all corruptions
which disturb the tranquillity, or violate the purity, of God’s kingdom.
Now, since the Divine word resembles a royal sceptre, we are commanded
to pray that he will subdue the hearts and minds of all men to a
voluntary obedience to it. This is accomplished, when, by the secret
inspiration of his Spirit, he displays the efficacy of his word, and
causes it to obtain the honour it deserves. Afterwards, it is our duty
to descend to the impious, by whom his authority is resisted with the
perseverance of obstinacy and the fury of despair. God therefore erects
his kingdom on the humiliation of the whole world, though his methods of
humiliation are various; for he restrains the passions of some, and
breaks the unsubdued arrogance of others. It ought to be the object of
our daily wishes, that God would collect churches for himself from all
the countries of the earth, that he would enlarge their numbers, enrich
them with gifts, and establish a legitimate order among them; that, on
the contrary, he would overthrow all the enemies of the pure doctrine
and religion, that he would confound their counsels, and defeat their
attempts. Whence it appears that the desire of a daily progress is not
enjoined us in vain; because human affairs are never in such a happy
situation, as that all defilement of sin is removed, and purity can be
seen in full perfection. This perfection is deferred till the last
advent of Christ, when, the apostle says, “God will be all in all.”[422]
And so this petition ought to withdraw us from all the corruptions of
the world, which separate us from God, and prevent his kingdom from
flourishing within us; it ought likewise to inflame us with an ardent
desire of mortifying the flesh, and finally to teach us to bear the
cross; since these are the means which God chooses for the extension of
his kingdom. Nor should we be impatient that the outward man is
destroyed, provided the inward man be renewed. For this is the order of
the kingdom of God, that, when we submit to his righteousness, he makes
us partakers of his glory. This is accomplished, when, discovering his
light and truth with perpetual accession of splendour, before which the
shades and falsehoods of Satan and of his kingdom vanish and become
extinct, he by the aids of his Spirit directs his children into the path
of rectitude, and strengthens them to perseverance; but defeats the
impious conspiracies of his enemies, confounds their insidious and
fraudulent designs, disappoints their malice, and represses their
obstinacy, till at length “he” will “consume” Antichrist “with the
spirit of his mouth, and destroy” all impiety “with the brightness of
his coming.”[423]

XLIII. The third petition is, THAT THE WILL OF GOD MAY BE DONE ON EARTH
AS IT IS IN HEAVEN; which, though it is an appendage to his kingdom, and
cannot be disjoined from it, is yet not without reason separately
mentioned, on account of our ignorance, which does not apprehend with
facility what it is for God to reign in the world. There will be nothing
absurd, then, in understanding this as an explanation, that God’s
kingdom will then prevail in the world, when all shall submit to his
will. Now, we speak not here of his secret will, by which he governs all
things, and appoints them to fulfil his own purposes. For though Satan
and men oppose him with all the violence of rage, yet his
incomprehensible wisdom is able, not only to divert their impetuosity,
but to overrule it for the accomplishment of his decrees. But the Divine
will here intended, is that to which voluntary obedience corresponds;
and therefore heaven is expressly compared with the earth, because the
angels, as the Psalmist says, spontaneously “do his commandments,
hearkening unto the voice of his word.”[424] We are therefore commanded
to desire that, as in heaven nothing is done but according to the Divine
will, and the angels are placidly conformed to every thing that is
right, so the earth, all obstinacy and depravity being annihilated, may
be subject to the same government. And in praying for this, we renounce
our own carnal desires; because, unless we resign all our affections to
God, we are guilty of all the opposition in our power to his will, for
nothing proceeds from us but what is sinful. And we are likewise
habituated by this petition to a renunciation of ourselves, that God may
rule us according to his own pleasure; and not only so, but that he may
also create in us new minds and new hearts, annihilating our own, that
we may experience no emotion of desire within us, but a mere consent to
his will; in a word, that we may have no will of our own, but that our
hearts may be governed by his Spirit, by whose internal teachings we may
learn to love those things which please him, and to hate those which he
disapproves; consequently, that he may render abortive all those desires
which are repugnant to his will. These are the three first clauses of
this prayer, in praying which we ought solely to have in view the glory
of God, omitting all consideration of ourselves, and not regarding any
advantage of our own, which, though they largely contribute to it,
should not be our end in these petitions. But though all these things,
even if we never think of them, nor wish for them, nor request them,
must nevertheless happen in their appointed time, yet they ought to be
the objects of our wishes, and the subjects of our prayers. And such
petitions it will be highly proper for us to offer, that we may testify
and profess ourselves to be the servants and sons of God; manifesting
the sincerest devotedness, and making the most zealous efforts in our
power for advancing the honour which is due to him, both as a Master and
as a Father. Persons, therefore, who are not incited, by this ardent
zeal for promoting the glory of God, to pray, that his name may be
hallowed, that his kingdom may come, and that his will may be done, are
not to be numbered among his sons and servants; and as all these things
will be accomplished in opposition to their inclinations, so they will
contribute to their confusion and destruction.

XLIV. Next follows the second part of the prayer, in which we descend to
our own interests; not that we must dismiss all thoughts of the Divine
glory, (which, according to Paul,[425] should be regarded even in eating
and drinking,) and only seek what is advantageous to ourselves; but we
have already announced that this is the distinction—that God, by
exclusively claiming three petitions, absorbs us entirely in the
consideration of himself, that thus he may prove our piety; afterwards
he permits us to attend to our own interests, yet on this condition,
that the end of all our requests be the illustration of his glory, by
whatever benefits he confers on us, since nothing is more reasonable
than that we live and die to him. But the first petition of the second
part, GIVE US THIS DAY OUR DAILY BREAD, is a general request to God for
a supply of all our corporeal wants in the present state, not only for
food and clothing, but also for every thing which he sees to be
conducive to our good, that we may eat our bread in peace. By this we
briefly surrender ourselves to his care, and commit ourselves to his
providence, that he may feed, nourish, and preserve us. For our most
benevolent Father disdains not to receive even our body into his charge
and protection, that he may exercise our faith in these minute
circumstances, while we expect every thing from him, even down to a
crumb of bread and a drop of water. For since it is a strange effect of
our iniquity, to be affected and distressed with greater solicitude for
the body than for the soul, many, who venture to confide to God the
interests of their souls, are nevertheless still solicitous concerning
the body, still anxious what they shall eat and what they shall wear;
and unless they have an abundance of corn, wine, and oil, for the supply
of their future wants, tremble with fear. Of so much greater importance
to us is the shadow of this transitory life, than that eternal
immortality. But they who, confiding in God, have once cast off that
anxiety for the concerns of the body, expect likewise to receive from
him superior blessings, even salvation and eternal life. It is therefore
no trivial exercise of faith, to expect from God those things which
otherwise fill us with so much anxiety; nor is it a small proficiency
when we have divested ourselves of this infidelity, which is almost
universally interwoven with the human constitution. The speculations of
some, concerning supernatural bread, appear to me not very consonant to
the meaning of Christ; for if we did not ascribe to God the character of
our Supporter even in this transitory life, our prayer would be
defective. The reason which they allege has too much profanity; that it
is unbecoming for the children of God, who ought to be spiritual, not
only to devote their own attention to terrestrial cares, but also to
involve God in the same anxieties with themselves; as though, truly, his
benediction and paternal favour were not conspicuous even in our
sustenance; or there were no meaning in the assertion, that “godliness
hath promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to
come.”[426] Now, though remission of sins is of much greater value than
corporeal aliments, yet Christ has given the first place to the inferior
blessing, that he might gradually raise us to the two remaining
petitions, which properly pertain to the heavenly life; in which he has
consulted our dulness. We are commanded to ask “our bread,” that we may
be content with the portion which our heavenly Father deigns to allot
us, nor practise any illicit arts for the love of lucre. In the mean
time, it must be understood that it becomes ours by a title of donation;
because neither our industry, nor our labour, nor our hands, as is
observed by Moses,[427] acquire any thing for us of themselves, when
unattended by the Divine blessing; and that even an abundance of bread
would not be of the least service to us, unless it were by the Divine
power converted into nourishment. And therefore this liberality of God
is equally as necessary to the rich as to the poor; for though their
barns and cellars were full, they would faint with hunger and thirst,
unless through his goodness they enjoyed their food. The expression
“this day,” or “day by day,” as it is in the other Evangelist, and the
epithet _daily_, restrain the inordinate desire of transitory things,
with which we are often violently inflamed, and which leads to other
evils; since if we have a greater abundance, we fondly lavish it away in
pleasure, delights, ostentation, and other kinds of luxury. Therefore we
are enjoined to ask only as much as will supply our necessity, and as it
were for the present day, with this confidence, that our heavenly
Father, after having fed us to-day, will not fail us to-morrow. Whatever
affluence, then, we possess, even when our barns and cellars are full,
yet it behoves us always to ask for our daily bread; because it must be
considered as an undeniable truth, that all property is nothing, any
further than the Lord, by the effusions of his favour, blesses it with
continual improvement; and that even what we have in our possession is
not our own, any further than as he hourly bestows on us some portion of
it, and grants us the use of it. Since the pride of man does not easily
suffer itself to be convinced of this, the Lord declares that he has
given to all ages an eminent proof of it, by feeding his people with
manna in the desert, in order to apprize us “that man doth not live by
bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of his mouth;”[428]
which implies, that it is his power alone by which our life and strength
are sustained, although he communicates it to us by corporeal means; as
he is accustomed to teach us likewise by an opposite example, when he
breaks, at his pleasure, the strength (and, as he himself calls it, “the
staff”) of bread, so that though men eat they pine with hunger, and
though they drink are parched with thirst.[429] Now, they who are not
satisfied with daily bread, but whose avidity is insatiable, and whose
desires are unbounded, and they who are satiated with their abundance,
and think themselves secure amid their immense riches, and who
nevertheless supplicate the Divine Being in this petition, are guilty of
mocking him. For the former ask what they would not wish to obtain, and
even what most of all they abominate, that is, daily bread only; they
conceal from God, as much as they can, their avaricious disposition;
whereas true prayer ought to pour out before him the whole mind, and all
the inmost secrets of the soul; and the latter implore what they are far
from expecting to receive from him, what they think they have in their
own possession. In its being called “ours,” the Divine goodness is, as
we have observed, the more conspicuous, since it makes that _ours_, to
which we have no claim of right. Yet we must not reject the explanation
which I have likewise hinted at, that it intends also such as is
acquired by just and innocent labour, and not procured by acts of
deception and rapine; because, whatever we acquire by any criminal
methods, is never our own, but belongs to others. Our praying that it
may be “given” to us signifies that it is the simple and gratuitous
donation of God, from what quarter soever we receive it; even when it
most of all appears to be obtained by our own skill and industry, and to
be procured by our own hands; since it is solely the effect of his
blessing, that our labours are attended with success.

XLV. It follows—FORGIVE US OUR DEBTS; in which petition, and the next,
Christ has comprised whatever relates to the heavenly life; as in these
two parts consists the spiritual covenant which God has made for the
salvation of his Church—“I will write my law in their hearts, and will
pardon their iniquities.”[430] Here Christ begins with remission of
sins: immediately after, he subjoins a second favour—that God would
defend us by the power, and support us by the aid, of his Spirit, to
enable us to stand unconquered against all temptations. Sins he calls
debts, because we owe the penalty of them—a debt we are altogether
incapable of discharging, unless we are released by this remission,
which is a pardon flowing from his gratuitous mercy, when he freely
cancels these debts without any payment from us, being satisfied by his
own mercy in Christ, who has once given himself for our redemption.
Those, therefore, who rely on God’s being satisfied with their own
merits, or the merits of others, and persuade themselves that remission
of sins is purchased by these satisfactions, have no interest in this
gratuitous forgiveness; and while they call upon God in this form, they
are only subscribing their own accusation, and even sealing their
condemnation with their own testimony. For they confess themselves
debtors, unless they are discharged by the benefit of remission, which
nevertheless they accept not, but rather refuse, while they obtrude upon
God their own merits and satisfactions. For in this way they do not
implore his mercy, but appeal to his judgment. They who amuse themselves
with dreams of perfection, superseding the necessity of praying for
pardon, may have disciples whom itching ears lead into delusions; but it
must be clear that all whom they gain are perverted from Christ, since
he teaches all to confess their guilt, and receives none but sinners;
not that he would flatter and encourage sins, but because he knew that
believers are never wholly free from the vices of their flesh, but
always remain obnoxious to the judgment of God. It ought, indeed, to be
the object of our desires and strenuous exertions, that, having fully
discharged every part of our duty, we may truly congratulate ourselves
before God on being pure from every stain; but as it pleases God to
restore his image within us by degrees, so that some contagion always
remains in our flesh, the remedy ought never to be neglected. Now, if
Christ, by the authority given him by the Father, enjoins us, as long as
we live, to have recourse to prayer for the pardon of guilt, who will
tolerate the new teachers, who endeavour to dazzle the eyes of the
simple with a visionary phantom of perfect innocence, and fill them with
a confidence in the possibility of their being delivered from all sin?
which, according to John, is no other than making God a liar.[431] At
the same time, also, these worthless men, by obliterating one article,
mutilate, and so totally invalidate, the covenant of God, in which we
have seen our salvation is contained; being thus guilty not only of
sacrilege by separating things so united, but also of impiety and
cruelty, by overwhelming miserable souls with despair, and of treachery
to themselves and others, by contracting a habit of carelessness, in
diametrical opposition to the Divine mercy. The objection of some, that
in wishing the advent of God’s kingdom, we desire at the same time the
abolition of sin, is too puerile; because, in the first part of the
prayer, we have an exhibition of the highest perfection, but here of
infirmity. Thus these two things are perfectly consistent, that in
aspiring towards the mark we may not neglect the remedies required by
our necessity. Lastly, we pray that we may be forgiven AS WE FORGIVE OUR
DEBTORS; that is, as we forgive and pardon all who have ever injured us,
either by unjust actions or by contumelious language. Not that it is our
province to forgive the guilt of sin and transgression; this is the
prerogative of God alone: our forgiveness consists in divesting the mind
of anger, enmity, and desire of revenge, and losing the memory of
injuries by a voluntary forgetfulness. Wherefore we must not pray to God
for forgiveness of sins, unless we also forgive all the offences and
injuries of others against us, either present or past. But if we retain
any enmities in our minds, meditate acts of revenge, and seek
opportunities of annoyance, and even if we do not endeavour to obtain
reconciliation with our enemies, to oblige them by all kind offices, and
to render them our friends,—we beseech God, by this petition, not to
grant us remission of sins. For we supplicate him to grant to us what we
grant to others. This is praying him not to grant it to us, unless we
grant it also. What do persons of this description gain by their prayers
but a heavier judgment? Lastly, it must be observed, that this is not a
condition, that he would forgive us as we forgive our debtors, because
we can merit his forgiveness of us by our forgiveness of others, as
though it described the cause of his forgiveness; but, by this
expression, the Lord intended, partly to comfort the weakness of our
faith; for he has added this as a sign, that we may be as certainly
assured of remission of sins being granted us by him, as we are certain
and conscious of our granting it to others; if, at the same time, our
minds be freed and purified from all hatred, envy, and revenge; partly
by this, as a criterion, he expunges from the number of his children,
those who, hasty to revenge and difficult to forgive, maintain
inveterate enmities, and cherish in their own hearts towards others,
that indignation which they deprecate from themselves, that they may not
presume to invoke him as their Father. Which is also clearly expressed
by Luke in Christ’s own words.

XLVI. The sixth petition is, LEAD US NOT INTO TEMPTATION, BUT DELIVER US
FROM EVIL. This, as we have said, corresponds to the promise respecting
the law of God to be engraven in our hearts. But because our obedience
to God is not without continual warfare, and severe and arduous
conflicts, we here pray for arms, and assistance to enable us to gain
the victory. This suggests to us our necessity, not only of the grace of
the Spirit within us to soften, bend, and direct our hearts to obedience
to God, but also of his aid to render us invincible, in opposition to
all the stratagems and violent assaults of Satan. Now, the forms of
temptations are many and various. For the corrupt conceptions of the
mind, provoking us to transgressions of the law, whether suggested by
our own concupiscence or excited by the devil, are temptations; and
things not evil in themselves, nevertheless become temptations through
the subtlety of the devil, when they are obtruded on our eyes in such a
manner that their intervention occasions our seduction or declension
from God. And these temptations are either from prosperous, or from
adverse events. From prosperous ones, as riches, power, honours; which
generally dazzle men’s eyes by their glitter and external appearance of
goodness, and insnare them with their blandishments, that, caught with
such delusions and intoxicated with such delights, they forget their
God. From unpropitious ones, as poverty, reproaches, contempt,
afflictions, and other things of this kind; overcome with the bitterness
and difficulty of which, they fall into despondency, cast away faith and
hope, and at length become altogether alienated from God. To both these
kinds of temptations which assail us, whether kindled within us by our
concupiscence, or presented to us by the craft of Satan, we pray our
heavenly Father not to permit us to yield, but rather to sustain and
raise us up with his hand, that, strong in his might, we may be able to
stand firm against all the assaults of our malignant enemy, whatever
imaginations he may inject into our minds; and also, that whatever is
presented to us on either quarter, we may convert it to our benefit;
that is, by not being elated with prosperity or dejected with adversity.
Yet we do not here pray for an entire exemption from all temptations,
which we very much need, to excite, stimulate, and animate us, lest we
should grow torpid with too much rest. For it was not without reason
that David wished to be tempted or tried; nor is it without cause that
the Lord daily tries his elect, chastising them by ignominy, poverty,
tribulation, and the cross in various forms. But the temptations of God
are widely different from those of Satan. Satan tempts to overthrow,
condemn, confound, and destroy. But God, that, by proving his people, he
may make a trial of their sincerity, to confirm their strength by
exercising it, to mortify, purify, and refine their flesh, which,
without such restraints, would run into the greatest excesses. Besides,
Satan attacks persons unarmed and unprepared, to overwhelm the unwary.
“God, with the temptation, also makes a way to escape, that they may be
able to bear” whatever he brings upon them.[432] By the word _evil_,
whether we understand the devil or sin, is of little importance. Satan
himself, indeed, is the enemy that lies in wait for our life; but sin is
the weapon with which he seeks our destruction. Our petition therefore
is, that we may not be overwhelmed and conquered by any temptations, but
that we may stand, strong in the power of the Lord, against all adverse
powers that assault us, which is not to submit to temptations; that
being taken into his custody and charge, and being secure in his
protection, we may persevere unconquered, and rise superior to sin,
death, the gates of hell, and the whole kingdom of the devil. This is
being delivered from evil. Here it must also be carefully remarked, that
it is not in our power to contend with so powerful an enemy as the
devil, and sustain the violence of his assaults. Otherwise it would be
useless, or insulting, to supplicate from God what we already possessed
in ourselves. Certainly, they who prepare themselves for such a combat
with self-confidence, are not sufficiently aware of the skill and
prowess of the enemy that they have to meet. Now, we pray to be
delivered from his power, as from the mouth of a ravenous and raging
lion, just about to tear us with his teeth and claws, and to swallow us
down his throat, unless the Lord snatch us from the jaws of death;
knowing, at the same time, that if the Lord shall be present and fight
for us while we are silent, in his strength “we shall do
valiantly.”[433] Let others confide as they please in the native
abilities and powers of free-will, which they suppose themselves to
possess,—let it be sufficient for us, to stand and be strong in the
power of God alone. But this petition comprehends more than at first
appears. For if the Spirit of God is our strength for fighting the
battle with Satan, we shall not be able to gain the victory, till, being
full of him, we shall have laid aside all the infirmity of our flesh.
When we pray for deliverance from Satan and sin, therefore, we pray to
be frequently enriched with new accessions of Divine grace; till, being
quite filled with them, we may be able to triumph over all evil. To some
there appears a difficulty and harshness in our petition to God, that he
will not lead us into temptation, whereas, according to James, it is
contrary to his nature for him to tempt us.[434] But this objection has
already been partly answered, because our own lust is properly the cause
of all the temptations that overcome us, and therefore we are charged
with the guilt. Nor does James intend any other than to assert the
futility and injustice of transferring to God the vices which we are
constrained to impute to ourselves, because we are conscious of our
being guilty of them. But notwithstanding this, God may, when he sees
fit, deliver us to Satan, abandon us to a reprobate mind and sordid
passions, and so lead us into temptations, by a righteous yet often
secret judgment; the cause being frequently concealed from man, but, at
the same time, well known to him. Whence it is inferred, that there is
no impropriety in this mode of expression, if we are persuaded that
there is any meaning in his frequent threatenings, that he will manifest
his vengeance on the reprobate, by smiting them with blindness and
hardness of heart.

XLVII. These three petitions, in which we particularly commend to God
ourselves and all our concerns, evidently prove, what we have before
asserted, that the prayers of Christians ought to be public, and to
regard the public edification of the Church, and the advancement of the
communion of believers. For each individual does not supplicate the gift
of any favour to himself in particular; but we all in common pray for
our bread, the remission of our sins, that we may not be led into
temptation, that we may be delivered from evil. The cause is likewise
subjoined, which gives us such great boldness in asking, and confidence
of obtaining; which, though not to be found in the Latin copies, yet
appears too apposite to this place to be omitted—namely, HIS IS THE
KINGDOM, AND THE POWER, AND THE GLORY FOR EVER. This is a solid and
secure basis for our faith; for if our prayers were to be recommended to
God by our own merit, who could dare to utter a word in his presence?
Now, all miserable, unworthy, and destitute as we are of every
recommendation, yet we shall never want an argument or plea for our
prayers: our confidence can never forsake us; for our Father can never
be deprived of his kingdom, power, and glory. The whole is concluded
with AMEN; which expresses our ardent desire to obtain the blessings
supplicated of God, and confirms our hope that all these things are
already obtained, and will certainly be granted to us; because they are
promised by God, who is incapable of deception. And this agrees with
that form of petition already quoted—“Do this, O Lord, for thy name’s
sake, not for our sake, or for our righteousness;” in which the saints
not only express the end of their prayers, but acknowledge that they are
unworthy to obtain it, unless God derive the cause from himself, and
that their confidence of success arises solely from his nature.

XLVIII. Whatever we ought, or are even at liberty, to seek from God, is
stated to us in this model and directory for prayer, given by that best
of masters, Christ, whom the Father has set over us as our Teacher, and
to whom alone he has enjoined us to listen.[435] For he was always his
eternal wisdom, and being made man, was given to men as the Angel of
great counsel.[436] And this prayer is so comprehensive and complete,
that whatever addition is made of any thing extraneous or foreign, not
capable of being referred to it, is impious and unworthy of the
approbation of God. For in this summary he has prescribed what is worthy
of him, what is acceptable to him, what is necessary for us, and, in a
word, what he chooses to bestow. Wherefore those who presume to go
beyond it, and to ask of God any thing else, in the first place, are
determined to make some addition of their own to the wisdom of God,
which cannot be done without folly and blasphemy; in the next place,
despising the limits fixed by the will of God, they are led far astray
by their own irregular desires; and in the last place, they will never
obtain any thing, since they pray without faith. And there is no doubt
that all prayers of this kind are made without faith, because they are
not sanctioned by the word of God, the only basis on which faith can
stand. But they who neglect the Master’s rule, and indulge their own
desires, not only deviate from the word of God, but make all possible
opposition against it. With equal beauty and truth, therefore,
Tertullian has called this a _legitimate prayer_, tacitly implying, that
all others are irregular and unlawful.

XLIX. We would not here be understood, as if we were confined to this
form of prayer, without the liberty of changing a word or syllable. For
the Scriptures contain many prayers, expressed in words very different
from this, yet written by the same Spirit, and very profitable for our
use. Many, which have little verbal resemblance to it, are continually
suggested to believers by the same Spirit. We only mean by these
observations, that no one should even seek, expect, or ask for any thing
that is not summarily comprehended in this prayer, though there may be a
diversity of expression, without any variation of sense. As it is
certain that all the prayers contained in the Scriptures, or proceeding
from pious hearts, are referred to this, so it is impossible to find one
any where which can surpass or even equal the perfection of this. Here
is nothing omitted which ought to be recollected for the praises of God,
nothing that should occur to the mind of man for his own advantage; and
the whole is so complete, as justly to inspire universal despair of
attempting any improvement. To conclude; let us remember, that this is
the teaching of Divine wisdom, which taught what it willed, and willed
what is needful.

L. But though we have before said that we ought to be always aspiring
towards God with our minds, and praying without intermission, yet as our
weakness requires many assistances, and our indolence needs to be
stimulated, we ought every one of us, for the sake of regularity, to
appoint particular hours which should not elapse without prayer, and
which should witness all the affections of the mind entirely engaged in
this exercise; as, when we rise in the morning, before we enter on the
business of the day, when we sit down to meat, when we have been fed by
the Divine blessing, when we retire to rest. This must not be a
superstitious observance of hours, by which, as if discharging our debt
to God, we may fancy ourselves discharged from all obligation for the
remaining hours; but a discipline for our weakness, which may thus, from
time to time, be exercised and stimulated. It must especially be the
object of our solicitous care, whenever we are oppressed, or see others
oppressed, with adversity, immediately to resort to him with celerity,
not of body, but of mind; secondly, to suffer no prosperity of our own
or others to pass without testifying our acknowledgment of his hand by
praise and thanksgiving; lastly, we must carefully observe this in every
prayer, that we entertain not the thought of binding God to certain
circumstances, or prescribing to him the time, the place, or the manner
of his proceedings. As we are taught by this prayer to fix no law, to
impose no condition on him, but to leave it to his will to do what he
intends, in the manner, at the time, and in the place he pleases,
therefore, before we form a petition for ourselves, we first pray that
his will may be done; thereby submitting our will to his, that, being,
as it were, bridled and restrained, it may not presume to regulate God,
but may constitute him the arbiter and ruler of all its desires.

LI. If, with minds composed to this obedience, we suffer ourselves to be
governed by the laws of Divine Providence, we shall easily learn to
persevere in prayer, and with suspended desires to wait patiently for
the Lord; assured, though he does not discover himself, yet that he is
always near us, and in his own time will declare that his ears have not
been deaf to those prayers which, to human apprehension, seemed to be
neglected. Now, this, if God do not at any time answer our first
prayers, will be an immediate consolation, to prevent our sinking into
despair, like those who, actuated only by their own ardour, call upon
God in such a manner, that if he do not attend to their first
transports, and afford them present aid, they at once imagine him to be
displeased and angry with them, and, casting away all hope of succeeding
in their prayers, cease to call upon him. But deferring our hope with a
well-tempered equanimity, let us rather practise the perseverance so
highly recommended to us in the Scriptures. For in the Psalms we may
frequently observe how David and other faithful men, when, almost
wearied with praying, they seemed to beat the air, and God seemed deaf
to their petitions, yet did not desist from praying; because the
authority of the Divine word is not maintained, unless it be fully
credited, notwithstanding the appearance of any circumstances to the
contrary. Nor let us tempt God, and provoke him against us by wearying
him with our presumption; which is the practice of many who merely
bargain with God on a certain condition, and as though he were
subservient to their passions, bind him with laws of their own
stipulation; with which unless he immediately complies, they give way to
anger and fretfulness, to cavils, and murmurs, and rage. To such
persons, therefore, he frequently grants in his wrath what he denies in
mercy to others. This is exemplified in the children of Israel, for whom
it had been better for the Lord not to have heard them, than for them to
swallow his indignation with the meat that he sent them.[437]

LII. But if, after long waiting, our sense neither understands what
advance we have made by praying, nor experiences any advantage resulting
from it, yet our faith will assure us, what cannot be perceived by
sense, that we have obtained what was expedient for us, since the Lord
so frequently and so certainly promises to take care of our troubles
when they have been once deposited in his bosom. And thus he will cause
us to possess abundance in poverty, and consolation in affliction. For
though all things fail us, yet God will never forsake us; he cannot
disappoint the expectation and patience of his people. He will amply
compensate us for the loss of all others, for he comprehends in himself
all blessings, which he will reveal to us at the day of judgment, when
his kingdom will be fully manifested. Besides, though God grants our
prayers, he does not always answer them according to the express form of
the request; but seeming to keep us in suspense, shows by unknown means
that our prayers were not in vain. This is the meaning of these words of
John: “If we know that he heareth us, whatsoever we ask, we know that we
have the petitions that we desired of him.”[438] This seems to be a
feeble superfluity of expression, but is in reality a very useful
declaration, that God, even when he does not comply with our desires, is
nevertheless favourable and propitious to our prayers, so that a hope
depending upon his word can never disappoint us. Now, this patience is
very necessary to support believers, who would not long stand unless
they relied upon it. For the Lord proves his people with heavy trials,
and exercises them with severity; frequently driving them to various
kinds of extremities, and suffering them to remain in them a long time
before he grants them any enjoyment of his grace; and as Hannah says,
“The Lord killeth, and maketh alive; he bringeth down to the grave, and
bringeth up.”[439] In such distresses must they not inevitably faint in
their minds, and fall into despair, unless, in the midst of their
affliction and desolation, and almost death, they were revived by this
reflection, that God regards them, and that the end of their present
evils is approaching? But though they rely on the certainty of this
hope, they at the same time cease not to pray; because, without constant
perseverance in prayer, we pray to no purpose.

Footnote 262:

Rom. x. 13, 14, 17.

Footnote 263:

Rom. viii. 15, 26.

Footnote 264:

1 Kings xviii. 42, &c.

Footnote 265:

Psalm cxlv. 18.

Footnote 266:

Psalm xxxiv. 15.

Footnote 267:

Psalm xxv. 1.

Footnote 268:

Psalm lxii. 8.

Footnote 269:

Psalm cxlv. 19.

Footnote 270:

1 John v. 14.

Footnote 271:

Rom. viii. 26.

Footnote 272:

Jude 20. 1 Cor. xiv. 15.

Footnote 273:

James v. 13.

Footnote 274:

Psalm xxxii. 6.

Footnote 275:

Ephes. vi. 18.

Footnote 276:

Isaiah i. 15.

Footnote 277:

Jer. xi. 7, 8, 11.

Footnote 278:

Isaiah xxix. 13.

Footnote 279:

James iv. 3.

Footnote 280:

1 John iii. 22.

Footnote 281:

Dan. ix. 18, 19.

Footnote 282:

Dan. ix. 20.

Footnote 283:

Psalm cxliii. 2.

Footnote 284:

Isaiah lxiv. 5-9.

Footnote 285:

Jer. xiv. 7.

Footnote 286:

Baruch ii. 18.

Footnote 287:

Psalm xxv. 7, 18.

Footnote 288:

Psalm li. 5.

Footnote 289:

Matt. ix. 2.

Footnote 290:

1 John i. 9.

Footnote 291:

Psalm lxxxvi. 2.

Footnote 292:

2 Kings xx. 3.

Footnote 293:

Psalm xxxiv. 15.

Footnote 294:

1 John iii. 22.

Footnote 295:

John ix. 31.

Footnote 296:

Psalm v. 7.

Footnote 297:

Mark xi. 24.

Footnote 298:

Matt. xxi. 22.

Footnote 299:

James i. 5, 6.

Footnote 300:

James v. 15.

Footnote 301:

Rom. x. 14, 17.

Footnote 302:

Heb. iv. 16.

Footnote 303:

Ephes. iii. 12.

Footnote 304:

Psalm xxxiii. 22.

Footnote 305:

Psalm lvi. 9.

Footnote 306:

Psalm v. 3.

Footnote 307:

Ephes. vi. 16, 18.

Footnote 308:

Psalm xli. 4.

Footnote 309:

Psalm l. 15.

Footnote 310:

Matt. vii. 7.

Footnote 311:

Zech. xiii. 9.

Footnote 312:

Psalm lxv. 2.

Footnote 313:

Psalm l. 15.

Footnote 314:

2 Sam. vii. 27.

Footnote 315:

Psalm cxlv. 19.

Footnote 316:

Prov. xviii. 10.

Footnote 317:

Joel ii. 32.

Footnote 318:

Isaiah lxv. 24.

Footnote 319:

Psalm xci. 15.

Footnote 320:

Psalm cxlv. 18.

Footnote 321:

2 Sam. vii. 27, 28.

Footnote 322:

Psalm cxix. 76.

Footnote 323:

Gen. xxxii. 10, &c.

Footnote 324:

Jer. xlii. 9. Dan. ix. 18.

Footnote 325:

Jer. xlii. 2.

Footnote 326:

2 Kings xix. 4.

Footnote 327:

Psalm cxli. 2.

Footnote 328:

Judges ix. 20.

Footnote 329:

Judges xvi. 28.

Footnote 330:

Psalm cvii.

Footnote 331:

Psalm cvi. 39.

Footnote 332:

Matt. v. 45.

Footnote 333:

Gen. xviii. 23. 1 Sam. xv. 11.

Footnote 334:

Jer. xxxii. 16, &c.

Footnote 335:

Psalm vii. 6.

Footnote 336:

Psalm xxxix. 13.

Footnote 337:

Psalm li. 17.

Footnote 338:

Psalm lxxx. 4.

Footnote 339:

Lam. iii. 8.

Footnote 340:

1 Tim. ii. 5. 1 John ii. 1.

Footnote 341:

Heb. iv. 16.

Footnote 342:

John xvi. 24, 26; xiv. 13.

Footnote 343:

2 Cor. i. 20.

Footnote 344:

Exod. xxviii.

Footnote 345:

Psalm xx. 3.

Footnote 346:

John xvi. 24.

Footnote 347:

Heb. x. 20.

Footnote 348:

Ephes. vi. 18, 19. 1 Tim. ii. 1.

Footnote 349:

1 John ii. 1.

Footnote 350:

Rom. viii. 34.

Footnote 351:

1 Tim. ii. 5.

Footnote 352:

Jer. ii. 28; xi. 13.

Footnote 353:

Heb. i. 14. Psalm xci. 11; xxxiv. 7.

Footnote 354:

Ephes. iii. 10.

Footnote 355:

Jer. xv. 1.

Footnote 356:

Ezek. xiv. 14.

Footnote 357:

Acts xiii. 36.

Footnote 358:

Eccles. ix. 5, 6.

Footnote 359:

Gen. xlviii. 16.

Footnote 360:

Isaiah lxiii. 16.

Footnote 361:

Psalm xxii. 5.

Footnote 362:

James v. 17, 18.

Footnote 363:

Psalm cxlii. 7.

Footnote 364:

Psalm xxxiv. 5, 6.

Footnote 365:

Psalm xxxii. 6.

Footnote 366:

Gen. xxxii. 10.

Footnote 367:

Psalm xxxi. 5.

Footnote 368:

Psalm xliv. 20, 21.

Footnote 369:

James v. 16.

Footnote 370:

Psalm l. 15.

Footnote 371:

1 Tim. iv. 5.

Footnote 372:

Psalm xl. 3.

Footnote 373:

Isaiah xlii. 10.

Footnote 374:

Psalm li. 15.

Footnote 375:

Isaiah xxxviii. 20. Jonah ii. 9.

Footnote 376:

Psalm cxvi. 12, 13.

Footnote 377:

Psalm cvi. 47.

Footnote 378:

Psalm cii. 17, &c.

Footnote 379:

Hosea xiv. 2.

Footnote 380:

Psalm cxvi. 1.

Footnote 381:

Psalm xviii. 1.

Footnote 382:

Phil. iv. 6.

Footnote 383:

Heb. xiii. 15.

Footnote 384:

1 Thess. v. 17, 18.

Footnote 385:

1 Cor. xiv. 40.

Footnote 386:

Matt. vi. 7.

Footnote 387:

Luke xviii. 11.

Footnote 388:

Matt. vi. 6.

Footnote 389:

1 Tim. ii. 8.

Footnote 390:

Isaiah lvi. 7.

Footnote 391:

Psalm lxv. 1.

Footnote 392:

Matt. xviii. 20.

Footnote 393:

John iv. 23.

Footnote 394:

Isaiah lxvi. 1. Acts vii. 48.

Footnote 395:

Isaiah xxix. 13, 14. Matt. xv. 8, 9.

Footnote 396:

1 Cor. xiv. 15.

Footnote 397:

Col. iii. 16.

Footnote 398:

1 Cor. xiv. 16, 17.

Footnote 399:

1 Cor. xiv. 15.

Footnote 400:

1 Sam. i. 13.

Footnote 401:

Matt. vi. 9. Luke xi. 2.

Footnote 402:

Rom. viii. 26, 27.

Footnote 403:

Exod. xxxii. 32. Rom. ix. 3.

Footnote 404:

John i. 12, 14.

Footnote 405:

1 John iii. 1. Psalm xxvii. 10. Isaiah lxiii. 16.

Footnote 406:

2 Tim. ii. 13.

Footnote 407:

Matt. vii. 11.

Footnote 408:

Isaiah xlix. 15.

Footnote 409:

2 Cor. i. 3.

Footnote 410:

Luke xv. 11, &c.

Footnote 411:

Gal. iv. 6.

Footnote 412:

Matt. xxiii. 9.

Footnote 413:

Ephes. i. 23.

Footnote 414:

Gal. vi. 10.

Footnote 415:

1 Tim. ii. 8.

Footnote 416:

1 Kings viii. 27.

Footnote 417:

Isaiah lxvi. 1. Acts vii. 49; xvii. 24.

Footnote 418:

Heb. xi. 6.

Footnote 419:

Phil. iv. 5, 6.

Footnote 420:

Psalm xxxiv. 15; xxxiii. 18.

Footnote 421:

Psalm xlviii. 10.

Footnote 422:

1 Cor. xv. 28.

Footnote 423:

2 Thess. ii. 8.

Footnote 424:

Psalm ciii. 20.

Footnote 425:

1 Cor. x. 31.

Footnote 426:

1 Tim. iv. 8.

Footnote 427:

Lev. xxvi. 20.

Footnote 428:

Deut. viii. 3. Matt. iv. 4.

Footnote 429:

Lev. xxvi. 26.

Footnote 430:

Jer. xxxi. 33, 34; xxxiii. 8.

Footnote 431:

1 John i. 10.

Footnote 432:

1 Cor. x. 13.

Footnote 433:

Psalm lx. 12.

Footnote 434:

James i. 13, 14.

Footnote 435:

Matt. xvii. 5.

Footnote 436:

Isaiah xi. 2.

Footnote 437:

Num. xi. 18, 33.

Footnote 438:

1 John v. 15.

Footnote 439:

1 Sam. ii. 6.

CHAPTER XXI.
ETERNAL ELECTION, OR GOD’S PREDESTINATION OF SOME TO SALVATION, AND OF
OTHERS TO DESTRUCTION.

The covenant of life not being equally preached to all, and among those
to whom it is preached not always finding the same reception, this
diversity discovers the wonderful depth of the Divine judgment. Nor is
it to be doubted that this variety also follows, subject to the decision
of God’s eternal election. If it be evidently the result of the Divine
will, that salvation is freely offered to some, and others are prevented
from attaining it,—this immediately gives rise to important and
difficult questions, which are incapable of any other explication, than
by the establishment of pious minds in what ought to be received
concerning election and predestination—a question, in the opinion of
many, full of perplexity; for they consider nothing more unreasonable,
than that, of the common mass of mankind, some should be predestinated
to salvation, and others to destruction. But how unreasonably they
perplex themselves will afterwards appear from the sequel of our
discourse. Besides, the very obscurity which excites such dread, not
only displays the utility of this doctrine, but shows it to be
productive of the most delightful benefit. We shall never be clearly
convinced as we ought to be, that our salvation flows from the fountain
of God’s free mercy, till we are acquainted with his eternal election,
which illustrates the grace of God by this comparison, that he adopts
not all promiscuously to the hope of salvation, but gives to some what
he refuses to others. Ignorance of this principle evidently detracts
from the Divine glory, and diminishes real humility. But according to
Paul, what is so necessary to be known, never can be known, unless God,
without any regard to works, chooses those whom he has decreed. “At this
present time also, there is a remnant according to the election of
grace. And if by grace, then it is no more of works; otherwise, grace is
no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace;
otherwise, work is no more work.”[440] If we need to be recalled to the
origin of election, to prove that we obtain salvation from no other
source than the mere goodness of God, they who desire to extinguish this
principle, do all they can to obscure what ought to be magnificently and
loudly celebrated, and to pluck up humility by the roots. In ascribing
the salvation of the remnant of the people to the election of grace,
Paul clearly testifies, that it is then only known that God saves whom
he will of his mere good pleasure, and does not dispense a reward to
which there can be no claim. They who shut the gates to prevent any one
from presuming to approach and taste this doctrine, do no less injury to
man than to God; for nothing else will be sufficient to produce in us
suitable humility, or to impress us with a due sense of our great
obligations to God. Nor is there any other basis for solid confidence,
even according to the authority of Christ, who, to deliver us from all
fear, and render us invincible amidst so many dangers, snares, and
deadly conflicts, promises to preserve in safety all whom the Father has
committed to his care. Whence we infer, that they who know not
themselves to be God’s peculiar people will be tortured with continual
anxiety; and therefore, that the interest of all believers, as well as
their own, is very badly consulted by those who, blind to the three
advantages we have remarked, would wholly remove the foundation of our
salvation. And hence the Church rises to our view, which otherwise, as
Bernard justly observes, could neither be discovered nor recognized
among creatures, being in two respects wonderfully concealed in the
bosom of a blessed predestination, and in the mass of a miserable
damnation. But before I enter on the subject itself, I must address some
preliminary observations to two sorts of persons. The discussion of
predestination—a subject of itself rather intricate—is made very
perplexed, and therefore dangerous, by human curiosity, which no
barriers can restrain from wandering into forbidden labyrinths, and
soaring beyond its sphere, as if determined to leave none of the Divine
secrets unscrutinized or unexplored. As we see multitudes every where
guilty of this arrogance and presumption, and among them some who are
not censurable in other respects, it is proper to admonish them of the
bounds of their duty on this subject. First, then, let them remember
that when they inquire into predestination, they penetrate the inmost
recesses of Divine wisdom, where the careless and confident intruder
will obtain no satisfaction to his curiosity, but will enter a labyrinth
from which he will find no way to depart. For it is unreasonable that
man should scrutinize with impunity those things which the Lord has
determined to be hidden in himself; and investigate, even from eternity,
that sublimity of wisdom which God would have us to adore and not
comprehend, to promote our admiration of his glory. The secrets of his
will which he determined to reveal to us, he discovers in his word; and
these are all that he foresaw would concern us or conduce to our
advantage.

II. “We are come into the way of faith,” says Augustine; “let us
constantly pursue it. It conducts into the king’s palace, in which are
hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. For the Lord Christ
himself envied not his great and most select disciples when he said, ‘I
have many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.’ We must
walk, we must improve, we must grow, that our hearts may be able to
understand those things of which we are at present incapable. If the
last day finds us improving, we shall then learn what we never could
learn in the present state.” If we only consider that the word of the
Lord is the only way to lead us to an investigation of all that ought to
be believed concerning him, and the only light to enlighten us to behold
all that ought to be seen of him, this consideration will easily
restrain and preserve us from all presumption. For we shall know that
when we have exceeded the limits of the word, we shall get into a
devious and darksome course, in which errors, slips, and falls, will
often be inevitable. Let us, then, in the first place, bear in mind,
that to desire any other knowledge of predestination than what is
unfolded in the word of God, indicates as great folly, as a wish to walk
through unpassable roads, or to see in the dark. Nor let us be ashamed
to be ignorant of some things relative to a subject in which there is a
kind of learned ignorance. Rather let us abstain with cheerfulness from
the pursuit of that knowledge, the affectation of which is foolish,
dangerous, and even fatal. But if we are stimulated by the wantonness of
intellect, we must oppose it with a reflection calculated to repress it,
that as “it is not good to eat much honey, so for men to search their
own glory, is not glory.”[441] For there is sufficient to deter us from
that presumption, which can only precipitate us into ruin.

III. Others, desirous of remedying this evil, will have all mention of
predestination to be as it were buried; they teach men to avoid every
question concerning it as they would a precipice. Though their
moderation is to be commended, in judging that mysteries ought to be
handled with such great sobriety, yet, as they descend too low, they
have little influence on the mind of man, which refuses to submit to
unreasonable restraints. To observe, therefore, the legitimate boundary
on this side also, we must recur to the word of the Lord, which affords
a certain rule for the understanding. For the Scripture is the school of
the Holy Spirit, in which, as nothing necessary and useful to be known
is omitted, so nothing is taught which it is not beneficial to know.
Whatever, therefore, is declared in the Scripture concerning
predestination, we must be cautious not to withhold from believers, lest
we appear either to defraud them of the favor of their God, or to
reprove and censure the Holy Spirit for publishing what it would be
useful by any means to suppress. Let us, I say, permit the Christian man
to open his heart and his ears to all the discourses addressed to him by
God, only with this moderation, that as soon as the Lord closes his
sacred mouth, he shall also desist from further inquiry. This will be
the best barrier of sobriety, if in learning we not only follow the
leadings of God, but as soon as he ceases to teach, we give up our
desire of learning. Nor is the danger they dread, sufficient to divert
our attention from the oracles of God. It is a celebrated observation of
Solomon, that “it is the glory of God to conceal a thing.”[442] But, as
both piety and common sense suggest that this is not to be understood
generally of every thing, we must seek for the proper distinction, lest
we content ourselves with brutish ignorance under the pretext of modesty
and sobriety. Now, this distinction is clearly expressed in a few words
by Moses. “The secret things,” he says, “belong unto the Lord our God;
but those things which are revealed belong unto us, and to our children
for ever, that we may do all the words of this law.”[443] For we see how
he enforces on the people attention to the doctrine of the law only by
the celestial decree, because it pleased God to promulgate it; and
restrains the same people within those limits with this single reason,
that it is not lawful for mortals to intrude into the secrets of God.

IV. Profane persons, I confess, suddenly lay hold of something relating
to the subject of predestination, to furnish occasion for objections,
cavils, reproaches, and ridicule. But if we are frightened from it by
their impudence, all the principal articles of the faith must be
concealed, for there is scarcely one of them which such persons as these
leave unviolated by blasphemy. The refractory mind will discover as much
insolence, on hearing that there are three persons in the Divine
essence, as on being told, that when God created man, he foresaw what
would happen concerning him. Nor will they refrain from derision on
being informed, that little more than five thousand years have elapsed
since the creation of the world. They will ask why the power of God was
so long idle and asleep. Nothing can be advanced which they will not
endeavour to ridicule. Must we, in order to check these sacrileges, say
nothing of the Divinity of the Son and Spirit, or pass over in silence
the creation of the world? In this instance, and every other, the truth
of God is too powerful to dread the detraction of impious men; as is
strenuously maintained by Augustine, in his treatise on the Perseverance
of the Faithful. We see the false apostles, with all their defamation
and accusation of the true doctrine of Paul, could never succeed to make
him ashamed of it. Their assertion, that all this discussion is
dangerous to pious minds, because it is inconsistent with exhortations,
shakes their faith, and disturbs and discourages the heart itself, is
without any foundation. Augustine admits, that he was frequently blamed,
on these accounts, for preaching predestination too freely; but he
readily and amply refutes them. But as many and various absurdities are
crowded upon us here, we prefer reserving every one to be refuted in its
proper place. I only desire this general admission, that we should
neither scrutinize those things which the Lord has left concealed, nor
neglect those which he has openly exhibited, lest we be condemned for
excessive curiosity on the one hand, or for ingratitude on the other.
For it is judiciously remarked by Augustine, that we may safely follow
the Scripture, which proceeds as with the pace of a mother stooping to
the weakness of a child, that it may not leave our weak capacities
behind. But persons who are so cautious or timid, as to wish
predestination to be buried in silence, lest feeble minds should be
disturbed,—with what pretext, I ask, will they gloss over their
arrogance, which indirectly charges God with foolish inadvertency, as
though he foresaw not the danger which they suppose they have had the
penetration to discover. Whoever, therefore, endeavours to raise
prejudices against the doctrine of predestination, openly reproaches
God, as though something had inconsiderately escaped from him that is
pernicious to the Church.

V. Predestination, by which God adopts some to the hope of life, and
adjudges others to eternal death, no one, desirous of the credit of
piety, dares absolutely to deny. But it is involved in many cavils,
especially by those who make foreknowledge the cause of it. We maintain,
that both belong to God; but it is preposterous to represent one as
dependent on the other. When we attribute foreknowledge to God, we mean
that all things have ever been, and perpetually remain, before his eyes,
so that to his knowledge nothing is future or past, but all things are
present; and present in such a manner, that he does not merely conceive
of them from ideas formed in his mind, as things remembered by us appear
present to our minds, but really beholds and sees them as if actually
placed before him. And this foreknowledge extends to the whole world,
and to all the creatures. Predestination we call the eternal decree of
God, by which he has determined in himself, what he would have to become
of every individual of mankind. For they are not all created with a
similar destiny; but eternal life is fore-ordained for some, and eternal
damnation for others. Every man, therefore, being created for one or the
other of these ends, we say, he is predestinated either to life or to
death. This God has not only testified in particular persons, but has
given a specimen of it in the whole posterity of Abraham, which should
evidently show the future condition of every nation to depend upon his
decision. “When the Most High divided the nations, when he separated the
sons of Adam, the Lord’s portion was his people; Jacob was the lot of
his inheritance.”[444] The separation is before the eyes of all: in the
person of Abraham, as in the dry trunk of a tree, one people is
peculiarly chosen to the rejection of others: no reason for this
appears, except that Moses, to deprive their posterity of all occasion
of glorying, teaches them that their exaltation is wholly from God’s
gratuitous love. He assigns this reason for their deliverance, that “he
loved their fathers, and chose their seed after them.”[445] More fully
in another chapter: “The Lord did not set his love upon you, nor choose
you, because you were more in number than any people; but because the
Lord loved you.”[446] He frequently repeats the same admonition:
“Behold, the heaven is the Lord’s thy God, the earth also, with all that
therein is. Only the Lord had a delight in thy fathers to love them, and
he chose their seed after them.”[447] In another place, sanctification
is enjoined upon them, because they were chosen to be a peculiar
people.[448] And again, elsewhere, love is asserted to be the cause of
their protection. It is declared by the united voice of the faithful,
“He hath chosen our inheritance for us, the excellency of Jacob, whom he
loved.”[449] For the gifts conferred on them by God, they all ascribe to
gratuitous love, not only from a consciousness that these were not
obtained by any merit of theirs, but from a conviction, that the holy
patriarch himself was not endued with such excellence as to acquire the
privilege of so great an honour for himself and his posterity. And the
more effectually to demolish all pride, he reproaches them with having
deserved no favour, being “a stiff-necked and rebellious people.”[450]
The prophets also frequently reproach the Jews with the unwelcome
mention of this election, because they had shamefully departed from it.
Let them, however, now come forward, who wish to restrict the election
of God to the desert of men, or the merit of works. When they see one
nation preferred to all others,—when they hear that God had no
inducement to be more favourable to a few, and ignoble, and even
disobedient and obstinate people,—will they quarrel with him because he
has chosen to give such an example of mercy? But their obstreperous
clamours will not impede his work, nor will the reproaches they hurl
against Heaven, injure or affect his justice; they will rather recoil
upon their own heads. To this principle of the gracious covenant, the
Israelites are also recalled whenever thanks are to be rendered to God,
or their hopes are to be raised for futurity. “He hath made us, and not
we ourselves,” says the Psalmist: “we are his people, and the sheep of
his pasture.”[451] It is not without reason that the negation is added,
“not we ourselves,” that they may know that of all the benefits they
enjoy, God is not only the Author, but derived the cause from himself,
there being nothing in them deserving of such great honour. He also
enjoins them to be content with the mere good pleasure of God, in these
words: “O ye seed of Abraham his servant, ye children of Jacob his
chosen.” And after having recounted the continual benefits bestowed by
God as fruits of election, he at length concludes that he had acted with
such liberality, “because he remembered his covenant.”[452] Consistent
with this doctrine is the song of the whole Church: “Thy right hand, and
thine arm, and the light of thy countenance, gave our fathers the land,
because thou hadst a favour unto them.”[453] It must be observed that
where mention is made of the land, it is a visible symbol of the secret
separation, which comprehends adoption. David, in another place, exhorts
the people to the same gratitude: “Blessed is the nation whose God is
the Lord; and the people whom he hath chosen for his own
inheritance.”[454] Samuel animates to a good hope: “The Lord will not
forsake his people, for his great name’s sake; because it hath pleased
the Lord to make you his people.”[455] David, when his faith is
assailed, thus arms himself for the conflict: “Blessed is the man whom
thou choosest, and causest to approach unto thee; he shall dwell in thy
courts.”[456] But since the election hidden in God has been confirmed by
the first deliverance, as well as by the second and other intermediate
blessings, the word _choose_ is transferred to it in Isaiah: “The Lord
will have mercy on Jacob, and will yet choose Israel;”[457] because,
contemplating a future period, he declares that the collection of the
residue of the people, whom he had appeared to have forsaken, would be a
sign of the stable and sure election, which had likewise seemed to fail.
When he says also, in another place, “I have chosen thee, and not cast
thee away,”[458] he commends the continual course of his signal
liberality and paternal benevolence. The angel, in Zechariah, speaks
more plainly: “The Lord shall choose Jerusalem again;”[459] as though
his severe chastisement had been a rejection, or their exile had been an
interruption of election; which, nevertheless, remains inviolable,
though the tokens of it are not always visible.

VI. We must now proceed to a second degree of election, still more
restricted, or that in which the Divine grace was displayed in a more
special manner, when of the same race of Abraham God rejected some, and
by nourishing others in the Church, proved that he retained them among
his children. Ishmael at first obtained the same station as his brother
Isaac, for the spiritual covenant was equally sealed in him by the
symbol of circumcision. He is cut off; afterwards Esau; lastly, an
innumerable multitude, and almost all Israel. In Isaac the seed was
called; the same calling continued in Jacob. God exhibited a similar
example in the rejection of Saul, which is magnificently celebrated by
the Psalmist: “He refused the tabernacle of Joseph, and chose not the
tribe of Ephraim, but chose the tribe of Judah;”[460] and this the
sacred history frequently repeats, that the wonderful secret of Divine
grace may be more manifest in that change. I grant, it was by their own
crime and guilt that Ishmael, Esau, and persons of similar characters,
fell from the adoption; because the condition annexed was, that they
should faithfully keep the covenant of God, which they perfidiously
violated. Yet it was a peculiar favour of God, that he deigned to prefer
them to other nations; as it is said in the Psalms: “He hath not dealt
so with any nation; and as for his judgments, they have not known
them.”[461] But I have justly said that here are two degrees to be
remarked; for in the election of the whole nation, God has already shown
that in his mere goodness he is bound by no laws, but is perfectly free,
so that none can require of him an equal distribution of grace, the
inequality of which demonstrates it to be truly gratuitous. Therefore
Malachi aggravates the ingratitude of Israel, because, though not only
elected out of the whole race of mankind, but also separated from a
sacred family to be a peculiar people, they perfidiously and impiously
despised God their most beneficent Father. “Was not Esau Jacob’s
brother? saith the Lord: yet I loved Jacob, and I hated Esau.”[462] For
God takes it for granted, since both were sons of a holy father,
successors of the covenant, and branches from a sacred root, that the
children of Jacob were already laid under more than common obligations
by their admission to that honour; but Esau the first-born having been
rejected, and their father, though inferior by birth, having been made
the heir, he proves them guilty of double ingratitude, and complains of
their violating this twofold claim.

VII. Though it is sufficiently clear, that God, in his secret counsel,
freely chooses whom he will, and rejects others, his gratuitous election
is but half displayed till we come to particular individuals, to whom
God not only offers salvation, but assigns it in such a manner, that the
certainty of the effect is liable to no suspense or doubt. These are
included in that one seed mentioned by Paul; for though the adoption was
deposited in the hand of Abraham, yet many of his posterity being cut
off as putrid members, in order to maintain the efficacy and stability
of election, it is necessary to ascend to the head, in whom their
heavenly Father has bound his elect to each other, and united them to
himself by an indissoluble bond. Thus the adoption of the family of
Abraham displayed the favour of God, which he denied to others; but in
the members of Christ there is a conspicuous exhibition of the superior
efficacy of grace; because, being united to their head, they never fail
of salvation. Paul, therefore, justly reasons from the passage of
Malachi which I have just quoted, that where God, introducing the
covenant of eternal life, invites any people to himself, there is a
peculiar kind of election as to part of them, so that he does not
efficaciously choose all with indiscriminate grace. The declaration,
“Jacob have I loved,” respects the whole posterity of the patriarch,
whom the prophet there opposes to the descendants of Esau. Yet this is
no objection to our having in the person of one individual a specimen of
the election, which can never fail of attaining its full effect. These,
who truly belong to Christ, Paul correctly observes, are called “a
remnant;” for experience proves, that of a great multitude the most part
fall away and disappear, so that often only a small portion remains.
That the general election of a people is not always effectual and
permanent, a reason readily presents itself, because, when God covenants
with them, he does not also give them the spirit of regeneration to
enable them to persevere in the covenant to the end; but the external
call, without the internal efficacy of grace, which would be sufficient
for their preservation, is a kind of medium between the rejection of all
mankind and the election of the small number of believers. The whole
nation of Israel was called “God’s inheritance,” though many of them
were strangers; but God, having firmly covenanted to be their Father and
Redeemer, regards that gratuitous favour rather than the defection of
multitudes; by whom his truth was not violated, because his preservation
of a certain remnant to himself, made it evident that his calling was
without repentance. For God’s collection of a Church for himself, from
time to time, from the children of Abraham, rather than from the profane
nations, was in consideration of his covenant, which, being violated by
the multitude, he restricted to a few, to prevent its total failure.
Lastly, the general adoption of the seed of Abraham was a visible
representation of a greater blessing, which God conferred on a few out
of the multitude. This is the reason that Paul so carefully
distinguishes the descendants of Abraham according to the flesh, from
his spiritual children called after the example of Isaac. Not that the
mere descent from Abraham was a vain and unprofitable thing, which could
not be asserted without depreciating the covenant; but because to the
latter alone the immutable counsel of God, in which he predestinated
whom he would, was of itself effectual to salvation. But I advise my
readers to adopt no prejudice on either side, till it shall appear from
adduced passages of Scripture what sentiments ought to be entertained.
In conformity, therefore, to the clear doctrine of the Scripture, we
assert, that by an eternal and immutable counsel, God has once for all
determined, both whom he would admit to salvation, and whom he would
condemn to destruction. We affirm that this counsel, as far as concerns
the elect, is founded on his gratuitous mercy, totally irrespective of
human merit; but that to those whom he devotes to condemnation, the gate
of life is closed by a just and irreprehensible, but incomprehensible,
judgment. In the elect, we consider calling as an evidence of election,
and justification as another token of its manifestation, till they
arrive in glory, which constitutes its completion. As God seals his
elect by vocation and justification, so by excluding the reprobate from
the knowledge of his name and the sanctification of his Spirit, he
affords an indication of the judgment that awaits them. Here I shall
pass over many fictions fabricated by foolish men to overthrow
predestination. It is unnecessary to refute things which, as soon as
they are advanced, sufficiently prove their own falsehood. I shall dwell
only on those things which are subjects of controversy among the
learned, or which may occasion difficulty to simple minds, or which
impiety speciously pleads in order to stigmatize the Divine justice.

Footnote 440:

Rom. xi. 5, 6.

Footnote 441:

Prov. xxv. 27.

Footnote 442:

Prov. xxv. 2.

Footnote 443:

Deut. xxix. 29.

Footnote 444:

Deut. xxxii. 8, 9.

Footnote 445:

Deut. iv. 37.

Footnote 446:

Deut. vii. 7, 8.

Footnote 447:

Deut. x. 14, 15.

Footnote 448:

Deut. xxiii.

Footnote 449:

Psalm xlvii. 4.

Footnote 450:

Deut. ix. 6, 7.

Footnote 451:

Psalm c. 3.

Footnote 452:

Psalm cv. 6, 8.

Footnote 453:

Psalm xliv. 3.

Footnote 454:

Psalm xxxiii. 12.

Footnote 455:

1 Sam. xii. 22.

Footnote 456:

Psalm lxv. 4.

Footnote 457:

Isaiah xiv. 1.

Footnote 458:

Isaiah xli. 9.

Footnote 459:

Zech. ii. 12.

Footnote 460:

Psalm lxxviii. 67, 68.

Footnote 461:

Psalm cxlvii. 20.

Footnote 462:

Mal. i. 2, 3.

CHAPTER XXII.
TESTIMONIES OF SCRIPTURE IN CONFIRMATION OF THIS DOCTRINE.

All the positions we have advanced are controverted by many, especially
the gratuitous election of believers, which nevertheless cannot be
shaken. It is a notion commonly entertained, that God, foreseeing what
would be the respective merits of every individual, makes a
correspondent distinction between different persons; that he adopts as
his children such as he foreknows will be deserving of his grace, and
devotes to the damnation of death others, whose dispositions he sees
will be inclined to wickedness and impiety. Thus they not only obscure
election by covering it with the veil of foreknowledge, but pretend that
it originates in another cause. Nor is this commonly received notion the
opinion of the vulgar only, for it has had great advocates in all ages;
which I candidly confess, that no one may cherish a confidence of
injuring our cause by opposing us with their names. For the truth of God
on this point is too certain to be shaken, too clear to be overthrown by
the authority of men. Others, neither acquainted with the Scripture, nor
deserving of any attention, oppose the sound doctrine with extreme
presumption and intolerable effrontery. God’s sovereign election of
some, and preterition of others, they make the subject of formal
accusation against him. But if this is the known fact, what will they
gain by quarrelling with God? We teach nothing but what experience has
proved, that God has always been at liberty to bestow his grace on whom
he chooses. I will not inquire how the posterity of Abraham excelled
other nations, unless it was by that favour, the cause of which can only
be found in God. Let them answer why they are men, and not oxen or
asses: when it was in God’s power to create them dogs, he formed them
after his own image. Will they allow the brute animals to expostulate
with God respecting their condition, as though the distinction were
unjust? Their enjoyment of a privilege which they have acquired by no
merits, is certainly no more reasonable than God’s various distribution
of his favours according to the measure of his judgment. If they make a
transition to persons where the inequality is more offensive to them,
the example of Christ at least ought to deter them from carelessly
prating concerning this sublime mystery. A mortal man is conceived of
the seed of David: to the merit of what virtues will they ascribe his
being made, even in the womb, the Head of angels, the only begotten Son
of God, the Image and Glory of the Father, the Light, Righteousness, and
Salvation of the world? It is judiciously remarked by Augustine, that
there is the brightest example of gratuitous election in the Head of the
Church himself, that it may not perplex us in the members; that he did
not become the Son of God by leading a righteous life, but was
gratuitously invested with this high honour, that he might afterwards
render others partakers of the gifts bestowed upon him. If any one
inquire, why others are not all that he was, or why we are all at such a
vast distance from him,—why we are all corrupt, and he purity itself,—he
will betray both folly and impudence. But if they persist in the wish to
deprive God of the uncontrollable right of choosing and rejecting, let
them also take away what is given to Christ. Now, it is of importance to
attend to what the Scripture declares respecting every individual.
Paul’s assertion, that we were “chosen in Christ before the foundation
of the world,”[463] certainly precludes any consideration of merit in
us; for it is as though he had said, our heavenly Father, finding
nothing worthy of his choice in all the posterity of Adam, turned his
views towards his Christ, to choose members from his body whom he would
admit to the fellowship of life. Let believers, then, be satisfied with
this reason, that we were adopted in Christ to the heavenly inheritance,
because in ourselves we were incapable of such high dignity. He has a
similar remark in another place, where he exhorts the Colossians to
“give thanks unto the Father, who had made them meet to be partakers of
the inheritance of the saints.”[464] If election precedes this grace of
God, which makes us meet to obtain the glory of the life to come, what
will God find in us to induce him to elect us? Another passage from this
apostle will still more clearly express my meaning. “He hath chosen us,”
he says, “before the foundation of the world, according to the good
pleasure of his will, that we should be holy, and without blame before
him;”[465] where he opposes the good pleasure of God to all our merits
whatsoever.

II. To render the proof more complete, it will be useful to notice all
the clauses of that passage, which, taken in connection, leave no room
for doubt. By the appellation of the _elect_, or _chosen_, he certainly
designates believers, as he soon after declares: wherefore it is
corrupting the term by a shameful fiction to restrict it to the age in
which the gospel was published. By saying that they were elected before
the creation of the world, he precludes every consideration of merit.
For what could be the reason for discrimination between those who yet
had no existence, and whose condition was afterward to be the same in
Adam? Now, if they are chosen in Christ, it follows, not only that each
individual is chosen out of himself, but also that some are separated
from others; for it is evident, that all are not members of Christ. The
next clause, stating them to have been “chosen that they might be holy,”
fully refutes the error which derives election from foreknowledge; since
Paul, on the contrary, declares that all the virtue discovered in men is
the effect of election. If any inquiry be made after a superior cause,
Paul replies, that God thus “predestinated,” and that it was “according
to the good pleasure of his will.” This overturns any means of election
which men imagine in themselves; for all the benefits conferred by God
for the spiritual life, he represents as flowing from this one source,
that God elected whom he would, and, before they were born, laid up in
reserve for them the grace with which he determined to favor them.

III. Wherever this decree of God reigns, there can be no consideration
of any works. The antithesis, indeed, is not pursued here; but it must
be understood, as it is amplified by the same writer in another place:
“Who hath called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but
according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ
Jesus, before the world began.”[466] And we have already shown that the
following clause, “that we should be holy,” removes every difficulty.
For say, Because he foresaw they would be holy, therefore he chose them,
and you will invert the order of Paul. We may safely infer, then, If he
chose us that we should be holy, his foresight of our future holiness
was not the cause of his choice. For these two propositions, That the
holiness of believers is the fruit of election, and, That they attain it
by means of works, are incompatible with each other. Nor is there any
force in the cavil to which they frequently resort, that the grace of
election was not God’s reward of antecedent works, but his gift to
future ones. For when it is said, that believers were elected that they
should be holy, it is fully implied, that the holiness they were in
future to possess had its origin in election. And what consistency would
there be in asserting, that things derived from election were the causes
of election? A subsequent clause seems further to confirm what he had
said—“according to his good pleasure, which he purposed in
himself.”[467] For the assertion, that God purposed in himself, is
equivalent to saying, that he considered nothing out of himself, with
any view to influence his determination. Therefore he immediately
subjoins, that the great and only object of our election is, “that we
should be to the praise of” Divine “grace.” Certainly the grace of God
deserves not the sole praise of our election, unless this election be
gratuitous. Now, it could not be gratuitous, if, in choosing his people,
God himself considered what would be the nature of their respective
works. The declaration of Christ to his disciples, therefore, is
universally applicable to all believers: “Ye have not chosen me, but I
have chosen you;”[468] which not only excludes past merits, but
signifies that they had nothing in themselves to cause their election,
independently of his preventing mercy. This also is the meaning of that
passage of Paul, “Who hath first given to him, and it shall be
recompensed unto him again?”[469] For his design is to show, that God’s
goodness altogether anticipates men, finding nothing in them, either
past or future, to conciliate his favour towards them.

IV. In the Epistle to the Romans, where he goes to the bottom of this
argument, and pursues it more at length, he says, “They are not all
Israel which are” born “of Israel;”[470] because though all were blessed
by hereditary right, yet the succession did not pass to all alike. This
controversy originated in the pride and vain-glorying of the Jewish
people, who, claiming for themselves the title of the Church, would make
the faith of the gospel to depend on their decision; just as, in the
present day, the Papists with this false pretext would substitute
themselves in the place of God. Paul, though he admits the posterity of
Abraham to be holy in consequence of the covenant, yet contends that
most of them are strangers to it; and that not only because they
degenerate, from legitimate children becoming spurious ones, but because
the preëminence and sovereignty belong to God’s special election, which
is the sole foundation of the validity of their adoption. If some were
established in the hope of salvation by their own piety, and the
rejection of others were owing wholly to their own defection, Paul’s
reference of his readers to the secret election would indeed be weak and
absurd. Now, if the will of God, of which no cause appears or must be
sought out of himself, discriminates some from others, so that the
children of Israel are not all true Israelites, it is in vain pretended
that the condition of every individual originates with himself. He
pursues the subject further under the example of Jacob and Esau; for
being both children of Abraham, and both enclosed in their mother’s
womb, the transfer of the honour of primogeniture to Jacob was by a
preternatural change, which Paul, however, contends indicated the
election of the one and the reprobation of the other. The origin and the
cause are inquired, which the champions of foreknowledge maintain to be
exhibited in the virtues and the vices of men. For this is their short
and easy doctrine—That God has showed in the person of Jacob, that he
elects such as are worthy of his grace; and in the person of Esau, that
he rejects those whom he foresees to be unworthy. This, indeed, they
assert with confidence; but what is the testimony of Paul? “The children
being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the
purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of
him that calleth, it was said, The elder shall serve the younger; as it
is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.”[471] If this
distinction between the brothers was influenced by foreknowledge, the
mention of the time must certainly be unnecessary. On the supposition
that Jacob was elected, because that honour was acquired by his future
virtues, to what purpose could Paul remark that he was not yet born? It
would not have been so proper to add, that he had not yet done any good;
for it will be immediately replied, that nothing is concealed from God,
and therefore the piety of Jacob must have been present before him. If
grace be the reward of works, they ought to have had their just value
attributed to them before Jacob was born, as much as if he were already
grown to maturity. But the apostle proceeds in unravelling the
difficulty, and teaches that the adoption of Jacob flowed not from
works, but from the calling of God. In speaking of works, he introduces
no time, future or past, but positively opposes them to the calling of
God, intending the establishment of the one, and the absolute subversion
of the other; as though he had said, We must consider the good pleasure
of God, and not the productions of men. Lastly, the very terms,
_election_ and _purpose_, certainly exclude from this subject all the
causes frequently invented by men, independently of God’s secret
counsel.

V. Now, what pretexts will be urged to obscure these arguments, by those
who attribute to works, either past or future, any influence on
election? For this is nothing but an evasion of the apostle’s argument,
that the distinction between the two brothers depends not on any
consideration of works, but on the mere calling of God, because it was
fixed between them when they were not yet born. Nor would their subtilty
have escaped him, if there had been any solidity in it; but well knowing
the impossibility of God’s foreseeing any good in man, except what he
had first determined to bestow by the benefit of his election, he
resorts not to the preposterous order of placing good works before their
cause. We have the apostle’s authority that the salvation of believers
is founded solely on the decision of Divine election, and that that
favour is not procured by works, but proceeds from gratuitous calling.
We have also a lively exhibition of this truth in a particular example.
Jacob and Esau are brothers, begotten of the same parents, still
enclosed in the same womb, not yet brought forth into light; there is in
all respects a perfect equality between them; yet the judgment of God
concerning them is different. For he takes one, and rejects the other.
The primogeniture was the only thing that gave one a right of priority
to the other. But that also is passed by, and on the younger is bestowed
what is refused to the elder. In other instances, also, God appears
always to have treated primogeniture with designed and decided contempt,
to cut off from the flesh all occasion of boasting. He rejects Ishmael,
and favours Isaac. He degrades Manasseh, and honours Ephraim.

VI. If it be objected, that from these inferior and inconsiderable
benefits, it must not be concluded respecting the life to come, that he
who has been raised to the honour of primogeniture is therefore to be
considered as adopted to the inheritance of heaven,—for there are many
who spare not Paul, as though in his citation of Scripture testimonies
he had perverted them from their genuine meaning,—I answer as before,
that the apostle has neither erred through inadvertency, nor wilfully
perverted testimonies of Scripture. But he saw, what they cannot bear to
consider, that God intended by an earthly symbol to declare the
spiritual election of Jacob, which otherwise lay concealed behind his
inaccessible tribunal. For unless the primogeniture granted him had
reference to the future world, it was a vain and ridiculous kind of
blessing, which produced him nothing but various afflictions and
adversities, grievous exile, numerous cares, and bitter sorrows.
Discerning, beyond all doubt, that God’s external blessing was an
indication of the spiritual and permanent blessing he had prepared for
his servant in his kingdom, Paul hesitated not to argue from the former
in proof of the latter. It must also be remembered, that to the land of
Canaan was annexed the pledge of the celestial residence; so that it
ought not to be doubted that Jacob was ingrafted with angels into the
body of Christ, that he might be a partaker of the same life. While Esau
is rejected, therefore, Jacob is elected, and distinguished from him by
God’s predestination, without any difference of merit. If you inquire
the cause, the apostle assigns the following: “For he saith to Moses, I
will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on
whom I will have compassion.”[472] And what is this but a plain
declaration of the Lord, that he finds no cause in men to induce him to
show favour to them, but derives it solely from his own mercy; and
therefore that the salvation of his people is his work? When God fixes
your salvation in himself alone, why will you descend into yourself?
When he assigns you his mere mercy, why will you have recourse to your
own merits? When he confines all your attention to his mercy, why will
you divert part of it to the contemplation of your own works? We must
therefore come to that more select people, whom Paul in another place
tells us “God foreknew,”[473] not using this word, according to the
fancy of our opponents, to signify a prospect, from a place of idle
observation, of things which he has no part in transacting, but in the
sense in which it is frequently used. For certainly, when Peter says
that Christ was “delivered” to death “by the determinate counsel and
foreknowledge of God,”[474] he introduces God not as a mere spectator,
but as the Author of our salvation. So the same apostle, by calling
believers, to whom he writes, “elect according to the foreknowledge of
God,”[475] properly expresses that secret predestination by which God
has marked out whom he would as his children. And the word _purpose_,
which is added as a synonymous term, and in common speech is always
expressive of fixed determination, undoubtedly implies that God, as the
Author of our salvation, does not go out of himself. In this sense
Christ is called, in the same chapter, the “Lamb foreknown before the
foundation of the world.” For what can be more absurd or uninteresting,
than God’s looking from on high to see from what quarter salvation would
come to mankind? The people, therefore, whom Paul describes as
“foreknown,”[476] are no other than a small number scattered among the
multitude, who falsely pretend to be the people of God. In another place
also, to repress the boasting of hypocrites assuming before the world
the preëminence among the godly, Paul declares, “The Lord knoweth them
that are his.”[477] Lastly, by this expression Paul designates two
classes of people, one consisting of the whole race of Abraham, the
other separated from it, reserved under the eyes of God, and concealed
from the view of men. And this, without doubt, he gathered from Moses,
who asserts that God will be merciful to whom he will be merciful;
though he is speaking of the chosen people, whose condition was, to
outward appearance, all alike; as though he had said, that the common
adoption includes in it peculiar grace towards some, who resemble a more
sacred treasure; that the common covenant prevents not this small number
being exempted from the common lot; and that, determined to represent
himself as the uncontrolled dispenser and arbiter in this affair, he
positively denies that he will have mercy on one rather than another,
from any other motive than his own pleasure; because, when mercy meets a
person who seeks it, though he suffers no repulse, yet he either
anticipates or in some degree obtains for himself that favour, of which
God claims to himself all the praise.

VII. Now, let the supreme Master and Judge decide the whole matter.
Beholding in his hearers such extreme obduracy, that his discourses were
scattered among the multitude almost without any effect, to obviate this
offence, he exclaims, “All that the Father giveth me, shall come to me.
And this is the Father’s will, that of all which he hath given me, I
should lose nothing.”[478] Observe, the origin is from the donation of
the Father, that we are given into the custody and protection of Christ.
Here, perhaps, some one may argue in a circle, and object, that none are
considered as the Father’s peculiar people, but those whose surrender
has been voluntary, arising from faith. But Christ only insists on this
point—that notwithstanding the defections of vast multitudes, shaking
the whole world, yet the counsel of God will be stable and firmer than
the heavens, so that election can never fail. They are said to have been
the elect of the Father, before he gave them to his only begotten Son.
Is it inquired whether this was by nature? No, he draws those who were
strangers, and so makes them his children. The language of Christ is too
clear to be perplexed by the quibbles of sophistry: “No man can come to
me, except the Father draw him. Every man that hath heard and learned of
the Father, cometh unto me.”[479] If all men promiscuously submitted to
Christ, election would be common: now, the fewness of believers
discovers a manifest distinction. Having asserted his disciples
therefore, who were given to him, to be the peculiar portion of the
Father, Christ a little after adds, “I pray not for the world, but for
them which thou hast given me, for they are thine;”[480] which shows
that the whole world does not belong to its Creator; only that grace
delivers from the curse and wrath of God, and from eternal death, a few,
who would otherwise perish, but leaves the world in its destruction, to
which it has been destined. At the same time, though Christ introduces
himself in his mediatorial capacity, yet he claims to himself the right
of election, in common with the Father. “I speak not of all,” he says;
“I know whom I have chosen.”[481] If it be inquired whence he chose
them, he elsewhere answers, “out of the world,”[482] which he excludes
from his prayers, when he commends his disciples to the Father. It must
be admitted, that when Christ asserts his knowledge of whom he has
chosen, it refers to a particular class of mankind, and that they are
distinguished, not by the nature of their virtues, but by the decree of
Heaven. Whence it follows, that none attain any excellence by their own
ability or industry, since Christ represents himself as the author of
election. His enumeration of Judas among the elect, though he was a
devil, only refers to the apostolical office, which, though an
illustrious instance of the Divine favour, as Paul so frequently
acknowledges in his own person, yet does not include the hope of eternal
salvation. Judas, therefore, in his unfaithful exercise of the
apostleship, might be worse than a devil; but of those whom Christ has
once united to his body, he will never suffer one to perish; for in
securing their salvation, he will perform what he has promised, by
exerting the power of God, who is greater than all. What he says in
another place, “Those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them
is lost, but the son of perdition,” is a mode of expression, called
_catachresis_, but the sense is sufficiently plain. The conclusion is,
that God creates whom he chooses to be his children by gratuitous
adoption; that the cause of this is wholly in himself; because he
exclusively regards his own secret determination.

VIII. But, it will be said, Ambrose, Origen, and Jerome believed that
God dispenses his grace among men, according to his foreknowledge of the
good use which every individual will make of it. Augustine also was once
of the same sentiment; but when he had made a greater proficiency in
scriptural knowledge, he not only retracted, but powerfully confuted it.
And after his retractation, rebuking the Pelagians for persisting in
this error, he says, “Who but must wonder that this most ingenious sense
should escape the apostle? For after proposing what was calculated to
excite astonishment respecting those children yet unborn, he started to
himself, by way of objection, the following question: What, then, is
there unrighteousness with God? It was the place for him to answer, that
God foresaw the merits of each of them; yet he says nothing of this, but
resorts to the decrees and mercy of God.” And in another place, after
having discarded all merits antecedent to election, he says, “Here
undoubtedly falls to the ground the vain reasoning of those who defend
the foreknowledge of God in opposition to his grace, and affirm that we
were elected before the foundation of the world, because God foreknew
that we would be good, not that he himself would make us good. This is
not the language of him who says, ‘Ye have not chosen me, but I have
chosen you.’[483] For if he elected us because he foreknew our future
good, he must also have foreknown our choice of him;” and more to the
like purpose. This testimony should have weight with those who readily
acquiesce in the authority of the fathers. Though Augustine will not
allow himself to be disunited from the rest, but shows by clear
testimonies the falsehood of that discordance, with the odium of which
he was loaded by the Pelagians, he makes the following quotations from
Ambrose’s book on predestination: “Whom Christ has mercy on, him he
calls. Those who were indevout he could, if he would, have made devout.
But God calls whom he pleases, and makes whom he will religious.” If I
were inclined to compile a whole volume from Augustine, I could easily
show my readers, that I need no words but his; but I am unwilling to
burden them with prolixity. But come, let us suppose them to be silent;
let us attend to the subject itself. A difficult question was
raised—Whether it was a just procedure in God to favour with his grace
certain particular persons. This Paul could have decided by a single
word, if he had pleaded the consideration of works. Why, then, does he
not do this, but rather continue his discourse involved in the same
difficulty? Why, but from necessity? for the Holy Spirit, who spoke by
his mouth, never laboured under the malady of forgetfulness. Without any
evasion or circumlocution, therefore, he answers, that God favours his
elect because he will, and has mercy because he will. For this oracle,
“I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on
whom I will show mercy,”[484] is equivalent to a declaration, that God
is excited to mercy by no other motive than his own will to be merciful.
The observation of Augustine therefore remains true, “that the grace of
God does not find men fit to be elected, but makes them so.”

IX. We shall not dwell upon the sophistry of Thomas Aquinas, “that the
foreknowledge of merits is not the cause of predestination in regard to
the act of him who predestinates; but that with regard to us, it may in
some sense be so called, according to the particular consideration of
predestination; as when God is said to predestinate glory for man
according to merits, because he decreed to give him grace by which glory
is merited.” For since the Lord allows us to contemplate nothing in
election but his mere goodness, the desire of any one to see any thing
more is a preposterous disposition. But if we were inclined to a
contention of subtilty, we should be at no loss to refute this petty
sophism of Aquinas. He contends that glory is in a certain sense
predestinated for the elect according to their merits, because God
predestinates to them the grace by which glory is merited. What if I, on
the contrary, reply, that predestination to grace is subordinate to
election to life, and attendant upon it? that grace is predestinated to
those to whom the possession of glory has been already assigned; because
it pleases the Lord to conduct his children from election to
justification? For hence it will follow, that predestination to glory is
rather the cause of predestination to grace, than the contrary. But let
us dismiss these controversies; they are unnecessary with those who
think they have wisdom enough in the word of God. For it was truly
remarked by an ancient ecclesiastical writer, That they who ascribe
God’s election to merits, are wiser than they ought to be.

X. It is objected by some, that God will be inconsistent with himself,
if he invites all men universally to come to him, and receives only a
few elect. Thus, according to them, the universality of the promises
destroys the discrimination of special grace; and this is the language
of some moderate men, not so much for the sake of suppressing the truth,
as to exclude thorny questions, and restrain the curiosity of many. The
end is laudable, but the means cannot be approved; for disingenuous
evasion can never be excused; but with those who use insult and
invective, it is a foul cavil or a shameful error. How the Scripture
reconciles these two facts, that by external preaching all are called to
repentance and faith, and yet that the spirit of repentance and faith is
not given to all, I have elsewhere stated, and shall soon have occasion
partly to repeat. What they assume, I deny, as being false in two
respects. For he who threatens drought to one city while it rains upon
another, and who denounces to another place a famine of doctrine,[485]
lays himself under no positive obligation to call all men alike. And he
who, forbidding Paul to preach the word in Asia, and suffering him not
to go into Bithynia, calls him into Macedonia,[486] demonstrates his
right to distribute this treasure to whom he pleases. In Isaiah, he
still more fully declares his destination of the promises of salvation
exclusively for the elect; for of them only, and not indiscriminately of
all mankind, he declares that they shall be his disciples.[487] Whence
it appears, that when the doctrine of salvation is offered to all for
their effectual benefit, it is a corrupt prostitution of that which is
declared to be reserved particularly for the children of the church. At
present let this suffice, that though the voice of the gospel addresses
all men generally, yet the gift of faith is bestowed on few. Isaiah
assigns the cause, that “the arm of the Lord” is not “revealed” to
all.[488] If he had said, that the gospel is wickedly and perversely
despised, because many obstinately refuse to hear it, perhaps there
would be some colour for this notion of the universal call. The design
of the prophet is not to extenuate the guilt of men, when he states that
the source of blindness is God’s not deigning to reveal his arm to them;
he only suggests that their ears are in vain assailed with external
doctrine, because faith is a peculiar gift. I would wish to be informed
by these teachers, whether men become children of God by mere preaching,
or by faith. Surely, when John declares that all who believe in God’s
only begotten Son, are themselves made the children of God,[489] this is
not said of all the hearers of the word in a confused mass, but a
particular rank is assigned to believers, “which were born, not of
blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of
God.”[490] But they say, there is a mutual agreement between faith and
the word. This is the case wherever there is any faith; but it is no new
thing for the seed to fall among thorns or in stony places; not only
because most men are evidently in actual rebellion against God, but
because they are not all endued with eyes and ears. Where, then, will be
the consistency of God’s calling to himself such as he knows will never
come? Let Augustine answer for me: “Do you wish to dispute with me?
Rather unite with me in admiration, and exclaim, O the depth! Let us
both agree in fear, lest we perish in error.” Besides, if election is,
as Paul represents it, the parent of faith, I retort that argument upon
them, that faith cannot be general, because election is special. For
from the connection of causes and effects, it is easily inferred, when
Paul says, “God hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings, according
as he hath chosen us before the foundation of the world;” that therefore
these treasures are not common to all, because God has chosen only such
as he pleased. This is the reason why, in another place, he commends
“the faith of God’s elect;”[491] that none may be supposed to acquire
faith by any exertion of their own, but that God may retain the glory of
freely illuminating the objects of his previous election. For Bernard
justly observes, “Friends hear each one for himself when he addresses
them, ‘Fear not, little flock, for to you it is given to know the
mystery of the kingdom of heaven.’ Who are these? Certainly those whom
he has foreknown and predestinated to be conformed to the image of his
Son. The great and secret counsel has been revealed. The Lord knows who
are his, but what was known to God is manifested to men. Nor does he
favour any others with the participation of so great a mystery, but
those particular individuals whom he foreknew, and predestinated to be
his own.” A little after he concludes, “The mercy of God is from
everlasting to everlasting upon them that fear him; from everlasting in
predestination, to everlasting in beatification; the one knowing no
beginning; the other, no end.” But what necessity is there for citing
the testimony of Bernard, since we hear from the Master’s own mouth,
that “no man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God,”[492] which
implies, that all who are not regenerated by God, are stupefied with the
splendour of his countenance. Faith, indeed, is properly connected with
election, provided it occupies the second place. This order is clearly
expressed in these words of Christ: “This is the Father’s will, that of
all which he hath given me, I should lose nothing. And this is the will
of him that sent me, that every one which believeth on the Son, may have
everlasting life.”[493] If he willed the salvation of all, he would give
them all into the custody of his Son, and unite them all to his body by
the sacred bond of faith. Now, it is evident, that faith is the peculiar
pledge of his paternal love, reserved for his adopted children.
Therefore Christ says in another place, “The sheep follow the shepherd,
for they know his voice; and a stranger will they not follow, for they
know not the voice of strangers.”[494] Whence arises this difference,
but because their ears are divinely penetrated? For no man makes himself
a sheep, but is created such by heavenly grace. Hence also the Lord
proves the perpetual certainty and security of our salvation, because it
is kept by the invincible power of God.[495] Therefore he concludes that
unbelievers are not his sheep, because they are not of the number of
those whom God by Isaiah promised to him for his future disciples.[496]
Moreover, the testimonies I have cited, being expressive of
perseverance, are so many declarations of the invariable perpetuity of
election.

XI. Now, with respect to the reprobate, whom the apostle introduces in
the same place; as Jacob, without any merit yet acquired by good works,
is made an object of grace, so Esau, while yet unpolluted by any crime,
is accounted an object of hatred.[497] If we turn our attention to
works, we insult the apostle, as though he saw not that which is clear
to us. Now, that he saw none, is evident, because he expressly asserts
the one to have been elected and the other rejected while they had not
done any good or evil; in order to prove the foundation of Divine
predestination not to be in works.[498] Secondly, when he raises the
objection whether God is unjust, he never urges, what would have been
the most absolute and obvious defence of his justice, that God rewarded
Esau according to his wickedness; but contents himself with a different
solution, that the reprobate are raised up for this purpose, that the
glory of God may be displayed by their means. Lastly, he subjoins a
concluding observation, that “God hath mercy on whom he will have mercy,
and whom he will he hardeneth.”[499] You see how he attributes both to
the mere will of God. If, therefore, we can assign no reason why he
grants mercy to his people but because such is his pleasure, neither
shall we find any other cause but his will for the reprobation of
others. For when God is said to harden or show mercy to whom he pleases,
men are taught by this declaration to seek no cause beside his will.

Footnote 463:

Ephes. i. 4.

Footnote 464:

Col. i. 12.

Footnote 465:

Ephes. i. 4, 5.

Footnote 466:

2 Tim. i. 9.

Footnote 467:

Ephes. i. 9.

Footnote 468:

John xv. 16.

Footnote 469:

Rom. xi. 35.

Footnote 470:

Rom. ix. 6.

Footnote 471:

Rom. ix. 11-13.

Footnote 472:

Rom. ix. 15.

Footnote 473:

Rom. xi. 2.

Footnote 474:

Acts ii. 23.

Footnote 475:

1 Pet. i. 2.

Footnote 476:

Rom. xi. 2.

Footnote 477:

2 Tim. ii. 19.

Footnote 478:

John vi. 37, 39.

Footnote 479:

John vi. 44, 45.

Footnote 480:

John xvii. 9.

Footnote 481:

John xiii. 18.

Footnote 482:

John xv. 19.

Footnote 483:

John xv. 16.

Footnote 484:

Exod. xxxiii. 19.

Footnote 485:

Amos iv. 7; viii. 11.

Footnote 486:

Acts xvi. 6-10.

Footnote 487:

Isaiah viii. 16, &c.

Footnote 488:

Isaiah liii. 1.

Footnote 489:

John i. 12.

Footnote 490:

John i. 13.

Footnote 491:

Titus i. 1.

Footnote 492:

John vi. 46.

Footnote 493:

John vi. 39, 40.

Footnote 494:

John x. 4, 5.

Footnote 495:

John x. 29.

Footnote 496:

John x. 26.

Footnote 497:

Rom. ix. 13.

Footnote 498:

Rom. ix. 11.

Footnote 499:

Rom. ix. 18.

CHAPTER XXIII.
A REFUTATION OF THE CALUMNIES GENERALLY, BUT UNJUSTLY, URGED AGAINST
THIS DOCTRINE.

When the human mind hears these things, its petulance breaks all
restraint, and it discovers as serious and violent agitation as if
alarmed by the sound of a martial trumpet. Many, indeed, as if they
wished to avert odium from God, admit election in such a way as to deny
that any one is reprobated. But this is puerile and absurd, because
election itself could not exist without being opposed to reprobation.
God is said to separate those whom he adopts to salvation. To say that
others obtain by chance, or acquire by their own efforts, that which
election alone confers on a few, will be worse than absurd. Whom God
passes by, therefore, he reprobates, and from no other cause than his
determination to exclude them from the inheritance which he predestines
for his children. And the petulance of men is intolerable, if it refuses
to be restrained by the word of God, which treats of his
incomprehensible counsel, adored by angels themselves. But now we have
heard that hardening proceeds from the Divine power and will, as much as
mercy. Unlike the persons I have mentioned, Paul never strives to excuse
God by false allegations; he only declares that it is unlawful for a
thing formed to quarrel with its maker.[500] Now, how will those, who
admit not that any are reprobated by God, evade this declaration of
Christ: “Every plant which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be
rooted up?”[501] Upon all whom our heavenly Father has not deigned to
plant as sacred trees in his garden, they hear destruction plainly
denounced. If they deny this to be a sign of reprobation, there is
nothing so clear as to be capable of proof to such persons. But if they
cease not their clamour, let the sobriety of faith be satisfied with
this admonition of Paul, that there is no cause for quarrelling with
God, if, on the one hand, willing to show his wrath, and to make his
power known, he endures, “with much long-suffering, the vessels of wrath
fitted to destruction;” and on the other, makes “known the riches of his
glory on the vessels of mercy, whom he had afore prepared unto
glory.”[502] Let the reader observe that, to preclude every pretext for
murmurs and censures, Paul ascribes supreme dominion to the wrath and
power of God; because it is unreasonable for those deep judgments, which
absorb all our faculties, to be called in question by us. It is a
frivolous reply of our adversaries, that God does not wholly reject the
objects of his long-suffering, but remains in suspense towards them,
awaiting the possibility of their repentance; as though Paul attributed
patience to God, in expectation of the conversion of those whom he
asserts to be fitted to destruction. For Augustine, in expounding this
passage, where power is connected with patience, justly observes, that
God’s power is not permissive, but influential. They observe, also, that
it is not said without meaning, that the vessels of wrath are fitted to
destruction, but that God prepared the vessels of mercy; since by this
mode of expression, he ascribes and challenges to God the praise of
salvation, and throws the blame of perdition upon those who by their
choice procure it to themselves. But though I concede to them, that Paul
softens the asperity of the former clause by the difference of
phraseology, yet it is not at all consistent to transfer the preparation
for destruction to any other than the secret counsel of God; which is
also asserted just before in the context, that “God raised up Pharaoh,
and whom he will he hardeneth.” Whence it follows, that the cause of
hardening is the secret counsel of God. This, however, I maintain, which
is observed by Augustine that when God turns wolves into sheep, he
renovates them by more powerful grace to conquer their obduracy; and
therefore the obstinate are not converted, because God exerts not that
mightier grace, of which he is not destitute, if he chose to display it.

II. These things will amply suffice for persons of piety and modesty,
who remember that they are men. But as these virulent adversaries are
not content with one species of opposition, we will reply to them all as
occasion shall require. Foolish mortals enter into many contentions with
God, as though they could arraign him to plead to their accusations. In
the first place they inquire, by what right the Lord is angry with his
creatures who had not provoked him by any previous offence; for that to
devote to destruction whom he pleases, is more like the caprice of a
tyrant than the lawful sentence of a judge; that men have reason,
therefore, to expostulate with God, if they are predestinated to eternal
death without any demerit of their own, merely by his sovereign will. If
such thoughts ever enter the minds of pious men, they will be
sufficiently enabled to break their violence by this one consideration,
how exceedingly presumptuous it is only to inquire into the causes of
the Divine will; which is in fact, and is justly entitled to be, the
cause of every thing that exists. For if it has any cause, then there
must be something antecedent, on which it depends; which it is impious
to suppose. For the will of God is the highest rule of justice; so that
what he wills must be considered just, for this very reason, because he
wills it. When it is inquired, therefore, why the Lord did so, the
answer must be, Because he would. But if you go further, and ask why he
so determined, you are in search of something greater and higher than
the will of God, which can never be found. Let human temerity,
therefore, desist from seeking that which is not, lest it should fail of
finding that which is. This will be a sufficient restraint to any one
disposed to reason with reverence concerning the secrets of his God.
Against the audaciousness of the impious, who are not afraid openly to
rail against God, the Lord will sufficiently defend himself by his own
justice, without any vindication by us, when, depriving their
consciences of every subterfuge, he shall convict them and bind them
with a sense of their guilt. Yet we espouse not the notion of the Romish
theologians concerning the absolute and arbitrary power of God, which,
on account of its profaneness, deserves our detestation. We represent
not God as lawless, who is a law to himself; because, as Plato says,
laws are necessary to men, who are the subjects of evil desires; but the
will of God is not only pure from every fault, but the highest standard
of perfection, even the law of all laws. But we deny that he is liable
to be called to any account; we deny also that we are proper judges, to
decide on this cause according to our own apprehension. Wherefore, if we
attempt to go beyond what is lawful, let us be deterred by the Psalmist,
who tells us, that God will be clear when he is judged by mortal
man.[503]

III. Thus God is able to check his enemies by silence. But that we may
not suffer them to deride his holy name with impunity, he supplies us
from his word with arms against them. Therefore, if any one attack us
with such an inquiry as this, why God has from the beginning
predestinated some men to death, who, not yet being brought into
existence, could not yet deserve the sentence of death,—we will reply by
asking them, in return, what they suppose God owes to man, if he chooses
to judge of him from his own nature. As we are all corrupted by sin, we
must necessarily be odious to God, and that not from tyrannical cruelty,
but in the most equitable estimation of justice. If all whom the Lord
predestinates to death are in their natural condition liable to the
sentence of death, what injustice do they complain of receiving from
him? Let all the sons of Adam come forward; let them all contend and
dispute with their Creator, because by his eternal providence they were
previously to their birth adjudged to endless misery. What murmur will
they be able to raise against this vindication, when God, on the other
hand, shall call them to a review of themselves. If they have all been
taken from a corrupt mass, it is no wonder that they are subject to
condemnation. Let them not, therefore, accuse God of injustice, if his
eternal decree has destined them to death, to which they feel
themselves, whatever be their desire or aversion, spontaneously led
forward by their own nature. Hence appears the perverseness of their
disposition to murmur, because they intentionally suppress the cause of
condemnation, which they are constrained to acknowledge in themselves,
hoping to excuse themselves by charging it upon God. But though I ever
so often admit God to be the author of it, which is perfectly correct,
yet this does not abolish the guilt impressed upon their consciences,
and from time to time recurring to their view.

IV. They further object, Were they not, by the decree of God,
antecedently predestinated to that corruption which is now stated as the
cause of condemnation? When they perish in their corruption, therefore,
they only suffer the punishment of that misery into which, in
consequence of his predestination, Adam fell, and precipitated his
posterity with him. Is he not unjust, therefore, in treating his
creatures with such cruel mockery? I confess, indeed, that all the
descendants of Adam fell by the Divine will into that miserable
condition in which they are now involved; and this is what I asserted
from the beginning, that we must always return at last to the sovereign
determination of God’s will, the cause of which is hidden in himself.
But it follows not, therefore, that God is liable to this reproach. For
we will answer them thus in the language of Paul: “O man, who art thou
that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed
it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay,
of the same lump, to make one vessel unto honour and another unto
dishonour?”[504] They will deny this to be in reality any vindication of
God’s justice, and call it a subterfuge, such as is commonly resorted to
by persons destitute of a sufficient defence. For what appears to be the
meaning of this, but that God possesses power, that cannot be resisted,
of doing any thing whatsoever according to his pleasure? But it is very
different. For what stronger reason can be alleged, than when we are
directed to consider who God is? How could any injustice be committed by
him who is the Judge of the world? If it is the peculiar property of the
nature of God to do justice, then he naturally loves righteousness and
hates iniquity. The apostle, therefore, has not resorted to sophistry,
as if he were in danger of confutation, but has shown that the reason of
the Divine justice is too high to be measured by a human standard, or
comprehended by the littleness of the human mind. The apostle, indeed,
acknowledges that there is a depth in the Divine judgments sufficient to
absorb the minds of all mankind, if they attempt to penetrate it. But he
also teaches how criminal it is to reduce the works of God to such a
law, that on failing to discover the reason of them, we presume to
censure them. It is a well known observation of Solomon, though few
rightly understand it, that “the great God, that formed all things, both
rewardeth the fool, and rewardeth transgressors.”[505] For he is
proclaiming the greatness of God, whose will it is to punish fools and
transgressors, although he favours them not with his Spirit. And men
betray astonishing madness in desiring to comprehend immensity within
the limits of their reason. The angels who stood in their integrity,
Paul calls “elect;”[506] if their constancy rested on the Divine
pleasure, the defection of the others argues their being forsaken—a fact
for which no other cause can be assigned than the reprobation hidden in
the secret counsel of God.

V. Now, to any follower of Manes or Celestius, a calumniator of Divine
Providence, I reply with Paul, that no account ought to be given of it,
for its greatness far surpasses our understanding. What wonder or
absurdity is there in this? Would he have the Divine power so limited,
as to be unable to execute more than his little capacity can comprehend?
I say, with Augustine, that the Lord created those who, he certainly
foreknew, would fall into destruction, and that this was actually so
because he willed it; but of his will it belongs not to us to demand the
reason, which we are incapable of comprehending; nor is it reasonable
that the Divine will should be made the subject of controversy with us,
which, whenever it is discussed, is only another name for the highest
rule of justice. Why, then, is any question started concerning
injustice, where justice is evidently conspicuous? Nor let us be ashamed
to follow the example of Paul, and stop the mouths of unreasonable and
wicked men in this manner, repeating the same answer as often as they
shall dare to repeat their complaints. Who are you, miserable mortals,
preferring an accusation against God, because he accommodates not the
greatness of his works to your ignorance? as though they were
necessarily wrong, because they are concealed from carnal view. Of the
immensity of God’s judgments you have the clearest evidences. You know
they are called “a great deep.” Now, examine your contracted intellects,
whether they can comprehend God’s secret decrees. What advantage or
satisfaction do you gain from plunging yourselves, by your mad
researches, into an abyss that reason itself pronounces will be fatal to
you? Why are you not at least restrained by some fear of what is
contained in the history of Job and the books of the prophets,
concerning the inconceivable wisdom and terrible power of God? If your
mind is disturbed, embrace without reluctance the advice of Augustine:
“You, a man, expect an answer from me, who am also a man. Let us,
therefore, both hear him, who says, O man, who art thou? Faithful
ignorance is better than presumptuous knowledge. Seek merits; you will
find nothing but punishment. O the depth! Peter denies; the thief
believes; O the depth! Do you seek a reason? I will tremble at the
depth. Do you reason? I will wonder. Do you dispute? I will believe. I
see the depth, I reach not the bottom. Paul rested, because he found
admiration. He calls the judgments of God unsearchable; and are you come
to scrutinize them? He says, his ways are past finding out; and are you
come to investigate them?” We shall do no good by proceeding any
further; it will not satisfy their petulance; and the Lord needs no
other defence than what he has employed by his Spirit, speaking by the
mouth of Paul; and we forget to speak well when we cease to speak with
God.

VI. Impiety produces also a second objection, which directly tends, not
so much to the crimination of God, as to the vindication of the sinner;
though the sinner whom God condemns cannot be justified without the
disgrace of the Judge. For this is their profane complaint, Why should
God impute as a fault to man those things which were rendered necessary
by his predestination? What should they do? Should they resist his
decrees? This would be vain, for it would be impossible. Therefore they
are not justly punished for those things of which God’s predestination
is the principal cause. Here I shall refrain from the defence commonly
resorted to by ecclesiastical writers, that the foreknowledge of God
prevents not man from being considered as a sinner, since God foresees
man’s evils, not his own. For then the cavil would not stop here; it
would rather be urged, that still God might, if he would, have provided
against the evils he foresaw, and that not having done this, he created
man expressly to this end, that he might so conduct himself in the
world; but if, by the Divine Providence, man was created in such a state
as afterwards to do whatever he actually does, he ought not to be
charged with guilt for things which he cannot avoid, and to which the
will of God constrains him. Let us see, then, how this difficulty should
be solved. In the first place, the declaration of Solomon ought to be
universally admitted, that “the Lord hath made all things for himself;
yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.”[507] Observe; all things
being at God’s disposal, and the decision of salvation or death
belonging to him, he orders all things by his counsel and decree in such
a manner, that some men are born devoted from the womb to certain death,
that his name may be glorified in their destruction. If any one pleads,
that no necessity was imposed on them by the providence of God, but
rather that they were created by him in such a state in consequence of
his foresight of their future depravity,—it will amount to nothing. The
old writers used, indeed, to adopt this solution, though not without
some degree of hesitation. But the schoolmen satisfy themselves with it,
as though it admitted of no opposition. I will readily grant, indeed,
that mere foreknowledge lays no necessity on the creatures, though this
is not universally admitted; for there are some who maintain it to be
the actual cause of what comes to pass. But Valla, a man otherwise not
much versed in theology, appears to me to have discovered superior
acuteness and judiciousness, by showing that this controversy is
unnecessary, because both life and death are acts of God’s will, rather
than of his foreknowledge. If God simply foresaw the fates of men, and
did not also dispose and fix them by his determination, there would be
room to agitate the question, whether his providence or foresight
rendered them at all necessary. But since he foresees future events only
in consequence of his decree, that they shall happen, it is useless to
contend about foreknowledge, while it is evident that all things come to
pass rather by ordination and decree.

VII. They say it is nowhere declared in express terms, that God decreed
Adam should perish by his defection; as though the same God, whom the
Scripture represents as doing whatever he pleases, created the noblest
of his creatures without any determinate end. They maintain, that he was
possessed of free choice, that he might be the author of his own fate,
but that God decreed nothing more than to treat him according to his
desert. If so weak a scheme as this be received, what will become of
God’s omnipotence, by which he governs all things according to his
secret counsel, independently of every person or thing besides? But
whether they wish it or dread it, predestination exhibits itself in
Adam’s posterity. For the loss of salvation by the whole race through
the guilt of one parent, was an event that did not happen by nature.
What prevents their acknowledging concerning one man, what they
reluctantly grant concerning the whole species? Why should they lose
their labour in sophistical evasions? The Scripture proclaims, that all
men were, in the person of their father, sentenced to eternal death.
This, not being attributable to nature, it is evident must have
proceeded from the wonderful counsel of God. The perplexity and
hesitation discovered at trifles by these pious defenders of the justice
of God, and their facility in overcoming great difficulties, are truly
absurd. I inquire again, how it came to pass that the fall of Adam,
independent of any remedy, should involve so many nations with their
infant children in eternal death, but because such was the will of God.
Their tongues, so loquacious on every other point, must here be struck
dumb. It is an awful decree, I confess; but no one can deny that God
foreknew the future final fate of man before he created him, and that he
did foreknow it because it was appointed by his own decree. If any one
here attacks God’s foreknowledge, he rashly and inconsiderately
stumbles. For what ground of accusation is there against the heavenly
Judge for not being ignorant of futurity? If there is any just or
plausible complaint, it lies against predestination. Nor should it be
thought absurd to affirm, that God not only foresaw the fall of the
first man, and the ruin of his posterity in him, but also arranged all
by the determination of his own will. For as it belongs to his wisdom to
foreknow every thing future, so it belongs to his power to rule and
govern all things by his hand. And this question also, as well as
others, is judiciously discussed by Augustine. “We most wholesomely
confess, what we most rightly believe, that the God and Lord of all
things, who created every thing very good, and foreknew that evil would
arise out of good, and knew that it was more suitable to his almighty
goodness to bring good out of evil than not to suffer evil to exist,
ordained the life of angels and men in such a manner as to exhibit in
it, first, what free-will was capable of doing, and afterwards, what
could be effected by the blessings of his grace, and the sentence of his
justice.”

VIII. Here they recur to the distinction between will and permission,
and insist that God permits the destruction of the impious, but does not
will it. But what reason shall we assign for his permitting it, but
because it is his will? It is not probable, however, that man procured
his own destruction by the mere permission, and without any appointment,
of God; as though God had not determined what he would choose to be the
condition of the principal of his creatures. I shall not hesitate,
therefore, to confess plainly with Augustine, “that the will of God is
the necessity of things, and that what he has willed will necessarily
come to pass; as those things are really about to happen which he has
foreseen.” Now, if either Pelagians, or Manichæans, or Anabaptists, or
Epicureans, (for we are concerned with these four sects on this
argument,) in excuse for themselves and the impious, plead the necessity
with which they are bound by God’s predestination,—they allege nothing
applicable to the case. For if predestination is no other than a
dispensation of Divine justice,—mysterious indeed, but liable to no
blame,—since it is certain they were not unworthy of being predestinated
to that fate, it is equally certain, that the destruction they incur by
predestination is consistent with the strictest justice. Besides, their
perdition depends on the Divine predestination in such a manner, that
the cause and matter of it are found in themselves. For the first man
fell because the Lord had determined it was so expedient. The reason of
this determination is unknown to us. Yet it is certain that he
determined thus, only because he foresaw it would tend to the just
illustration of the glory of his name. Whenever you hear the glory of
God mentioned, think of his justice. For what deserves praise must be
just. Man falls, therefore, according to the appointment of Divine
Providence; but he falls by his own fault. The Lord had a little before
pronounced “every thing that he had made” to be “very good.” Whence,
then, comes the depravity of man to revolt from his God? Lest it should
be thought to come from creation, God had approved and commended what
had proceeded from himself. By his own wickedness, therefore, he
corrupted the nature he had received pure from the Lord, and by his fall
he drew all his posterity with him into destruction. Wherefore let us
rather contemplate the evident cause of condemnation, which is nearer to
us in the corrupt nature of mankind, than search after a hidden and
altogether incomprehensible one in the predestination of God. And we
should feel no reluctance to submit our understanding to the infinite
wisdom of God, so far as to acquiesce in its many mysteries. To be
ignorant of things which it is neither possible nor lawful to know, is
to be learned: an eagerness to know them, is a species of madness.

IX. Some one perhaps will say, that I have not yet adduced a sufficient
answer to that sacrilegious excuse. I confess it is impossible ever
wholly to prevent the petulance and murmurs of impiety; yet I think I
have said what should suffice to remove not only all just ground, but
every plausible pretext, for objection. The reprobate wish to be thought
excusable in sinning, because they cannot avoid a necessity of sinning;
especially since this necessity is laid upon them by the ordination of
God. But we deny this to be a just excuse; because the ordination of
God, by which they complain that they are destined to destruction, is
guided by equity, unknown indeed to us, but indubitably certain. Whence
we conclude, that they sustain no misery that is not inflicted upon them
by the most righteous judgment of God. In the next place, we maintain
that they act preposterously, who, in seeking for the origin of their
condemnation, direct their views to the secret recesses of the Divine
counsel, and overlook the corruption of nature, which is its real
source. The testimony God gives to his creation prevents their imputing
it to him. For though, by the eternal providence of God, man was created
to that misery to which he is subject, yet the ground of it he has
derived from himself, not from God; since he is thus ruined solely in
consequence of his having degenerated from the pure creation of God to
vicious and impure depravity.

X. The doctrine of God’s predestination is calumniated by its
adversaries, as involving a third absurdity. For when we attribute it
solely to the determination of the Divine will, that those whom God
admits to be heirs of his kingdom are exempted from the universal
destruction, from this they infer, that he is a respecter of persons,
which the Scripture uniformly denies; that, therefore, either the
Scripture is inconsistent with itself, or in the election of God regard
is had to merits. In the first place, the Scripture denies that God is a
respecter of persons, in a different sense from that in which they
understand it; for by the word _person_, it signifies not a man, but
those things in a man, which, being conspicuous to the eyes, usually
conciliate favour, honour, and dignity, or attract hatred, contempt, and
disgrace. Such are riches, wealth, power, nobility, magistracy, country,
elegance of form, on the one hand; and on the other hand, poverty,
necessity, ignoble birth, slovenliness, contempt, and the like. Thus
Peter and Paul declare that God is not a respecter of persons, because
he makes no difference between the Jew and Greek, to reject one and
receive the other, merely on account of his nation.[508] So James uses
the same language when he means to assert, that God in his judgment pays
no regard to riches.[509] And Paul, in another place, declares, that in
judging, God has no respect to liberty or bondage.[510] There will,
therefore, be no contradiction in our affirming, that according to the
good pleasure of his will, God chooses whom he will as his children,
irrespective of all merit, while he rejects and reprobates others. Yet,
for the sake of further satisfaction, the matter may be explained in the
following manner: They ask how it happens, that of two persons
distinguished from each other by no merit, God, in his election, leaves
one and takes another. I, on the other hand, ask them, whether they
suppose him that is taken to possess any thing that can attract the
favour of God. If they confess that he has not, as indeed they must, it
will follow, that God looks not at man, but derives his motive to favour
him from his own goodness. God’s election of one man, therefore, while
he rejects another, proceeds not from any respect of man, but solely
from his own mercy; which may freely display and exert itself wherever
and whenever it pleases. For we have elsewhere seen also that, from the
beginning, not many noble, or wise, or honourable were called,[511] that
God might humble the pride of flesh; so far is his favour from being
confined to persons.

XI. Wherefore some people falsely and wickedly charge God with a
violation of equal justice, because, in his predestination, he observes
not the same uniform course of proceeding towards all. If he finds all
guilty, they say, let him punish all alike; if innocent, let him
withhold the rigour of justice from all. But they deal with him just as
if either mercy were forbidden him, or, when he chooses to show mercy,
he were constrained wholly to renounce justice. What is it that they
require? If all are guilty, that they shall all suffer the same
punishment. We confess the guilt to be common, but we say, that some are
relieved by Divine mercy. They say, Let it relieve all. But we reply,
Justice requires that he should likewise show himself to be a just judge
in the infliction of punishment. When they object to this, what is it
but attempting to deprive God of the opportunity to manifest his mercy,
or to grant it to him, at least, on the condition that he wholly abandon
his justice? Wherefore there is the greatest propriety in these
observations of Augustine: “The whole mass of mankind having fallen into
condemnation in the first man, the vessels that are formed from it to
honour, are not vessels of personal righteousness, but of Divine mercy;
and the formation of others to dishonour, is to be attributed, not to
iniquity, but to the Divine decree,” &c. While God rewards those whom he
rejects with deserved punishment, and to those whom he calls, freely
gives undeserved grace, he is liable to no accusation, but may be
compared to a creditor, who has power to release one, and enforce his
demands on another. The Lord, therefore, may give grace to whom he will,
because he is merciful, and yet not give it to all, because he is a just
judge; may manifest his free grace, by giving to some what they never
deserve, while, by not giving to all, he declares the demerit of all.
For when Paul says, that “God hath concluded all under sin, that he
might have mercy upon all,”[512] it must, at the same time, be added,
that he is debtor to none; for no man “hath first given to him,” to
entitle him to demand a recompense.[513]

XII. Another argument often urged to overthrow predestination is, that
its establishment would destroy all solicitude and exertion for
rectitude of conduct. For who can hear, they say, that either life or
death is appointed for him by God’s eternal and immutable decree,
without immediately concluding that it is of no importance how he
conducts himself; since no action of his can in any respect either
impede or promote the predestination of God? Thus all will abandon
themselves to despair, and run into every excess to which their
licentious propensities may lead them. And truly this objection is not
altogether destitute of truth; for there are many impure persons who
bespatter the doctrine of predestination with these vile blasphemies,
and with this pretext elude all admonitions and reproofs: God knows what
he has determined to do with us: if he has decreed our salvation, he
will bring us to it in his own time; if he has destined us to death, it
will be in vain for us to strive against it. But the Scripture, while it
inculcates superior awe and reverence of mind in the consideration of so
great a mystery, instructs the godly in a very different conclusion, and
fully refutes the wicked and unreasonable inferences of these persons.
For the design of what it contains respecting predestination is, not
that, being excited to presumption, we may attempt, with nefarious
temerity, to scrutinize the inaccessible secrets of God, but rather
that, being humbled and dejected, we may learn to tremble at his justice
and admire his mercy. At this object believers will aim. But the impure
cavils of the wicked are justly restrained by Paul. They profess to go
on securely in their vices; because if they are of the number of the
elect, such conduct will not prevent their being finally brought into
life. But Paul declares the end of our election to be, that we may lead
a holy and blameless life.[514] If the object of election be holiness of
life, it should rather awaken and stimulate us to a cheerful practice of
it, than be used as a pretext for slothfulness. But how inconsistent is
it to cease from the practice of virtue because election is sufficient
to salvation, while the end proposed in election is our diligent
performance of virtuous actions! Away, then, with such corrupt and
sacrilegious perversions of the whole order of election. They carry
their blasphemies much further, by asserting, that any one who is
reprobated by God will labour to no purpose if he endeavour to approve
himself to him by innocence and integrity of life; but here they are
convicted of a most impudent falsehood. For whence could such exertion
originate but from election? Whoever are of the number of the reprobate,
being vessels made to dishonour, cease not to provoke the Divine wrath
against them by continual transgressions, and to confirm by evident
proofs the judgment of God already denounced against them; so that their
striving with him in vain is what can never happen.

XIII. This doctrine is maliciously and impudently calumniated by others,
as subversive of all exhortations to piety of life. This formerly
brought great odium upon Augustine, which he removed by his Treatise on
Correction and Grace, addressed to Valentine, the perusal of which will
easily satisfy all pious and teachable persons. Yet I will touch on a
few things, which I hope will convince such as are honest and not
contentious. How openly and loudly gratuitous election was preached by
Paul, we have already seen; was he therefore cold in admonitions and
exhortations? Let these good zealots compare his vehemence with theirs;
theirs will be found ice itself in comparison with his incredible
fervour. And certainly every scruple is removed by this principle, that
“God hath not called us to uncleanness but that every one should know
how to possess his vessel in sanctification and honour;”[515] and again,
that “we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works,
which God hath before ordained, that we should walk in them.”[516]
Indeed, a slight acquaintance with Paul will enable any one to
understand, without tedious arguments, how easily he reconciles things
which they pretend to be repugnant to each other. Christ commands men to
believe in him. Yet his limitation is neither false nor contrary to his
command, when he says, “No man can come unto me, except it were given
unto him of my Father.”[517] Let preaching therefore have its course to
bring men to faith, and by a continual progress to promote their
perseverance. Nor let the knowledge of predestination be prevented, that
the obedient may not be proud as of any thing of their own, but may
glory in the Lord. Christ had some particular meaning in saying, “Who
hath ears to hear, let him hear.”[518] Therefore when we exhort and
preach, persons endued with ears readily obey; and those who are
destitute of them exhibit an accomplishment of the Scripture, that
hearing they hear not.[519] “But why (says Augustine) should some have
ears, and others not? ‘Who hath known the mind of the Lord?’[520] Must
that which is evident be denied, because that which is concealed cannot
be comprehended?” These observations I have faithfully borrowed from
Augustine; but as his words will perhaps have more authority than mine,
I will proceed to an exact quotation of them. “If, on hearing this, some
persons become torpid and slothful, and exchanging labour for lawless
desire, pursue the various objects of concupiscence, must what is
declared concerning the foreknowledge of God be therefore accounted
false? If God foreknew that they would be good, will they not be so, in
whatever wickedness they now live? and if he foreknew that they would be
wicked, will they not be so, in whatever goodness they now appear? Are
these, then, sufficient causes why the truths which are declared
concerning the foreknowledge of God should be either denied or passed
over in silence? especially when the consequence of silence respecting
these would be the adoption of other errors. The reason of concealing
the truth (he says) is one thing, and the necessity of declaring it is
another. It would be tedious to inquire after all the reasons for
passing the truth over in silence; but this is one of them; lest those
who understand it not should become worse, while we wish to make those
who understand it better informed; who, indeed, are not made wiser by
our declaring any such thing, nor are they rendered worse. But since the
truth is of such a nature, that when we speak of it, he becomes worse
who cannot understand it, and when we are silent about it, he who can
understand it becomes worse,—what do we think ought to be done? Should
not the truth rather be spoken, that he who is capable may understand
it, than buried in silence; the consequence of which would be, not only
that neither would know it, but even the more intelligent of the two
would become worse, who, if he heard and understood it, would also teach
it to many others? And we are unwilling to say what we are authorized to
say by the testimony of Scripture. For we are afraid, indeed, lest by
speaking we may offend him who cannot understand, but are not afraid
lest in consequence of our silence, he who is capable of understanding
the truth may be deceived by falsehood.” And condensing this sentiment
afterwards into a smaller compass, he places it in a still stronger
light. “Wherefore, if the apostles and the succeeding teachers of the
Church both piously treated of God’s eternal election, and held
believers under the discipline of a pious life, what reason have these
our opponents, when silenced by the invincible force of truth, to
suppose themselves right in maintaining that what is spoken of
predestination, although it be true, ought not to be preached to the
people? But it must by all means be preached, that he who has ears to
hear may hear. But who has them, unless he receives them from him who
has promised to bestow them? Certainly he who receives not may reject,
provided he who receives, takes and drinks, drinks and lives. For as
piety must be preached that God may be rightly worshipped, so also must
predestination, that he who has ears to hear of the grace of God, may
glory in God, and not in himself.”

XIV. And yet, being peculiarly desirous of edification, that holy man
regulates his mode of teaching the truth, so that offence may as far as
possible be prudently avoided. For he suggests that whatever is asserted
with truth may also be delivered in a suitable manner. If any one
address the people in such a way as this, If you believe not, it is
because you are by a Divine decree already destined to destruction,—he
not only cherishes slothfulness, but even encourages wickedness. If any
one extend the declaration to the future, that they who hear will never
believe because they are reprobated,—this would be rather imprecation
than instruction. Such persons, therefore, as foolish teachers, or
inauspicious, ominous prophets, Augustine charges to depart from the
Church. In another place, indeed, he justly maintains, “that a man then
profits by correction, when he, who causes whom he pleases to profit
even without correction, compassionates and assists. But why some in one
way, and some in another? Far be it from us to ascribe the choice to the
clay instead of the potter.” Again afterwards: “When men are either
introduced or restored into the way of righteousness by correction, who
works salvation in their hearts, but he who gives the increase, whoever
plants and waters? he whose determination to save is not resisted by any
free-will of man. It is beyond all doubt, therefore, that the will of
God, who has done whatever he has pleased in heaven and in earth, and
who has done even things that are yet future, cannot possibly be
resisted by the will of man, so as to prevent the execution of his
purposes: since he controls the wills of men according to his pleasure.”
Again: “When he designs to bring men to himself, does he bind them by
corporeal bonds? He acts inwardly; he inwardly seizes their hearts; he
inwardly moves their hearts, and draws them by their wills, which he has
wrought in them.” But he immediately subjoins, what must by no means be
omitted; “that because we know not who belongs, or does not belong, to
the number of the predestinated, it becomes us affectionately to desire
the salvation of all. The consequence will be, that whomsoever we meet
we shall endeavour to make him a partaker of peace. But our peace shall
rest upon the sons of peace. On our part, therefore, salutary and severe
reproof, like a medicine, must be administered to all, that they may
neither perish themselves nor destroy others; but it will be the
province of God to render it useful to them whom he had foreknown and
predestinated.”

Footnote 500:

Rom. ix. 20.

Footnote 501:

Matt. xv. 13.

Footnote 502:

Rom. ix. 22, 23.

Footnote 503:

Psalm li. 4.

Footnote 504:

Rom. v. 20, 21.

Footnote 505:

Prov. xxvi. 10.

Footnote 506:

1 Tim. v. 21.

Footnote 507:

Prov. xvi. 4.

Footnote 508:

Acts x. 34. Rom. ii. 11. Gal. iii. 28.

Footnote 509:

James ii. 5.

Footnote 510:

Col. iii. 25. Eph. vi. 9.

Footnote 511:

1 Cor. i. 26.

Footnote 512:

Gal. iii. 22. Rom. xi. 32.

Footnote 513:

Rom. xi. 35.

Footnote 514:

Ephes. i. 4.

Footnote 515:

1 Thess. iv. 4, 7.

Footnote 516:

Ephes. ii. 10.

Footnote 517:

John vi. 65.

Footnote 518:

Matt. xiii. 9.

Footnote 519:

Isaiah vi. 9.

Footnote 520:

Rom. xi. 34.

CHAPTER XXIV.
ELECTION CONFIRMED BY THE DIVINE CALL. THE DESTINED DESTRUCTION OF THE
REPROBATE PROCURED BY THEMSELVES.

But, in order to a further elucidation of the subject, it is necessary
to treat of the calling of the elect, and of the blinding and hardening
of the impious. On the former I have already made a few observations,
with a view to refute the error of those who suppose the generality of
the promises to put all mankind on an equality. But the discriminating
election of God, which is otherwise concealed within himself, he
manifests only by his calling, which may therefore with propriety be
termed the testification or evidence of it. “For whom he did foreknow,
he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son.
Moreover, whom he did predestinate, them he also called; and whom he
called, them he also justified,” in order to their eventual
glorification.[521] Though by choosing his people, the Lord has adopted
them as his children, yet we see that they enter not on the possession
of so great a blessing till they are called; on the other hand, as soon
as they are called, they immediately enjoy some communication of his
election. On this account Paul calls the Spirit received by them, both
“the Spirit of adoption, and the seal and earnest of the future
inheritance;”[522] because, by his testimony, he confirms and seals to
their hearts the certainty of their future adoption. For though the
preaching of the gospel is a stream from the source of election, yet,
being common also to the reprobate, it would of itself be no solid proof
of it. For God effectually teaches his elect, to bring them to faith, as
we have already cited from the words of Christ: “He which is of God,
he,” and he alone, “hath seen the Father.”[523] Again: “I have
manifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me.”[524] For he says
in another place, “No man can come to me, except the Father draw
him.”[525] This passage is judiciously explained by Augustine in the
following words: “If, according to the declaration of truth, every one
that has learned comes, whosoever comes not, certainly has not learned.
It does not necessarily follow that he who can come actually comes,
unless he has both willed and done it; but every one that has learned of
the Father, not only can come, but also actually comes; where there is
an immediate union of the advantage of possibility, the inclination of
the will, and the consequent action.” In another place he is still
clearer: “Every one that hath heard and learned of the Father, cometh
unto me. Is not this saying, There is no one that hears and learns of
the Father, and comes not unto me? For if every one that has heard and
learned of the Father comes, certainly every one that comes not has
neither heard nor learned of the Father; for if he had heard and
learned, he would come. Very remote from carnal observation is this
school, in which men hear and learn of the Father to come to the Son.”
Just after he says, “This grace, which is secretly communicated to the
hearts of men, is received by no hard heart; for the first object of its
communication is, that hardness of heart may be taken away. When the
Father is heard within therefore, he takes away the heart of stone, and
gives a heart of flesh. For thus he forms children of promise and
vessels of mercy whom he has prepared for glory. Why, then, does he not
teach all, that they may come to Christ, but because all whom he
teaches, he teaches in mercy? but whom he teaches not, he teaches not in
judgment; for he hath mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will
he hardeneth.” Those whom God has chosen, therefore, he designates as
his children, and determines himself to be their Father. By calling, he
introduces them into his family, and unites them to himself, that they
may be one. By connecting calling with election, the Scripture evidently
suggests that nothing is requisite to it but the free mercy of God. For
if we inquire whom he calls, and for what reason, the answer is, those
whom he had elected. But when we come to election, we see nothing but
mercy on every side. And so that observation of Paul is very applicable
here—“It is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God
that showeth mercy;” but not as it is commonly understood by those who
make a distribution between the grace of God, and the will and exertion
of man. For they say, that human desires and endeavours have no efficacy
of themselves, unless they are rendered successful by the grace of God;
but maintain that, with the assistance of his blessing, these things
have also their share in procuring salvation. To refute their cavil, I
prefer Augustine’s words to my own. “If the apostle only meant that it
is not of him that wills, or of him that runs, without the assistance of
the merciful Lord, we may retort the converse proposition, that it is
not of mercy alone without the assistance of willing and running.” If
this be manifestly impious, we may be certain that the apostle ascribes
every thing to the Lord’s mercy, and leaves nothing to our wills or
exertions. This was the opinion of that holy man. Nor is the least
regard due to their paltry sophism, that Paul would not have expressed
himself so, if we had no exertion or will. For he considered not what
was in man; but seeing some persons attribute salvation partly to human
industry, he simply condemned their error in the former part of the
sentence, and in the latter, vindicated the claim of Divine mercy to the
whole accomplishment of salvation. And what do the prophets, but
perpetually proclaim the gratuitous calling of God?

II. This point is further demonstrated by the very nature and
dispensation of calling, which consists not in the mere preaching of the
word, but in the accompanying illumination of the Spirit. To whom God
offers his word, we are informed in the prophet: “I am sought of them
that asked not for me: I am found of them that sought me not: I said,
Behold me, behold me, unto a nation that was not called by my
name.”[526] And lest the Jews should suppose that this clemency extended
only to the Gentiles, he recalls to their remembrance the situation from
which he took their father Abraham, when he deigned to draw him to
himself; that was from the midst of idolatry, in which he and all his
family were sunk.[527] When he first shines upon the undeserving with
the light of his word, he thereby exhibits a most brilliant specimen of
his free goodness. Here, then, the infinite goodness of God is
displayed, but not to the salvation of all; for heavier judgment awaits
the reprobate, because they reject the testimony of Divine love. And God
also, to manifest his glory, withdraws from them the efficacious
influence of his Spirit. This internal call, therefore, is a pledge of
salvation, which cannot possibly deceive. To this purpose is that
passage of John—“Hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit
which he hath given us.”[528] And lest the flesh should glory in having
answered at least to his call, and accepted his free offers, he affirms
that men have no ears to hear, or eyes to see, but such as he has
formed; and that he acts in this, not according to individual gratitude,
but according to his own election. Of this fact Luke gives us an eminent
example, where Jews and Gentiles in common heard the preaching of Paul
and Barnabas. Though they were all instructed on that occasion with the
same discourse, it is narrated that “as many as were ordained to eternal
life, believed.”[529] With what face, then, can we deny the freeness of
calling, in which election reigns alone, even to the last?

III. Here two errors are to be avoided. For some suppose man to be a
coöperator with God, so that the validity of election depends on his
consent; thus, according to them, the will of man is superior to the
counsel of God. As though the Scripture taught, that we are only given
an ability to believe, and not faith itself. Others, not thus enervating
the grace of the Holy Spirit, yet induced by I know not what mode of
reasoning, suspend election on that which is subsequent to it; as though
it were doubtful and ineffectual till it is confirmed by faith. That
this is its confirmation _to us_ is very clear; that it is the
manifestation of God’s secret counsel before concealed, we have already
seen; but all that we are to understand by this, is that what was before
unknown is verified, and as it were ratified with a seal. But it is
contrary to the truth to assert, that election has no efficacy till
after we have embraced the gospel, and that this circumstance gives it
all its energy. The certainty of it, indeed, we are to seek here; for if
we attempt to penetrate to the eternal decree of God, we shall be
ingulfed in the profound abyss. But when God has discovered it to us, we
must ascend to loftier heights, that the cause may not be lost in the
effect. For what can be more absurd and inconsistent, when the Scripture
teaches that we are illuminated according as God has chosen us, than
that our eyes should be so dazzled with the blaze of this light as to
refuse to contemplate election? At the same time I admit that, in order
to attain an assurance of our salvation, we ought to begin with the
word, and that with it our confidence ought to be satisfied, so as to
call upon God as our Father. For some persons, to obtain certainty
respecting the counsel of God, “which is nigh unto us, in our mouth and
in our heart,”[530] preposterously wish to soar above the clouds. Such
temerity, therefore, should be restrained by the sobriety of faith, that
we may be satisfied with the testimony of God in his external word
respecting his secret grace; only the channel, which conveys to us such
a copious stream to satisfy our thirst, must not deprive the
fountain-head of the honour which belongs to it.

IV. As it is erroneous, therefore, to suspend the efficacy of election
upon the faith of the gospel, by which we discover our interest in
election, so we shall observe the best order, if, in seeking an
assurance of our election, we confine our attention to those subsequent
signs which are certain attestations of it. Satan never attacks
believers with a more grievous or dangerous temptation, than when he
disquiets them with doubts of their election, and stimulates to an
improper desire of seeking it in a wrong way. I call it seeking in a
wrong way, when miserable man endeavours to force his way into the
secret recesses of Divine wisdom, and to penetrate even to the highest
eternity, that he may discover what is determined concerning him at the
tribunal of God. Then he precipitates himself to be absorbed in the
profound of an unfathomable gulf; then he entangles himself in
numberless and inextricable snares; then he sinks himself in an abyss of
total darkness. For it is right that the folly of the human mind should
be thus punished with horrible destruction, when it attempts by its own
ability to rise to the summit of Divine wisdom. This temptation is the
more fatal, because there is no other to which men in general have a
stronger propensity. For there is scarcely a person to be found, whose
mind is not sometimes struck with this thought—Whence can you obtain
salvation but from the election of God? And what revelation have you
received of election? If this has once impressed a man, it either
perpetually excruciates the unhappy being with dreadful torments, or
altogether stupefies him with astonishment. Indeed, I should desire no
stronger argument to prove how extremely erroneous the conceptions of
such persons are respecting predestination, than experience itself;
since no error can affect the mind, more pestilent than such as disturbs
the conscience, and destroys its peace and tranquillity towards God.
Therefore, if we dread shipwreck, let us anxiously beware of this rock,
on which none ever strike without being destroyed. But though the
discussion of predestination may be compared to a dangerous ocean, yet,
in traversing over it, the navigation is safe and serene, and I will
also add pleasant, unless any one freely wishes to expose himself to
danger. For as those who, in order to gain an assurance of their
election, examine into the eternal counsel of God without the word,
plunge themselves into a fatal abyss, so they who investigate it in a
regular and orderly manner, as it is contained in the word, derive from
such inquiry the benefit of peculiar consolation. Let this, then, be our
way of inquiry; to begin and end with the calling of God. Though this
prevents not believers from perceiving, that the blessings they daily
receive from the hand of God descend from that secret adoption; as
Isaiah introduces them, saying, “Thou hast done wonderful things; thy
counsels of old are faithfulness and truth;”[531] for by adoption, as by
a token, God chooses to confirm to us all that we are permitted to know
of his counsel. Lest this should be thought a weak testimony, let us
consider how much clearness and certainty it affords us. Bernard has
some pertinent observations on this subject. After speaking of the
reprobate, he says, “The counsel of God stands, the sentence of peace
stands, respecting them who fear him, concealing their faults and
rewarding their virtues; so that to them, not only good things, but evil
ones also, coöperate for good. Who shall lay any thing to the charge of
God’s elect? It is sufficient for me, for all righteousness, to possess
his favour alone, against whom alone I have sinned. All that he has
decreed not to impute to me, is just as if it had never been.” And a
little after: “O place of true rest, which I might not improperly call a
bed-chamber, in which God is viewed, not as disturbed with anger, or
filled with care, but where his will is proved to be good, and
acceptable, and perfect. This view is not terrifying, but soothing; it
excites no restless curiosity, but allays it; it fatigues not the
senses, but tranquillizes them. Here true rest is enjoyed. A tranquil
God tranquillizes all things; and to behold rest, is to enjoy repose.”

V. In the first place, if we seek the fatherly clemency and propitious
heart of God, our eyes must be directed to Christ, in whom alone the
Father is well pleased.[532] If we seek salvation, life, and the
immortality of the heavenly kingdom, recourse must be had to no other;
for he alone is the Fountain of life, the Anchor of salvation, and the
Heir of the kingdom of heaven. Now, what is the end of election, but
that, being adopted as children by our heavenly Father, we may by his
favour obtain salvation and immortality? Consider and investigate it as
much as you please, you will not find its ultimate scope extend beyond
this. The persons, therefore, whom God has adopted as his children, he
is said to have chosen, not in themselves, but in Christ; because it was
impossible for him to love them, except in him; or to honour them with
the inheritance of his kingdom, unless previously made partakers of him.
But if we are chosen in him, we shall find no assurance of our election
in ourselves; nor even in God the Father, considered alone, abstractedly
from the Son. Christ, therefore, is the mirror, in which it behoves us
to contemplate our election; and here we may do it with safety. For as
the Father has determined to unite to the body of his Son all who are
the objects of his eternal choice, that he may have, as his children,
all that he recognizes among his members, we have a testimony
sufficiently clear and strong, that if we have communion with Christ, we
are written in the book of life. And he gave us this certain communion
with himself, when he testified by the preaching of the gospel, that he
was given to us by the Father, to be ours with all his benefits. We are
said to put him on, and to grow up into him, that we may live because he
lives. This doctrine is often repeated. “God spared not his only
begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish.”[533]
“He that believeth on him, is passed from death unto life.”[534] In
which sense he calls himself “The bread of life, he that eateth which,
shall live for ever.”[535] He, I say, is our witness, that all who
receive him by faith shall be considered as the children of his heavenly
Father. If we desire any thing more than being numbered among the sons
and heirs of God, we must rise above Christ. If this is our highest
limit, what folly do we betray in seeking out of him, that which we have
already obtained in him, and which can never be found any where else!
Besides, as he is the Father’s eternal Wisdom, immutable Truth, and
determined Counsel, we have no reason to fear the least variation in the
declarations of his word from that will of the Father, which is the
object of our inquiry; indeed, he faithfully reveals it to us, as it has
been from the beginning, and will ever continue to be. This doctrine
ought to have a practical influence on our prayers. For though faith in
election animates us to call upon God, yet it would be preposterous to
obtrude it upon him when we pray, or to stipulate this condition—O Lord,
if I am elected, hear me; since it is his pleasure that we should be
satisfied with his promises, and make no further inquiries whether he
will be propitious to our prayers. This prudence will extricate us from
many snares, if we know how to make a right use of what has been rightly
written; but we must not inconsiderately apply to various purposes, what
ought to be restricted to the object particularly designed.

VI. For the establishment of our confidence, there is also another
confirmation of election, which, we have said, is connected with our
calling. For those whom Christ illuminates with the knowledge of his
name, and introduces into the bosom of his Church, he is said to receive
into his charge and protection. And all whom he receives are said to be
committed and intrusted to him by the Father, to be kept to eternal
life. What do we wish for ourselves? Christ loudly proclaims that all
whose salvation was designed by the Father, had been delivered by him
into his protection.[536] If, therefore, we want to ascertain whether
God is concerned for our salvation, let us inquire whether he has
committed us to Christ, whom he constituted the only Saviour of all his
people. Now, if we doubt whether Christ has received us into his charge
and custody, he obviates this doubt, by freely offering himself as our
Shepherd, and declaring that if we hear his voice, we shall be numbered
among his sheep. We therefore embrace Christ, thus kindly offered to us
and advancing to meet us; and he will number us with his sheep, and
preserve us enclosed in his fold. But yet we feel anxiety for our future
state; for as Paul declares that “whom he predestinated, them he also
called,”[537] so Christ informs us that “many are called, but few
chosen.”[538] Besides, Paul himself also, in another place, cautions
against carelessness, saying, “Let him that thinketh he standeth, take
heed lest he fall.”[539] Again: “Art thou grafted among the people of
God? Be not high-minded, but fear. God is able to cut thee off again,
and graft in others.”[540] Lastly, experience itself teaches us that
vocation and faith are of little value, unless accompanied by
perseverance, which is not the lot of all. But Christ has delivered us
from this anxiety, for these promises undoubtedly belong to the future:
“All that the Father giveth me, shall come to me; and him that cometh to
me, I will in no wise cast out. And this is the Father’s will which hath
sent me, that of all which he hath given me, I should lose nothing, but
should raise it up again at the last day.”[541] Again: “My sheep hear my
voice, and I know them, and they follow me. And I give unto them eternal
life, and they shall never perish, neither shall any pluck them out of
my hand. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and none is
able to pluck them out of my Father’s hand.”[542] Besides, when he
declares, “Every plant which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall
be rooted up,”[543] he fully implies on the contrary, that those who are
rooted in God, can never by any violence be deprived of salvation. With
this corresponds that passage of John, “If they had been of us, they
would no doubt have continued with us.”[544] Hence also that magnificent
exultation of Paul, in defiance of life and death, of things present and
future; which must necessarily have been founded in the gift of
perseverance.[545] Nor can it be doubted that he applies this sentiment
to all the elect. The same apostle in another place says, “He which hath
begun a good work in you, will perform it until the day of Jesus
Christ.”[546] This also supported David when his faith was failing:
“Thou wilt not forsake the work of thine own hands.”[547] Nor is it to
be doubted, that when Christ intercedes for all the elect, he prays for
them the same as for Peter, that their faith may never fail. Hence we
conclude, that they are beyond all danger of falling away, because the
intercessions of the Son of God for their perseverance in piety have not
been rejected. What did Christ intend we should learn from this, but
confidence in our perpetual security, since we have once been introduced
into the number of his people?

VII. But it daily happens, that they who appeared to belong to Christ,
fall away from him again, and sink into ruin. Even in that very place,
where he asserts that none perish of those who were given to him by the
Father, he excepts the son of perdition. This is true; but it is equally
certain, that such persons never adhered to Christ with that confidence
of heart which, we say, gives us an assurance of our election. “They
went out from us,” says John, “but they were not of us; for if they had
been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us.”[548] I dispute
not their having similar signs of calling with the elect; but I am far
from admitting them to possess that certain assurance of election which
I enjoin believers to seek from the word of the gospel. Wherefore, let
not such examples move us from a tranquil reliance on our Lord’s
promise, where he declares, that all who receive him by faith were given
him by the Father, and that since he is their Guardian and Shepherd, not
one of them shall perish. Of Judas we shall speak afterwards. Paul is
dissuading Christians, not from all security, but from supine,
unguarded, carnal security, which is attended with pride, arrogance, and
contempt of others, extinguishes humility and reverence of God, and
produces forgetfulness of favours received. For he is addressing
Gentiles, teaching them that the Jews should not be proudly and
inhumanly insulted because they had been rejected, and the Gentiles
substituted in their place. He also inculcates fear; not such a fear as
produces terror and uncertainty, but such as teaches humble admiration
of the grace of God, without any diminution of confidence in it; as has
been elsewhere observed. Besides, he is not addressing individuals, but
distinct parties generally. For as the Church was divided into two
parties, and emulation gave birth to dissension, Paul admonishes the
Gentiles, that their substitution in the place of the holy and peculiar
people ought to be a motive to fear and modesty. There were, however,
many clamorous people among them, whose empty boasting it was necessary
to restrain. But we have already seen that our hope extends into
futurity, even beyond the grave, and that nothing is more contrary to
its nature than doubts respecting our final destiny.

VIII. The declaration of Christ, that “many are called, and few chosen,”
is very improperly understood. For there will be no ambiguity in it, if
we remember what must be clear from the foregoing observations, that
there are two kinds of calling. For there is a universal call, by which
God, in the external preaching of the word, invites all,
indiscriminately, to come to him, even those to whom he intends it as a
savour of death, and an occasion of heavier condemnation. There is also
a special call, with which he, for the most part, favours only
believers, when, by the inward illumination of his Spirit, he causes the
word preached to sink into their hearts. Yet sometimes he also
communicates it to those whom he only enlightens for a season, and
afterwards forsakes on account of their ingratitude, and strikes with
greater blindness. Now, the Lord, seeing the gospel published far and
wide, held in contempt by the generality of men, and justly appreciated
by few, gives us a description of God, under the character of a king,
who prepares a solemn feast, and sends out his messengers in every
direction, to invite a great company, but can only prevail on very few,
every one alleging impediments to excuse himself; so that at length he
is constrained by their refusal to bring in all who can be found in the
streets. Thus far, every one sees, the parable is to be understood of
the external call. He proceeds to inform us, that God acts like a good
master of a feast, walking round the tables, courteously receiving his
guests; but that if he finds any one not adorned with a nuptial garment,
he suffers not the meanness of such a person to disgrace the festivity
of the banquet. I confess, this part is to be understood of those who
enter into the Church by a profession of faith, but are not invested
with the sanctification of Christ. Such blemishes, and, as it were,
cankers of his Church, God will not always suffer, but will cast them
out of it, as their turpitude deserves. Few, therefore, are chosen out
of a multitude that are called, but not with that calling by which we
say believers ought to judge of their election. For the former is common
also to the wicked; but the latter is attended with the Spirit of
regeneration, the earnest and seal of the future inheritance, which
seals our hearts to the day of the Lord.[549] In short, though
hypocrites boast of piety as if they were true worshippers of God,
Christ declares that he will finally cast them out of the place which
they unjustly occupy. Thus the Psalmist says, “Who shall abide in thy
tabernacle? He that worketh righteousness, and speaketh the truth in his
heart.”[550] Again: “This is the generation of them that seek him, that
seek thy face, O Jacob.”[551] And thus the Spirit exhorts believers to
patience, that they may not be disturbed by Ishmaelites being united
with them in the Church, since the mask will at length be torn off, and
they will be cast out with disgrace.

IX. The same reasoning applies to the exception lately cited, where
Christ says, that “none of them is lost, but the son of perdition.”[552]
Here is, indeed, some inaccuracy of expression, but the meaning is
clear. For he was never reckoned among the sheep of Christ, as being
really such, but only as he occupied the place of one. When the Lord
declares he was chosen by himself with the other apostles, it only
refers to the ministerial office. “Have not I chosen you twelve,” says
he, “and one of you is a devil?”[553] That is, he had chosen him to the
office of an apostle. But when he speaks of election to salvation, he
excludes him from the number of the elect: “I speak not of you all; I
know whom I have chosen.”[554] If any one confound the term _election_
in these passages, he will miserably embarrass himself; if he make a
proper distinction, nothing is plainer. It is therefore a very erroneous
and pernicious assertion of Gregory, that we are only conscious of our
calling, but uncertain of our election; from which he exhorts all to
fear and trembling, using also this argument, that though we know what
we are to-day, yet we know not what we may be in future. But the context
plainly shows the cause of his error on this point. For as he suspended
election on the merit of works, this furnished abundant reason for
discouragement to the minds of men: he could never establish them, for
want of leading them from themselves to a confidence in the Divine
goodness. Hence believers have some perception of what we stated at the
beginning, that predestination, rightly considered, neither destroys nor
weakens faith, but rather furnishes its best confirmation. Yet I will
not deny, that the Spirit sometimes accommodates his language to the
limited extent of our capacity, as when he says, “They shall not be in
the assembly of my people, neither shall they be written in the writing
of the house of Israel.”[555] As though God were beginning to write in
the book of life those whom he numbers among his people, whereas we know
from the testimony of Christ, that the names of God’s children have been
written in the book of life from the beginning.[556] But these
expressions only signify the rejection of those who seemed to be the
chief among the elect; as the Psalmist says, “Let them be blotted out of
the book of the living, and not be written with the righteous.”[557]

X. Now, the elect are not gathered into the fold of Christ by calling,
immediately from their birth, nor all at the same time, but according as
God is pleased to dispense his grace to them. Before they are gathered
to that chief Shepherd, they go astray, scattered in the common
wilderness, and differing in no respect from others, except in being
protected by the special mercy of God from rushing down the precipice of
eternal death. If you observe them, therefore, you will see the
posterity of Adam partaking of the common corruption of the whole
species. That they go not to the most desperate extremes of impiety, is
not owing to any innate goodness of theirs, but because the eye of God
watches over them, and his hand is extended for their preservation. For
those who dream of I know not what seed of election sown in their hearts
from their very birth, always inclining them to piety and the fear of
God, are unsupported by the authority of Scripture, and refuted by
experience itself. They produce, indeed, a few examples to prove that
certain elect persons were not entire strangers to religion, even before
they were truly enlightened; that Paul lived blameless in his
Pharisaism;[558] that Cornelius, with his alms and prayers, was accepted
of God,[559] and if there are any other similar ones. What they say of
Paul, we admit; but respecting Cornelius, we maintain that they are
deceived; for it is evident, he was then enlightened and regenerated,
and wanted nothing but a clear revelation of the gospel. But what will
they extort from these very few examples? that the elect have always
been endued with the spirit of piety? This is just as if any one, having
proved the integrity of Aristides, Socrates, Xenocrates, Scipio, Curius,
Camillus, and other heathens, should conclude from this, that all who
were left in the darkness of idolatry, were followers of holiness and
virtue. But this is contradicted in many passages of Scripture. Paul’s
description of the state of the Ephesians prior to regeneration,
exhibits not a grain of this seed. “Ye were dead,” he says, “in
trespasses and sins, wherein in time past ye walked according to the
course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air,
the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience; among whom
also we all had our conversation in times past, in the lusts of our
flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by
nature the children of wrath, even as others.”[560] Again: “Remember
that at that time ye were without hope, and without God in the
world.”[561] Again: “Ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in
the Lord; walk as children of light.”[562] But perhaps they will plead,
that these passages refer to that ignorance of the true God, in which
they acknowledge the elect to be involved previously to their calling.
Though this would be an impudent cavil, since the apostle’s inferences
from them are such as these: “Put away lying; and let him that stole,
steal no more.”[563] But what will they reply to other passages? such as
that where, after declaring to the Corinthians, that “Neither
fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers
of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards,
nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God;” he
immediately adds, “And such were some of you; but ye are washed, but ye
are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and
by the Spirit of our God.”[564] And another passage, addressed to the
Romans: “As ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness, and to
iniquity unto iniquity; even so now yield your members servants to
righteousness. What fruit had ye then in those things whereof ye are now
ashamed?”[565]

XI. What kind of seed of election was springing up in them, who were all
their lives contaminated with various pollutions, and with desperate
wickedness wallowed in the most nefarious and execrable of all crimes?
If he had intended to speak according to these teachers, he ought to
have shown how much they were obliged to the goodness of God, which had
preserved them from falling into such great pollutions. So likewise the
persons whom Peter addressed, he ought to have exhorted to gratitude on
account of the perpetual seed of election. But, on the contrary, he
admonishes them, “that the time past may suffice to have wrought the
will of the Gentiles.”[566] What if we come to particular examples? What
principle of righteousness was there in Rahab the harlot before
faith?[567] in Manasseh, when Jerusalem was dyed, and almost drowned,
with the blood of the prophets?[568] in the thief, who repented in his
dying moments?[569] Away, then, with these arguments, which men of
presumptuous curiosity raise to themselves without regarding the
Scripture. Let us rather abide by the declaration of the Scripture, that
“all we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own
way,”[570] that is, destruction. Those whom the Lord has determined to
rescue from this gulf of perdition, he defers till his appointed season;
before which he only preserves them from falling into unpardonable
blasphemy.

XII. As the Lord, by his effectual calling of the elect, completes the
salvation to which he predestinated them in his eternal counsel, so he
has his judgments against the reprobate, by which he executes his
counsel respecting them. Those, therefore, whom he has created to a life
of shame and a death of destruction, that they might be instruments of
his wrath, and examples of his severity, he causes to reach their
appointed end, sometimes depriving them of the opportunity of hearing
the word, sometimes, by the preaching of it, increasing their blindness
and stupidity. Of the former there are innumerable examples: let us only
select one that is more evident and remarkable than the rest. Before the
advent of Christ, there passed about four thousand years, in which the
Lord concealed the light of the doctrine of salvation from all the
Gentiles. If it be replied, that he withheld from them the participation
of so great a blessing because he esteemed them unworthy, their
posterity will be found equally unworthy of it. The truth of this, to
say nothing of experience, is sufficiently attested by Malachi, who
follows his reproofs of unbelief and gross blasphemies by an immediate
prediction of the coming of the Messiah. Why, then, is he given to the
posterity rather than to their ancestors? He will torment himself in
vain, who seeks for any cause of this beyond the secret and inscrutable
counsel of God. Nor need we be afraid lest any disciple of Porphyry
should be imboldened to calumniate the justice of God by our silence in
its defence. For while we assert that all deserve to perish, and it is
of God’s free goodness that any are saved, enough is said for the
illustration of his glory, so that every subterfuge of ours is
altogether unnecessary. The supreme Lord, therefore, by depriving of the
communication of his light, and leaving in darkness, those whom he has
reprobated, makes way for the accomplishment of his predestination. Of
the second class, the Scriptures contain many examples, and others
present themselves every day. The same sermon is addressed to a hundred
persons; twenty receive it with the obedience of faith; the others
despise, or ridicule, or reject, or condemn it. If it be replied, that
the difference proceeds from their wickedness and perverseness, this
will afford no satisfaction; because the minds of others would have been
influenced by the same wickedness, but for the correction of Divine
goodness. And thus we shall always be perplexed, unless we recur to
Paul’s question—“Who maketh thee to differ?”[571] In which he signifies,
that the excellence of some men beyond others, is not from their own
virtue, but solely from Divine grace.

XIII. Why, then, in bestowing grace upon some, does he pass over others?
Luke assigns a reason for the former, that they “were ordained to
eternal life.” What conclusion, then, shall we draw respecting the
latter, but that they are vessels of wrath to dishonour? Wherefore let
us not hesitate to say with Augustine, “God could convert to good the
will of the wicked, because he is omnipotent. It is evident that he
could. Why, then, does he not? Because he would not. Why he would not,
remains with himself.” For we ought not to aim at more wisdom than
becomes us. That will be much better than adopting the evasion of
Chrysostom, “that he draws those who are willing, and who stretch out
their hands for his aid;” that the difference may not appear to consist
in the decree of God, but wholly in the will of man. But an approach to
him is so far from being a mere effort of man, that even pious persons,
and such as fear God, still stand in need of the peculiar impulse of the
Spirit. Lydia, the seller of purple, feared God, and yet it was
necessary that her heart should be opened, to attend to, and profit by,
the doctrine of Paul. This declaration is not made respecting a single
female, but in order to teach us that every one’s advancement in piety
is the secret work of the Spirit. It is a fact not to be doubted, that
God sends his word to many whose blindness he determines shall be
increased. For with what design does he direct so many commands to be
delivered to Pharaoh? Was it from an expectation that his heart would be
softened by repeated and frequent messages? Before he began, he knew and
foretold the result. He commanded Moses to go and declare his will to
Pharaoh, adding at the same time, “But I will harden his heart, that he
shall not let the people go.”[572] So, when he calls forth Ezekiel, he
apprizes him that he is sending him to a rebellious and obstinate
people, that he may not be alarmed if they refuse to hear him.[573] So
Jeremiah foretells that his word will be like fire, to scatter and
destroy the people like stubble.[574] But the prophecy of Isaiah
furnishes a still stronger confirmation; for this is his mission from
the Lord: “Go and tell this people, Hear ye, indeed, but understand not,
and see ye, indeed, but perceive not. Make the heart of this people fat,
and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their
eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and
convert, and be healed.”[575] Observe, he directs his voice to them, but
it is that they may become more deaf; he kindles a light, but it is that
they may be made more blind; he publishes his doctrine, but it is that
they may be more besotted; he applies a remedy, but it is that they may
not be healed. John, citing this prophecy, declares that the Jews could
not believe, because this curse of God was upon them.[576] Nor can it be
disputed, that to such persons as God determines not to enlighten, he
delivers his doctrine involved in enigmatical obscurity, that its only
effect may be to increase their stupidity. For Christ testifies that he
confined to his apostles the explanations of the parables in which he
had addressed the multitude; “because to you it is given to know the
mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.”[577]
What does the Lord mean, you will say, by teaching those by whom he
takes care not to be understood? Consider whence the fault arises, and
you will cease the inquiry; for whatever obscurity there is in the word,
yet there is always light enough to convince the consciences of the
wicked.

XIV. It remains now to be seen why the Lord does that which it is
evident he does. If it be replied, that this is done because men have
deserved it by their impiety, wickedness, and ingratitude, it will be a
just and true observation; but as we have not yet discovered the reason
of this diversity, why some persist in obduracy while others are
inclined to obedience, the discussion of it will necessarily lead us to
the same remark that Paul has quoted from Moses concerning Pharaoh:
“Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might show my
power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the
earth.”[578] That the reprobate obey not the word of God, when made
known to them, is justly imputed to the wickedness and depravity of
their hearts, provided it be at the same time stated, that they are
abandoned to this depravity, because they have been raised up, by a just
but inscrutable judgment of God, to display his glory in their
condemnation. So, when it is related of the sons of Eli, that they
listened not to his salutary admonitions, “because the Lord would slay
them,”[579] it is not denied that their obstinacy proceeded from their
own wickedness, but it is plainly implied that though the Lord was able
to soften their hearts, yet they were left in their obstinacy, because
his immutable decree had predestinated them to destruction. To the same
purpose is that passage of John, “Though he had done so many miracles
before them, yet they believed not on him; that the saying of Esaias the
prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake, ‘Lord, who hath believed our
report?’”[580] For though he does not acquit the obstinate from the
charge of guilt, yet he satisfies himself with this reason, that the
grace of God has no charms for men till the Holy Spirit gives them a
taste for it. And Christ cites the prophecy of Isaiah, “They shall be
all taught of God,”[581] with no other design than to show, that the
Jews are reprobate and strangers to the Church, because they are
destitute of docility; and he adduces no other reason for it than that
the promise of God does not belong to them; which is confirmed by that
passage of Paul, where “Christ crucified, unto the Jews a
stumbling-block, and unto the Greeks foolishness,” is said to be “unto
them which are called, the power of God, and the wisdom of God.”[582]
For, after remarking what generally happens whenever the gospel is
preached, that it exasperates some, and is despised by others, he
represents it as duly appreciated only by “those who are called.” A
little before he had mentioned “them that believe;” not that he had an
intention to deny its proper place to the grace of God, which precedes
faith, but he seems to add this second description by way of correction,
in order that those who had received the gospel might ascribe the praise
of their faith to the Divine call. And so, likewise, in a subsequent
sentence, he represents them as the objects of Divine election. When the
impious hear these things, they loudly complain that God, by a wanton
exercise of power, abuses his wretched creatures for the sport of his
cruelty. But we, who know that all men are liable to so many charges at
the Divine tribunal, that of a thousand questions they would be unable
to give a satisfactory answer to one, confess that the reprobate suffer
nothing but what is consistent with the most righteous judgment of God.
Though we cannot comprehend the reason of this, let us be content with
some degree of ignorance where the wisdom of God soars into its own
sublimity.

XV. But as objections are frequently raised from some passages of
Scripture, in which God seems to deny that the destruction of the wicked
is caused by his decree, but that, in opposition to his remonstrances,
they voluntarily bring ruin upon themselves,—let us show by a brief
explication that they are not at all inconsistent with the foregoing
doctrine. A passage is produced from Ezekiel, where God says, “I have no
pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his
way and live.”[583] If this is to be extended to all mankind, why does
he not urge many to repentance, whose minds are more flexible to
obedience than those of others, who grow more and more callous to his
daily invitations? Among the inhabitants of Nineveh and Sodom, Christ
himself declares that his evangelical preaching and miracles would have
brought forth more fruit than in Judea. How is it, then, if God will
have all men to be saved, that he opens not the gate of repentance to
those miserable men who would be more ready to receive the favour? Hence
we perceive it to be a violent perversion of the passage, if the will of
God, mentioned by the prophet, be set in opposition to his eternal
counsel, by which he has distinguished the elect from the reprobate.
Now, if we inquire the genuine sense of the prophet, his only meaning is
to inspire the penitent with hopes of pardon. And this is the sum, that
it is beyond a doubt that God is ready to pardon sinners immediately on
their conversion. Therefore he wills not their death, inasmuch as he
wills their repentance. But experience teaches, that he does not will
the repentance of those whom he externally calls, in such a manner as to
affect all their hearts. Nor should he on this account be charged with
acting deceitfully; for, though his external call only renders those who
hear without obeying it inexcusable, yet it is justly esteemed the
testimony of God’s grace, by which he reconciles men to himself. Let us
observe, therefore, the design of the prophet in saying that God has no
pleasure in the death of a sinner; it is to assure the pious of God’s
readiness to pardon them immediately on their repentance, and to show
the impious the aggravation of their sin in rejecting such great
compassion and kindness of God. Repentance, therefore, will always be
met by Divine mercy; but on whom repentance is bestowed, we are clearly
taught by Ezekiel himself, as well as by all the prophets and apostles.

XVI. Another passage adduced is from Paul, where he states that “God
will have all men to be saved;”[584] which, though somewhat different
from the passage just considered, yet is very similar to it. I reply, in
the first place, that it is evident from the context, how God wills the
salvation of all; for Paul connects these two things together, that he
“will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the
truth.” If it was fixed in the eternal counsel of God, that they should
receive the doctrine of salvation, what is the meaning of that question
of Moses, “What nation is there so great, who hath God so nigh unto them
as we have?”[585] How is it that God has deprived many nations of the
light of the gospel, which others enjoyed? How is it that the pure
knowledge of the doctrine of piety has never reached some, and that
others have but just heard some obscure rudiments of it? Hence it will
be easy to discover the design of Paul. He had enjoined Timothy to make
solemn prayers in the Church for kings and princes; but as it might seem
somewhat inconsistent to pray to God for a class of men almost past
hope,—for they were not only strangers to the body of Christ, but
striving with all their power to ruin his kingdom,—he subjoins, that
“this is good and acceptable in the sight of God, who will have all men
to be saved;” which only imports, that God has not closed the way of
salvation against any order of men, but has diffused his mercy in such a
manner that he would have no rank to be destitute of it. The other texts
adduced are not declarative of the Lord’s determination respecting all
men in his secret counsel: they only proclaim that pardon is ready for
all sinners who sincerely seek it.[586] For if they obstinately insist
on its being said that God is merciful to all, I will oppose to them,
what is elsewhere asserted, that “our God is in the heavens; he hath
done whatsoever he hath pleased.”[587] This text, then, must be
explained in a manner consistent with another, where God says, “I will
be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and I will show mercy on whom I
will show mercy.”[588] He who makes a selection of objects for the
exercise of his mercy, does not impart that mercy to all. But as it
clearly appears that Paul is there speaking, not of individuals, but
orders of men, I shall forbear any further argument. It must be
remarked, however, that Paul is not declaring the actual conduct of God
at all times, in all places, and to all persons, but merely representing
him as at liberty to make kings and magistrates at length partakers of
the heavenly doctrine, notwithstanding their present rage against it in
consequence of their blindness. There is more apparent plausibility in
their objection, from the declaration of Peter, that “the Lord is not
willing that any should perish, but that all should come to
repentance.”[589] But the second clause furnishes an immediate solution
of this difficulty; for the willingness that they should come to
repentance must be understood in consistence with the general tenor of
Scripture. Conversion is certainly in the power of God; let him be
asked, whether he wills the conversion of all, when he promises a few
individuals to give them “a heart of flesh,” while he leaves others with
“a heart of stone.”[590] If he were not ready to receive those who
implore his mercy, there would indeed be no propriety in this address,
“Turn ye unto me, and I will turn unto you;”[591] but I maintain that no
mortal ever approaches God without being divinely drawn. But if
repentance depended on the will of man, Paul would not have said, “If
God peradventure will give them repentance.”[592] And if God, whose
voice exhorts all men to repentance, did not draw the elect to it by the
secret operation of his Spirit, Jeremiah would not have said, “Turn thou
me, and I shall be turned; for thou art the Lord my God. Surely after
that I was turned, I repented.”[593]

XVII. If this be correct, it will be said there can be but little faith
in the promises of the gospel, which, in declaring the will of God,
assert that he wills what is repugnant to his inviolable decree. But
this is far from a just conclusion. For if we turn our attention to the
effect of the promises of salvation, we shall find that their
universality is not at all inconsistent with the predestination of the
reprobate. We know the promises to be effectual to us only when we
receive them by faith; on the contrary, the annihilation of faith is at
once an abolition of the promises. If this is their nature, we may
perceive that there is no discordance between these two things—God’s
having appointed from eternity on whom he will bestow his favour and
exercise his wrath, and his proclaiming salvation indiscriminately to
all. Indeed, I maintain that there is the most perfect harmony between
them. For his sole design in thus promising, is to offer his mercy to
all who desire and seek it, which none do but those whom he has
enlightened, and he enlightens all whom he has predestinated to
salvation. These persons experience the certain and unshaken truth of
the promises; so that it cannot be pretended that there is the least
contrariety between God’s eternal election and the testimony of his
grace offered to believers. But why does he mention all? It is in order
that the consciences of the pious may enjoy the more secure
satisfaction, seeing that there is no difference between sinners,
provided they have faith; and, on the other hand, that the impious may
not plead the want of an asylum to flee to from the bondage of sin,
while they ungratefully reject that which is offered to them. When the
mercy of God is offered to both by the gospel, it is faith, that is, the
illumination of God, which distinguishes between the pious and impious;
so that the former experience the efficacy of the gospel, but the latter
derive no benefit from it. Now, this illumination is regulated by God’s
eternal election. The complaint and lamentation of Christ, “O Jerusalem,
Jerusalem, how often would I have gathered thy children together, and ye
would not,”[594] however they cite it, affords them no support. I
confess, that Christ here speaks not merely in his human character, but
that he is upbraiding the Jews for having in all ages rejected his
grace. But we must define the will of God which is here intended. It is
well known how sedulously God laboured to preserve that people to
himself, and with what extreme obstinacy, from the first to the last,
they refused to be gathered, being abandoned to their own wandering
desires; but this does not authorize the conclusion, that the counsel of
God was frustrated by the wickedness of men. They object, that nothing
is more inconsistent with the nature of God than to have two wills. This
I grant them, provided it be rightly explained. But why do they not
consider the numerous passages, where, by the assumption of human
affections, God condescends beneath his own majesty? He says, “I have
spread out my hands all the day unto a rebellious people;”[595] early
and late endeavouring to bring them to himself. If they are determined
to accommodate all this to God, and disregard the figurative mode of
expression, they will give rise to many needless contentions, which may
be settled by this one solution, that what is peculiar to man is
transferred to God. The solution, however, elsewhere stated by us, is
fully sufficient—that though to our apprehension the will of God is
manifold and various, yet he does not in himself will things at variance
with each other, but astonishes our faculties with his various and
“manifold wisdom,” according to the expression of Paul, till we shall be
enabled to understand, that he mysteriously wills what now seems
contrary to his will. They impertinently object, that God being the
Father of all, it is unjust for him to disinherit any but such as have
previously deserved this punishment by their own guilt. As if the
goodness of God did not extend even to dogs and swine. But if the
question relates to the human race, let them answer why God allied
himself to one people as their Father; why he gathered even from them
but a very small number, as the flower of them. But their rage for
slander prevents these railers from considering that God “maketh his sun
to rise on the evil and on the good,”[596] but that the inheritance is
reserved for the few, to whom it shall one day be said, “Come, ye
blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the
foundation of the world.”[597] They further object, that God hates
nothing he has made; which though I grant them, the doctrine I maintain
still remains unshaken, that the reprobate are hated by God, and that
most justly, because, being destitute of his Spirit, they can do nothing
but what is deserving of his curse. They further allege, that there is
no difference between the Jew and the Gentile, and therefore that the
grace of God is offered indiscriminately to all: I grant it; only let
them admit, according to the declaration of Paul, that God calls whom he
pleases, both of the Jews and of the Gentiles,[598] so that he is under
no obligation to any. In this way also we answer their arguments from
another text, which says, that “God hath concluded them all in unbelief,
that he might have mercy upon all;”[599] which imports that he will have
the salvation of all who are saved ascribed to his mercy, though this
blessing is not common to all. Now, while many arguments are advanced on
both sides, let our conclusion be to stand astonished with Paul at so
great a mystery, and amidst the clamour of petulant tongues let us not
be ashamed of exclaiming with him, “O man, who art thou that repliest
against God?” For, as Augustine justly contends, it is acting a most
perverse part, to set up the measure of human justice as the standard by
which to measure the justice of God.

Footnote 521:

Rom. viii. 29, 30.

Footnote 522:

Rom viii. 15, 16. Ephes. i. 13, 14.

Footnote 523:

John vi. 46.

Footnote 524:

John xvii. 6.

Footnote 525:

John vi. 44.

Footnote 526:

Isaiah lxv. 1.

Footnote 527:

Joshua xxiv. 2, 3.

Footnote 528:

1 John iii. 24.

Footnote 529:

Acts xiii. 48.

Footnote 530:

Deut. xxx. 14.

Footnote 531:

Isaiah xxv. 1.

Footnote 532:

Matt. iii. 17.

Footnote 533:

Rom. viii. 32. John iii. 15, 16.

Footnote 534:

John v. 24.

Footnote 535:

John vi. 35-58.

Footnote 536:

John vi. 37, 39; xvii. 6, 12.

Footnote 537:

Rom. viii. 30.

Footnote 538:

Matt. xxii. 14.

Footnote 539:

1 Cor. x. 12.

Footnote 540:

Rom. xi. 17-23.

Footnote 541:

John vi. 37, 39.

Footnote 542:

John x. 27-29.

Footnote 543:

Matt. xv. 13.

Footnote 544:

1 John ii. 19.

Footnote 545:

Rom. viii. 35-39.

Footnote 546:

Phil. i. 6.

Footnote 547:

Psalm cxxxviii. 8.

Footnote 548:

1 John ii. 19.

Footnote 549:

Ephes. i. 13, 14.

Footnote 550:

Psalm xv. 1.

Footnote 551:

Psalm xxiv. 6.

Footnote 552:

John xvii. 12.

Footnote 553:

John vi. 70.

Footnote 554:

John xiii. 18.

Footnote 555:

Ezek. xiii. 9.

Footnote 556:

Luke x. 20.

Footnote 557:

Psalm lxix. 28.

Footnote 558:

Phil. iii. 5, 6.

Footnote 559:

Acts x. 2.

Footnote 560:

Ephes. ii. 1-3.

Footnote 561:

Ephes. ii. 11, 12.

Footnote 562:

Ephes. v. 8; iv. 18.

Footnote 563:

Ephes. iv. 25, 28.

Footnote 564:

1 Cor. vi. 9-11.

Footnote 565:

Rom. vi. 19, 21.

Footnote 566:

1 Peter iv. 3.

Footnote 567:

Josh. ii. 1, &c.

Footnote 568:

2 Kings xxi. 16.

Footnote 569:

Luke xxiii. 40-42.

Footnote 570:

Isaiah liii. 6.

Footnote 571:

1 Cor. iv. 7.

Footnote 572:

Exod. iv. 21.

Footnote 573:

Ezek. ii. 3; xii. 2.

Footnote 574:

Jer. v. 14.

Footnote 575:

Isaiah vi. 9, 10.

Footnote 576:

John xii. 39, 40.

Footnote 577:

Matt. xiii. 11.

Footnote 578:

Rom. ix. 17.

Footnote 579:

1 Sam. ii. 25.

Footnote 580:

John xii. 37, 38.

Footnote 581:

John vi. 45.

Footnote 582:

1 Cor. i. 23, 24.

Footnote 583:

Ezek. xxxiii. 11.

Footnote 584:

1 Tim. ii. 4.

Footnote 585:

Deut. iv. 7.

Footnote 586:

Psalm cxlv. 9.

Footnote 587:

Psalm cxv. 3.

Footnote 588:

Exod. xxxiii. 19.

Footnote 589:

2 Peter iii. 9.

Footnote 590:

Ezek. xxxvi. 26.

Footnote 591:

Zech. i. 3.

Footnote 592:

2 Tim. ii. 25.

Footnote 593:

Jer. xxxi. 18, 19.

Footnote 594:

Matt. xxiii. 37.

Footnote 595:

Isaiah lxv. 2.

Footnote 596:

Matt. v. 48.

Footnote 597:

Matt. xxv. 34.

Footnote 598:

Rom. ix. 24.

Footnote 599:

Rom. xi. 32.

CHAPTER XXV.
THE FINAL RESURRECTION.

Though Christ, the Sun of Righteousness, after having “abolished death,”
is declared by Paul to have “brought life and immortality to light,”
shining upon us “through the gospel,”[600] whence also in believing we
are said to have “passed from death unto life,”[601] being “no more
strangers and foreigners, but fellow-citizens with the saints, and of
the household of God,”[602] who “hath made us sit together in heavenly
places” with his only begotten Son,[603] that nothing may be wanting to
our complete felicity,—yet, lest we should find it grievous to be still
exercised with a severe warfare, as though we derived no benefit from
the victory gained by Christ, we must remember what is stated in another
place concerning the nature of hope. For “since we hope for that we see
not,”[604] and, according to another text, “faith is the evidence of
things not seen;”[605] as long as we are confined in the prison of the
flesh, “we are absent from the Lord.”[606] Wherefore the same apostle
says, “Ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God;” and “when
Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with
him in glory.”[607] This, then, is our condition, “that we should live
soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world, looking for that
blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our
Saviour Jesus Christ.”[608] Here we have need of more than common
patience, lest, being wearied, we pursue a retrograde course, or desert
the station assigned us. All that has hitherto been stated, therefore,
concerning our salvation, requires minds elevated towards heaven, that,
according to the suggestion of Peter, we may love Christ, whom we have
not seen, and, believing in him, may “rejoice with joy unspeakable and
full of glory,” till we receive “the end of our faith.”[609] For which
reason, Paul represents the faith and hope of believers as having
respect to “the hope that is laid up in heaven.”[610] When we are thus
looking towards heaven, with our eyes fixed upon Christ, and nothing
detains them on earth from carrying us forward to the promised
blessedness, we realize the fulfilment of that declaration, “Where your
treasure is, there will your heart be also.”[611] Hence it is, that
faith is so scarce in the world; because to our sluggishness nothing is
more difficult than to ascend through innumerable obstacles, “pressing
toward the mark, for the prize of the high calling.”[612] To the
accumulation of miseries which generally oppress us, are added the
mockeries of the profane, with which our simplicity is assailed; while
voluntarily renouncing the allurements of present advantage or pleasure,
we seem to pursue happiness, which is concealed from our view, like a
shadow that continually eludes our grasp. In a word, above and below,
before and behind, we are beset by violent temptations, which our minds
would long ago have been incapable of sustaining, if they had not been
detached from terrestrial things, and attached to the heavenly life,
which is apparently at a remote distance. He alone, therefore, has made
a solid proficiency in the gospel who has been accustomed to continual
meditation on the blessed resurrection.

II. The supreme good was a subject of anxious dispute, and even
contention, among the ancient philosophers; yet none of them, except
Plato, acknowledged the chief good of man to consist in his union with
God. But of the nature of this union he had not even the smallest idea;
and no wonder, for he was totally uninformed respecting the sacred bond
of it. We know what is the only and perfect happiness even in this
earthly pilgrimage; but it daily inflames our hearts with increasing
desires after it, till we shall be satisfied with its full fruition.
Therefore I have observed that the advantage of Christ’s benefits is
solely enjoyed by those who elevate their minds to the resurrection.
Thus Paul also sets before believers this object, towards which he tells
us he directs all his own efforts, forgetting every thing else, “if by
any means he may attain unto it.”[613] And it behoves us to press
forward to the same point with the greater alacrity, lest, if this world
engross our attention, we should be grievously punished for our sloth.
He therefore characterizes believers by this mark, “Our conversation is
in heaven, from whence also we look for the Saviour.”[614] And that
their minds may not flag in this course, he associates with them all
creatures as their companions. For as ruin and deformity are visible on
every side, he tells us that all things in heaven and earth are tending
to renovation. For the fall of Adam having deranged the perfect order of
nature, the bondage to which the creatures have been subjected by the
sin of man is grievous and burdensome to them; not that they are endued
with any intelligence, but because they naturally aspire to the state of
perfection from which they have fallen. Paul therefore attributes to
them groaning and travailing pains,[615] that we who have received the
first-fruits of the Spirit may be ashamed of remaining in our
corruption, and not imitating at least the inanimate elements which bear
the punishment of the sin of others. But as a still stronger stimulus to
us, he calls the second advent of Christ “our redemption.” It is true,
indeed, that all the parts of our redemption are already completed; but
because “Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many, he shall
appear the second time without sin unto salvation.”[616] Whatever
calamities oppress us, this redemption should support us even till its
full consummation.

III. Let the importance of the object sharpen our pursuit. Paul justly
argues, that “if there be no resurrection of the dead,” the whole gospel
is vain and fallacious; for we should be “of all men the most
miserable,” being exposed to the hatred and reproaches of mankind,
“standing in jeopardy every hour,”[617] and being even like sheep
destined to the slaughter; and therefore its authority would fall to the
ground not in one point only, but in every thing it contains relating to
adoption and the accomplishment of our salvation. To this subject, the
most important of all, let us give an attention never to be wearied by
length of time. With this view I have deferred what I shall briefly say
of it to this place, that the reader, after receiving Christ as the
Author of complete salvation, may learn to soar higher, and may know
that he is invested with heavenly glory and immortality, in order that
the whole body may be conformed to the Head; as in his person the Holy
Spirit frequently gives an example of the resurrection. It is a thing
difficult to be believed, that bodies, after having been consumed by
corruption, shall at length, at the appointed time, be raised again.
Therefore, while many of the philosophers asserted the immortality of
the soul, the resurrection of the body was admitted by few. And though
this furnishes no excuse, yet it admonishes us that this truth is too
difficult to command the assent of the human mind. To enable faith to
surmount so great an obstacle, the Scripture supplies us with two
assistances: one consists in the similitude of Christ, the other in the
omnipotence of God. Now, whenever the resurrection is mentioned, let us
set before us the image of Christ, who, in our nature, which he assumed,
finished his course in this mortal life in such a manner, that, having
now obtained immortality, he is the pledge of future resurrection to us.
For in the afflictions that befall us, “we bear about in the body the
dying of the Lord Jesus, that the life also of Jesus might be made
manifest in our body.”[618] And to separate him from us, is not lawful,
nor indeed possible, without rending him asunder. Hence the reasoning of
Paul: “If there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not
risen;”[619] for he assumes this as an acknowledged principle, that
Christ neither fell under the power of death, nor triumphed over it in
his resurrection, for himself as a private individual; but that all this
was a commencement in the Head of what must be fulfilled in all the
members, according to every one’s order and degree. For it would not be
right, indeed, for them to be in all respects equal to him. It is said
in the Psalms, “Thou wilt not suffer thine Holy One to see
corruption.”[620] Though a portion of this confidence belongs to us,
according to the measure bestowed upon us, yet the perfect
accomplishment has been seen in Christ alone, who had his body restored
to him entire, free from all corruption. Now that we may have no doubt
of our fellowship with Christ in his blessed resurrection, and may be
satisfied with this pledge, Paul expressly affirms that the design of
his session in heaven, and his advent in the character of Judge at the
last day, is to “change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like
unto his glorious body.”[621] In another place also, he shows that God
raised his Son from the dead, not in order to display a single specimen
of his power, but to exert on believers the same energy of his Spirit,
whom he therefore calls “our life” while he dwells in us, because he was
given for this very purpose, “to quicken our mortal bodies.”[622] I am
but briefly glancing at things which would admit of a fuller discussion,
and are deserving of more elegance of style; but I trust the pious
reader will find in a small compass sufficient matter for the
edification of his faith. Christ, therefore, rose again, that we might
be the companions of his future life. He was raised by the Father,
inasmuch as he was the Head of the church, from which he does not suffer
him to be separated. He was raised by the power of the Spirit, who is
given to us also for the purpose of quickening us. In a word, he was
raised that he might be “the resurrection and the life.” But as we have
observed that this mirror exhibits to us a lively image of our
resurrection, so it will furnish a firm foundation for our minds to rest
upon, provided we are not wearied or disturbed by the long delay;
because it is not ours to measure the moments of time by our own
inclination, but to wait patiently for God’s establishment of his
kingdom in his own appointed time. To this purpose is the expression of
Paul, “Christ the first-fruits, afterward they that are Christ’s at his
coming.”[623] But that no doubt might be entertained of the resurrection
of Christ, on which the resurrection of us all is founded, we see in how
many and various ways he has caused it to be attested to us. Scorners
will ridicule the history narrated by the evangelists, as a childish
mockery. For what weight, they ask, is there in the message brought by
some women in a fright, and afterwards confirmed by the disciples half
dead with fear? Why does not Christ rather set up the splendid trophies
of his victory in the midst of the temple and the public places? Why
does he not make a formidable entrance into the presence of Pilate? Why
does he not prove himself to be again alive, to the priests and all the
inhabitants of Jerusalem? Profane men will scarcely believe the persons
selected by him to be competent witnesses. I reply, notwithstanding the
contemptible weakness evident in these beginnings, yet all this was
conducted by the admirable providence of God, that they who were lately
dispirited with fear, were hurried away to the sepulchre, partly by love
to Christ and pious zeal, partly by their own unbelief, not only to be
eye-witnesses of the fact, but to hear from the angels the same as they
saw with their eyes. How can we suspect the authority of those who
considered what they heard from the women “as idle tales,” till they had
the fact clearly before them?[624] As to the people at large, and the
governor himself, it is no wonder that after the ample conviction they
had, they were denied a sight of Christ, or any other proofs. The
sepulchre is sealed, a watch is set, the body is not found on the third
day. The soldiers, corrupted by bribes, circulate a rumour that he was
stolen away by his disciples;[625] as if they had power to collect a
strong force, or were furnished with arms, or were even accustomed to
such a daring exploit. But if the soldiers had not courage enough to
repulse them, why did they not pursue them, that with the assistance of
the people they might seize some of them? The truth is, therefore, that
Pilate by his zeal attested the resurrection of Christ; and the guards
who were placed at the sepulchre, either by their silence or by their
falsehood, were in reality so many heralds to publish the same fact. In
the mean time, the voice of the angels loudly proclaimed, “He is not
here, but is risen.”[626] Their celestial splendour evidently showed
them to be angels, and not men. After this, if there was any doubt still
remaining, it was removed by Christ himself. More than once, his
disciples saw, and even felt and handled him; and their unbelief has
eminently contributed to the confirmation of our faith. He discoursed
among them concerning the mysteries of the kingdom of God, and at length
they saw him ascend to heaven.[627] Nor was this spectacle exhibited
only to the eleven apostles, but “he was seen of above five hundred
brethren at once.”[628] By the mission of the Holy Spirit he gave an
undeniable proof, not only of his life, but also of his sovereign
dominion; according to his prediction, “It is expedient for you that I
go away; for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but
if I depart, I will send him unto you.”[629] Paul, in his way to
Damascus, was not prostrated to the ground by the influence of a dead
man, but felt that the person whom he was opposing was armed with
supreme power. He appeared to Stephen for another reason—to overcome the
fear of death by an assurance of life.[630] To refuse credit to
testimonies so numerous and authentic, is not diffidence, but perverse
and unreasonable obstinacy.

IV. The remark we have made, that in proving the resurrection, our minds
should be directed to the infinite power of God, is briefly suggested in
these words of Paul: “Who shall change our vile body, that it may be
fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby
he is able even to subdue all things unto himself.”[631] It would
therefore be extremely unreasonable here, to consider what could
possibly happen in the ordinary course of nature, when the object
proposed to us is an inestimable miracle, the magnitude of which absorbs
all our faculties. Yet Paul adduces an example from nature to reprove
the folly of those who deny the resurrection. “Thou fool,” says he,
“that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die.”[632] He tells
us that seed sown displays an image of the resurrection, because the
corn is reproduced from putrefaction. Nor would it be a thing so
difficult to believe, if we paid proper attention to the miracles which
present themselves to our view in all parts of the world. But let us
remember, that no man will be truly persuaded of the future
resurrection, but he who is filled with admiration, and ascribes to the
power of God the glory that is due to it. Transported with this
confidence, Isaiah exclaims, “Thy dead men shall live; together with my
dead body shall they arise; awake and sing, ye that dwell in dust.”[633]
Surrounded by desperate circumstances, he has recourse to God, the
Author of life, unto whom, as the Psalmist says, “belong the issues from
death.”[634] Even reduced to a state resembling a dead carcass more than
a living man, yet relying on the power of God, just as if he were in
perfect health, Job looks forward without any doubts to that day. “I
know,” says he, “that my Redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the
latter day upon the earth,” there to display his power; “and though
after my skin, worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God;
whom I shall see for myself, and not another.”[635] For though some
persons employ great subtilty to pervert these texts, as if they ought
not to be understood of the resurrection, they nevertheless confirm what
they wish to destroy; since holy men, in the midst of calamities, seek
consolation from no other quarter than from the similitude of the
resurrection; which more fully appears from a passage in Ezekiel.[636]
For when the Jews rejected the promise of their restoration, and
objected, that there was no more probability of a way being opened for
their return, than of the dead coming forth from their sepulchres, a
vision is presented to the prophet, of a field full of dry bones, and
God commands them to receive flesh and nerves. Though this figure is
intended to inspire the people with a hope of restoration, he borrows
the argument for it from the resurrection; as it is to us also the
principal model of all the deliverances which believers experience in
this world. So Christ, after having declared that the voice of the
gospel communicates life, in consequence of its rejection by the Jews,
immediately adds, “Marvel not at this; for the hour is coming, in the
which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come
forth.”[637] After the example of Paul, therefore, let us even now
triumphantly exult in the midst of our conflicts, that he who has
promised us a life to come “is able to keep that which we have committed
to him;” and thus let us glory that “there is laid up for us a crown of
righteousness, which the righteous Judge shall give us.”[638] The
consequence of this will be, that all the troubles we suffer will point
us to the life to come, “seeing it is a righteous thing with God,” and
agreeable to his nature, “to recompense tribulation to them that trouble
us, and to us who are” unjustly “troubled, rest, when the Lord Jesus
shall be revealed, with his mighty angels, in flaming fire.”[639] But we
must remember what immediately follows, that “he shall come to be
glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe,”
because they believe the gospel.

V. Now, though the minds of men ought to be continually occupied with
the study of this subject, yet as if they expressly intended to abolish
all remembrance of the resurrection, they have called death the end of
all things, and the destruction of man. For Solomon certainly speaks
according to a common and received opinion, when he says, “A living dog
is better than a dead lion.”[640] And again: “Who knows whether the
spirit of man goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast goeth
downward?”[641] This brutish stupidity has infected all ages of the
world, and even forced its way into the Church; for the Sadducees had
the audacity publicly to profess, that there is no resurrection, and
that souls are mortal. But that none might be excused by this gross
ignorance, the very instinct of nature has always set before the eyes of
unbelievers an image of the resurrection. For what is the sacred and
inviolable custom of interring the dead, but a pledge of another life?
Nor can it be objected that this originated in error; for the rites of
sepulture were always observed among the holy fathers; and it pleased
God that the same custom should be retained among the Gentiles, that
their torpor might be roused by the image of the resurrection thereby
set before them. Though this ceremony produced no good effects upon
them, yet it will be useful to us, if we wisely consider its tendency;
for it is no slight refutation of unbelief, that all united in
professing a thing that none of them believed. But Satan has not only
stupefied men’s minds, to make them bury the memory of the resurrection
together with the bodies of the dead, but has endeavoured to corrupt
this point of doctrine by various fictions, with an ultimate view to its
total subversion. Not to mention that he began to oppose it in the days
of Paul, not long after arose the Millenarians, who limited the reign of
Christ to a thousand years. Their fiction is too puerile to require or
deserve refutation. Nor does the Revelation, which they quote in favour
of their error, afford them any support; for the term of a thousand
years, there mentioned,[642] refers not to the eternal blessedness of
the Church, but to the various agitations which awaited the Church in
its militant state upon earth. But the whole Scripture proclaims that
there will be no end of the happiness of the elect, or the punishment of
the reprobate. Now, all those things which are invisible to our eyes, or
far above the comprehension of our minds, must either be believed on the
authority of the oracles of God, or entirely rejected. Those who assign
the children of God a thousand years to enjoy the inheritance of the
future life, little think what dishonour they cast on Christ and his
kingdom. For if they are not invested with immortality, neither is
Christ himself, into the likeness of whose glory they will be
transformed, received up into immortal glory. If their happiness will
have any end, it follows that the kingdom of Christ, on the stability of
which it rests, is temporary. Lastly, either these persons are extremely
ignorant of all Divine things, or they are striving, with malignant
perverseness, to overturn all the grace of God and power of Christ; and
these can never be perfectly fulfilled till sin is abolished, and death
swallowed up, and eternal life completely established. But the folly of
being afraid that too much cruelty is attributed to God, if the
reprobate are doomed to eternal punishment, is even evident to the
blind. Will the Lord do any injury by refusing the enjoyment of his
kingdom to persons whose ingratitude shall have rendered them unworthy
of it? But their sins are temporary. This I grant; but the majesty of
God, as well as his justice, which their sins have violated, is eternal.
Their iniquity, therefore, is justly remembered. Then the punishment is
alleged to be excessive, being disproportioned to the crime. But this is
intolerable blasphemy, when the majesty of God is so little valued, when
the contempt of it is considered of no more consequence than the
destruction of one soul. But let us pass by these triflers; lest,
contrary to what we have before said, we should appear to consider their
reveries as worthy of refutation.

VI. Beside these wild notions, the perverse curiosity of man has
introduced two others. Some have supposed that the whole man dies, and
that souls are raised again together with bodies; others, admitting the
immortality of souls, suppose they will be clothed with new bodies, and
thereby deny the resurrection of the flesh. As I have touched on the
former of these notions in the creation of man, it will be sufficient
again to apprize my readers, that it is a brutish error, to represent
the spirit, formed after the image of God, as a fleeting breath which
animates the body only during this perishable life, and to annihilate
the temple of the Holy Spirit; in short, to despoil that part of us in
which Divinity is eminently displayed, and the characters of immortality
are conspicuous, of this property; so that the condition of the body
must be better and more excellent than that of the soul. Very different
is the doctrine of Scripture, which compares the body to a habitation,
from which we depart at death; because it estimates us by that part of
our nature which constitutes the distinction between us and the brutes.
Thus Peter, when near his death, says, “Shortly I must put off this my
tabernacle.”[643] And Paul, speaking of believers, having said that “if
our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building
in the heavens,” adds that “whilst we are at home in the body, we are
absent from the Lord, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and
to be present with the Lord.”[644] Unless our souls survive our bodies,
what is it that is present with God when separated from the body? But
the apostle removes all doubt when he says that we are “come to the
spirits of just men made perfect.”[645] By which expression he means,
that we are associated with the holy fathers, who, though dead, still
maintain the same piety with us, so that we cannot be members of Christ
without being united with them. If souls separated from bodies did not
retain their existence so as to be capable of glory and felicity, Christ
would not have said to the thief, “To-day shalt thou be with me in
paradise.”[646] Supported by such undeniable testimonies, let us not
hesitate, after the example of Christ, when we die, to commend our
spirits to God; or, like Stephen, to resign them to the care of Christ,
who is justly called the faithful “Shepherd and Bishop of souls.”
Over-curious inquiry respecting their intermediate state is neither
lawful nor useful. Many persons exceedingly perplex themselves by
discussing what place they occupy, and whether they already enjoy the
glory of heaven, or not. But it is folly and presumption to push our
inquiries on unknown things beyond what God permits us to know. The
Scripture declares that Christ is present with them, and receives them
into paradise, where they enjoy consolation, and that the souls of the
reprobate endure the torments which they have deserved; but it proceeds
no further. Now, what teacher or doctor shall discover to us that which
God has concealed? The question respecting place is equally senseless
and futile; because we know that the soul has no dimensions like the
body. The blessed assemblage of holy spirits being called the bosom of
Abraham, teaches us that it is enough for us, at the close of this
pilgrimage, to be received by the common Father of believers, and to
participate with him in the fruit of his faith. In the mean while, as
the Scripture uniformly commands us to look forward with eager
expectation to the coming of Christ, and defers the crown of glory which
awaits us till that period, let us be content within these limits which
God prescribes to us—that the souls of pious men, after finishing their
laborious warfare, depart into a state of blessed rest, where they wait
with joy and pleasure for the fruition of the promised glory; and so,
that all things remain in suspense till Christ appears as the Redeemer.
And there is no doubt that the condition of the reprobate is the same as
Jude assigns to the devils, who are confined and bound in chains till
they are brought forth to the punishment to which they are doomed.

VII. Equally monstrous is the error of those who imagine that souls will
not resume the bodies which at present belong to them, but will be
furnished with others altogether different. It was the very futile
reasoning of the Manichæans, that it is absurd to expect that the flesh
which is so impure will ever rise again. As if there were no impurity
attached to the souls, which they nevertheless encouraged to entertain
hopes of a heavenly life. It was therefore just as if they had
maintained, that any thing infected with the contagion of sin is
incapable of being purified by the power of God; for that reverie, that
the flesh was created by the devil, and therefore naturally impure, I at
present forbear to notice; and only observe, that whatever we have in us
now unworthy of heaven, will not hinder the resurrection. In the first
place, when Paul exhorts believers to “cleanse” themselves “from all
filthiness of the flesh and spirit,”[647] thence follows the judgment he
elsewhere denounces, “that every one” shall “receive the things done in
his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or
bad;”[648] with which agrees another passage, “that the life also of
Jesus might be made manifest in our body.”[649] Wherefore in another
place, he prays to God that the whole person may “be preserved blameless
unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ,” even the “body,” as well as
the “soul and spirit.”[650] And no wonder; for that those bodies which
God has dedicated as temples for himself, should sink into corruption,
without any hope of resurrection, would be absurd in the extreme. What
is to be concluded from their being members of Christ?[651] from God’s
enjoining every part of them to be sanctified to himself, requiring
their tongues to celebrate his name, their hands to be lifted up with
purity to him,[652] and their bodies altogether to be presented to him
as “living sacrifices?”[653] This part of our nature therefore being
dignified with such illustrious honour by the heavenly Judge, what
madness is betrayed by a mortal man, in asserting it to be reduced to
ashes without any hope of restoration! And Paul, when he gives us this
exhortation, “Glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are
God’s,”[654] certainly does not countenance consigning to eternal
corruption that which he asserts to be consecrated to God. Nor is there
any point more clearly established in Scripture, than the resurrection
of our present bodies. “This corruptible,” says Paul, “must put on
incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.”[655] If new
bodies were to be formed by God, what would become of this change of
quality? If it had been said, that we must be renewed, the ambiguity of
the expression might have given occasion for cavil: now, when he
particularly designates the bodies that surround us, and promises that
they shall be “raised in incorruption,” it is a sufficient denial of the
formation of new ones. “He could not indeed,” says Tertullian, “have
spoken more expressly, unless he had held his own skin in his hand.” Nor
will any cavil evade the declaration of Isaiah, cited by the apostle,
respecting Christ as the future Judge of the world: “As I live, saith
the Lord, every knee shall bow to me;”[656] for he plainly declares to
the persons addressed by him, that they shall be obliged to give an
account of their lives; which would not be reasonable, if new bodies
were to be placed at the tribunal. There is no obscurity in the language
of Daniel: “Many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall
awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting
contempt.”[657] For God does not collect fresh materials from the four
elements for the fabrication of men, but calls the dead out of their
sepulchres. And this the plainest reason dictates. For if death, which
originated in the fall of man, be adventitious, and not necessary to our
nature, the restoration effected by Christ belongs to the same body
which was thus rendered mortal. From the ridicule of the Athenians, when
Paul asserted the resurrection, it is easy to infer the nature of his
doctrine; and that ridicule is of no small weight for the confirmation
of our faith. The injunction of Christ also is worthy of attention:
“Fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul;
but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in
hell.”[658] For there would be no reason for this fear, if the body
which we now carry about were not liable to punishment. Another of
Christ’s declarations is equally plain: “The hour is coming, in the
which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come
forth, they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life, and they
that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.”[659] Shall we
say that souls rest in graves, and will there hear the voice of Christ,
and not rather that bodies at his command will return to the vigour they
had lost? Besides, if we are to receive new bodies, where will be the
conformity between the Head and members? Christ rose; was it by making
himself a new body? No, but according to his prediction, “Destroy this
temple, and in three days I will raise it up.”[660] The mortal body
which he before possessed, he again assumed. For it would have conduced
but little to our benefit, if there had been a substitution of a new
body, and an annihilation of that which had been offered as an atoning
sacrifice. We must, therefore, maintain the connection stated by the
apostle—that we shall rise, because Christ has risen;[661] for nothing
is more improbable, than that our body, in which “we bear about the
dying of the Lord Jesus,”[662] should be deprived of a resurrection
similar to his. There was an illustrious example of this immediately on
Christ’s resurrection, when “the graves were opened, and many bodies of
the saints which slept arose.”[663] For it cannot be denied, that this
was a prelude, or rather an earnest, of the final resurrection, which we
expect; such as was exhibited before in Enoch and Elias, whom Tertullian
speaks of as “the candidates of the resurrection,” because they were
taken into the immediate care of God, with an entire exemption from
corruption in body and soul.

VIII. I am ashamed of consuming so many words on so clear a subject; but
my readers will cheerfully unite with me in submitting to this trouble,
that no room may be left for men of perverse and presumptuous minds to
deceive the unwary. The unsteady spirits I am now opposing, bring
forward a figment of their own brains, that at the resurrection there
will be a creation of new bodies. What reason can induce them to adopt
this sentiment, but a seeming incredibility, in their apprehension, that
a body long consumed by corruption can ever return to its pristine
state? Unbelief, therefore, is the only source of this opinion. In the
Scripture, on the contrary, we are uniformly exhorted by the Spirit of
God to hope for the resurrection of our body. For this reason, baptism
is spoken of by Paul as a seal of our future resurrection;[664] and we
are as clearly invited to this confidence by the sacred Supper, when we
receive into our mouths the symbols of spiritual grace. And certainly
the exhortation of Paul, to “yield our members as instruments of
righteousness unto God,”[665] would lose all its force, if unaccompanied
by what he afterwards subjoins: “He that raised up Christ from the dead,
shall also quicken your mortal bodies.”[666] For what would it avail to
devote our feet, hands, eyes, and tongues to the service of God, if they
were not to participate the benefit and reward? This is clearly
confirmed by the following passage of Paul: “The body is not for
fornication, but for the Lord; and the Lord for the body. And God hath
both raised up the Lord, and will also raise up us by his own
power.”[667] The following passages are still plainer—that our bodies
are the “temples of the Holy Ghost,” and “members of Christ.”[668] In
the mean time, we see how he connects the resurrection with chastity and
holiness; and so he just after extends the price of redemption to our
bodies. Now, it would be extremely unreasonable that the body of Paul,
in which he “bore the marks of the Lord Jesus,”[669] and in which he
eminently glorified Christ, should be deprived of the reward of the
crown. Hence also that exultation: “We look for the Saviour from heaven,
who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his
glorious body.”[670] And if it be true, “that we must through much
tribulation enter into the kingdom of God,”[671] there can be no reason
for prohibiting this entrance to the bodies, which God trains under the
banner of the cross, and honours with the glory of victory. Therefore no
doubt has ever been entertained by the saints, whether they should hope
to be companions of Christ hereafter; who transfers to his own person
all the afflictions with which we are tried, to teach us that they are
conducting us to life. And God also established the holy fathers under
the law in this faith by an external ceremony. For to what purpose was
the rite of sepulture, as we have already seen, but to instruct them
that another life was prepared for the interred bodies? The same was
suggested by the spices and other symbols of immortality, which, like
the sacrifices under the law, assisted the obscurity of direct
instruction. Nor did this custom arise from superstition; for we find
the Holy Spirit as diligent in mentioning the sepultures, as in
insisting on the principal mysteries of faith. And Christ commends this
as no mean office;[672] certainly for no other reason, but because it
raises our eyes from the view of the grave, which corrupts and dissolves
all things, to the spectacle of future renovation. Besides the very
careful observance of this ceremony, which is commended in the fathers,
sufficiently proves it to have been an excellent and valuable assistance
to faith. Nor would Abraham have discovered such solicitous concern
about the sepulchre of his wife, if he had not been actuated by motives
of religion, and the prospect of more than worldly advantage; that by
adorning her dead body with the emblems of the resurrection, he might
confirm his own faith, and that of his family.[673] There is yet a
clearer proof of this in the example of Jacob; who, to testify to his
posterity that the hope of the promised land did not forsake his heart
even in death, commands his bones to be reconveyed thither.[674] If he
was to be furnished with a new body, would not this have been a
ridiculous command concerning dust that was soon to be annihilated?
Wherefore, if the authority of the Scripture has any weight with us, no
clearer or stronger proof of any doctrine can possibly be desired. Even
children understand this to be the meaning of the term “resurrection;”
for we never apply this term to any instance of original creation; nor
would it be consistent with that declaration of Christ, “Of all which
the Father hath given me, I shall lose nothing, but will raise it up
again at the last day.”[675] The same is implied in the word “sleeping,”
which is only applicable to the body. Hence the appellation of
_cemetery_, or _sleeping-place_, given to places of burial. It remains
for me to touch a little on the manner of the resurrection. And I shall
but just hint at it; because Paul, by calling it a mystery, exhorts us
to sobriety, and forbids all licentiousness of subtle and extravagant
speculation. In the first place, let it be remembered, as we have
observed, that we shall rise again with the same bodies we have now, as
to the substance, but that the quality will be different; just as the
very body of Christ which had been offered as a sacrifice was raised
again, but with such new and superior qualities, as though it had been
altogether different. Paul represents this by some familiar examples.
For as the flesh of man and of brutes is the same in substance, but not
in quality; as the matter of all the stars is the same, but they differ
in glory; so, though we shall retain the substance of our body, he tells
us there will be a change, which will render its condition far more
excellent.[676] The “corruptible” body, therefore, will neither perish
nor vanish, in order to our resurrection; but having laid aside
corruption, will “put on incorruption.”[677] God, having all the
elements subject to his control, will find no difficulty in commanding
the earth, the water, and the fire, to restore whatever they appear to
have consumed. This is declared in figurative language by Isaiah:
“Behold, the Lord cometh out of his place to punish the inhabitants of
the earth for their iniquity; the earth also shall disclose her blood,
and shall no more cover her slain.”[678] But we must remark the
difference between those who shall have been already dead, and those
whom that day shall find alive. “We shall not all sleep,” says Paul,
“but we shall all be changed;”[679] that is, there will be no necessity
for any distance of time to intervene between death and the commencement
of the next life; for “in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, the
trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible,” and
the living transformed by a sudden change into the same glory. So in
another Epistle he comforts believers who were to die, that those “which
are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord, shall not prevent them
which are asleep,” but that “the dead in Christ shall rise first.”[680]
If it be objected that the apostle says, “It is appointed unto men once
to die,”[681] the answer is easy,—that where the state of the nature is
changed, it is a species of death, and may without impropriety be so
called; and therefore there is a perfect consistence between these
things, that all will be removed by death when they put off the mortal
body, but that a separation of the body and soul will not be necessary,
where there will be an instantaneous change.

IX. But here arises a question of greater difficulty. How can the
resurrection, which is a peculiar benefit of Christ, be common to the
impious and the subjects of the Divine curse? We know that in Adam all
were sentenced to death;[682] Christ comes as “the resurrection and the
life;”[683] but was it to bestow life promiscuously on all mankind? But
what would be more improbable, than that they should attain, in their
obstinate blindness, what the pious worshippers of God recover by faith
alone? Yet it remains certain, that one will be a resurrection to
judgment, the other to life; and that Christ will come to “separate the
sheep from the goats.”[684] I reply, we ought not to think that so very
strange, which we see exemplified in our daily experience. We know that
in Adam we lost the inheritance of the whole world, and have no more
right to the enjoyment of common aliments, than to the fruit of the tree
of life. How is it, then, that God not only “maketh his sun to rise on
the evil and on the good,”[685] but that, for the accommodations of the
present life, his inestimable liberality is diffused in the most copious
abundance? Hence we see, that things which properly belong to Christ and
his members, are also extended to the impious; not to become their
legitimate possession, but to render them more inexcusable. Thus impious
men frequently experience God’s beneficence in remarkable instances,
which sometimes exceed all the blessings of the pious, but which,
nevertheless, are the means of aggravating their condemnation. If it be
objected, that the resurrection is improperly compared with fleeting and
terrestrial advantages, I reply again, that when men were first
alienated from God, the Fountain of life, they deserved the ruin of the
devil, to be altogether destroyed; yet the wonderful counsel of God
devised a middle state, that without life they might live in death. It
ought not to be thought more unreasonable, if the impious are raised
from the dead, in order to be dragged to the tribunal of Christ, whom
they now refuse to hear as their Master and Teacher. For it would be a
slight punishment to be destroyed by death, if they were not to be
brought before the Judge whose infinite and endless vengeance they have
incurred, to receive the punishments due to their rebellion. But though
we must maintain what we have asserted, and what is asserted by Paul in
his celebrated confession before Felix, “that there shall be a
resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust,”[686] yet the
Scripture more commonly exhibits the resurrection to the children of God
alone, in connection with the glory of heaven; because, strictly
speaking, Christ will come, not for the destruction of the world, but
for purposes of salvation. This is the reason that the Creed mentions
only the life of blessedness.

X. But, as the prophecy of “death being swallowed up in victory,” shall
then, and not till then, be fully accomplished,—let us always reflect on
eternal felicity as the end of the resurrection; of the excellence of
which, if every thing were said that could be expressed by all the
tongues of men, yet the smallest part of it would scarcely be mentioned.
For though we are plainly informed, that the kingdom of God is full of
light, joy, felicity, and glory, yet all that is mentioned remains far
above our comprehension, and enveloped, as it were, in enigmatical
obscurity, till the arrival of that day, when he shall exhibit his glory
to us face to face. “Now are we the sons of God, (says John,) and it
doth not yet appear what we shall be; but we know, that when he shall
appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.”[687]
Wherefore the prophets, because they could not describe that spiritual
blessedness by any terms expressive of its sublime nature, generally
represented it under corporeal images. Yet, as any intimation of that
happiness must kindle in us a fervour of desire, let us chiefly dwell on
this reflection—If God, as an inexhaustible fountain, contains within
himself a plenitude of all blessings, nothing beyond him can ever be
desired by those who aspire to the supreme good, and a perfection of
happiness. This we are taught in various passages of Scripture.
“Abraham,” says God, “I am thy exceeding great reward.”[688] With this
David agrees: “The Lord is the portion of mine inheritance; the lines
are fallen unto me in pleasant places.”[689] Again: “I will behold thy
face; I shall be satisfied.”[690] Peter declares, that believers are
called, “that they might be partakers of the Divine nature.”[691] How
will this be? Because “he shall be glorified in his saints, and admired
in all them that believe.”[692] If the Lord will make the elect
partakers of his glory, strength, and righteousness, and will even
bestow himself upon them to be enjoyed, and, what is better than this,
to be in some sense united to them,—let us remember, that in this favour
every kind of felicity is comprised. And after we have made considerable
progress in this meditation, we may still acknowledge the conceptions of
our minds to be extremely low, in comparison with the sublimity of this
mystery. Sobriety, therefore, is the more necessary for us on this
subject, lest, forgetful of our slender capacity, we presumptuously soar
to too high an elevation, and are overwhelmed with the blaze of
celestial glory. We perceive, likewise, how we are actuated by an
inordinate desire of knowing more than is right; which gives rise to a
variety of questions, both frivolous and pernicious. I call those
frivolous, from which no advantage can possibly be derived. But those of
the second class are worse, involving persons, who indulge them, in
injurious speculations, and therefore I call them pernicious. What is
taught in the Scriptures, we ought to receive without any controversy;
that as God, in the various distribution of his gifts to the saints in
this world, does not equally enlighten them all, so in heaven, where God
will crown those gifts, there will be an inequality in the degrees of
their glory. The language of Paul is not indiscriminately applicable to
all—“Ye are our glory and joy at our Lord’s coming;”[693] nor Christ’s
address to his apostles—“Ye shall sit judging the twelve tribes of
Israel.”[694] But Paul, who knew that according as God enriches the
saints with spiritual gifts on earth, so he adorns them with glory in
heaven, doubts not that there is in reserve for him a peculiar crown in
proportion to his labours. And Christ commends to his apostles the
dignity of the office with which they were invested, by assuring them
that the reward of it was laid up in heaven.[695] Thus also Daniel:
“They that be wise, shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and
they that turn many to righteousness, as the stars, for ever and
ever.”[696] And an attentive consideration of the Scriptures will
convince us, that they not only promise eternal life generally to
believers, but also a special reward to each individual. Whence that
expression of Paul—“The Lord reward him according to his works.”[697] It
is also confirmed by the promise of Christ that his disciples should
receive a hundred-fold more in eternal life.[698] In a word, as Christ
begins the glory of his body by a manifold variety of gifts in this
world, and enlarges it by degrees, in the same manner he will also
perfect it in heaven.

XI. As all the pious will receive this with one consent, because it is
sufficiently attested in the word of God, so, on the other hand,
dismissing abstruse questions, which they know to be obstructions to
them, they will not transgress the limits prescribed to them. For
myself, I not only refrain as an individual from the unnecessary
investigation of useless questions, but think it my duty to be cautious,
lest I encourage the vanity of others by answering them. Men, thirsting
after useless knowledge, inquire what will be the distance between the
prophets and apostles, and between the apostles and martyrs; and how
many degrees of difference there will be between those who have married
and those who have lived and died in celibacy; in short, they leave not
a corner of heaven unexplored. The next object of their inquiry is, what
end will be answered by the restoration of the world; since the children
of God will want nothing of all its vast and incomparable abundance, but
will be like the angels of God, whose freedom from all animal
necessities is the symbol of eternal blessedness. I reply, there will be
such great pleasantness in the very prospect, and such exquisite
sweetness in the mere knowledge, without any use of it, that this
felicity will far exceed all the accommodations afforded us in the
present state. Let us suppose ourselves placed in some region the most
opulent in the world, and furnished with every pleasure; who would not
sometimes be prevented by disease from making use of the bounties of
God? who would not often have his enjoyment of them interrupted by the
consequences of intemperance? Hence it follows, that calm and serene
enjoyment, pure from every vice and free from all defect, although there
should be no use of a corruptible life, is the perfection of happiness.
Others go further, and inquire, whether dross and all impurities in
metals are not removed from that restoration, and incompatible with such
a state. Though I in some measure grant this, I expect, with Paul, a
reparation of all the evils caused by sin, for which he represents the
creatures as groaning and travailing. They proceed further still, and
inquire, what better state awaits the human race, when the blessing of
posterity shall no longer be enjoyed. The solution of this question also
is easy. The splendid commendations of it in the Scriptures relate to
that progressive increase, by which God is continually carrying forward
the system of nature to its consummation. But as the unwary are easily
caught by such temptations, and are afterwards drawn further into the
labyrinth, till, at length, every one being pleased with his own
opinion, there is no end to disputes,—the best and shortest rule for our
conduct, is to content ourselves with “seeing through a glass darkly,”
till we shall “see face to face.”[699] For very few persons are
concerned about the way that leads to heaven, but all are anxious to
know, before the time, what passes there. Men in general are slow, and
reluctant to engage in the conflict, and yet portray to themselves
imaginary triumphs.

XII. Now, as no description can equal the severity of the Divine
vengeance on the reprobate, their anguish and torment are figuratively
represented to us under corporeal images; as, darkness, weeping, and
gnashing of teeth, unextinguishable fire, a worm incessantly gnawing the
heart.[700] For there can be no doubt but that, by such modes of
expression, the Holy Spirit intended to confound all our faculties with
horror; as when it is said, that “Tophet is ordained of old; the pile
thereof is fire and much wood: the breath of the Lord, like a stream of
brimstone, doth kindle it.”[701] As these representations should assist
us in forming some conception of the wretched condition of the wicked,
so they ought principally to fix our attention on the calamity of being
alienated from the presence of God; and in addition to this,
experiencing such hostility from the Divine majesty as to be unable to
escape from its continual pursuit. For, in the first place, his
indignation is like a most violent flame, which devours and consumes all
that it touches. In the next place, all the creatures so subserve the
execution of his judgment, that those to whom the Lord will thus
manifest his wrath, will find the heaven, the earth, and the sea, the
animals, and all that exists, inflamed, as it were, with dire
indignation against them, and all armed for their destruction. It is no
trivial threatening, therefore, denounced by the apostle, that
unbelievers “shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the
presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power.”[702] And when
the prophets excite terror by corporeal figures, though they advance
nothing hyperbolical for our dull understandings, yet they mingle
preludes of the future judgment with the sun, the moon, and the whole
fabric of the world. Wherefore miserable consciences find no repose, but
are harassed and agitated with a dreadful tempest, feel themselves torn
asunder by an angry God, and, transfixed and penetrated by mortal
stings, are terrified at the thunderbolts of God, and broken by the
weight of his hand; so that to sink into any gulfs and abysses would be
more tolerable than to stand for a moment in these terrors. How great
and severe, then, is the punishment, to endure the never ceasing effects
of his wrath! On which subject there is a memorable passage in the
ninetieth psalm; that though by his countenance he scatters all mortals,
and turns them to destruction, yet he encourages his servants in
proportion to their timidity in this world, to excite them, though under
the burden of the cross, to press forward, till he shall be all in all.

Footnote 600:

2 Tim. i. 10.

Footnote 601:

John v. 24.

Footnote 602:

Ephes. ii. 19.

Footnote 603:

Ephes. ii. 6.

Footnote 604:

Rom. viii. 24.

Footnote 605:

Heb. xi. 1.

Footnote 606:

2 Cor. v. 6.

Footnote 607:

Col. iii. 3, 4.

Footnote 608:

Titus ii. 12, 13.

Footnote 609:

1 Peter i. 8, 9.

Footnote 610:

Col. i. 5.

Footnote 611:

Matt. vi. 21.

Footnote 612:

Phil. iii. 14.

Footnote 613:

Phil. iii. 8-11.

Footnote 614:

Phil. iii. 20.

Footnote 615:

Rom. viii. 19-23.

Footnote 616:

Heb. ix. 28.

Footnote 617:

1 Cor. xv. 13, &c.

Footnote 618:

2 Cor. iv. 10.

Footnote 619:

1 Cor. xv. 13.

Footnote 620:

Psalm xvi. 10.

Footnote 621:

Phil. iii. 21.

Footnote 622:

Col. iii. 4. Rom. viii. 11.

Footnote 623:

1 Cor. xv. 23.

Footnote 624:

Luke xxiv. 11.

Footnote 625:

Matt. xxvii. 66; xxviii. 11, &c.

Footnote 626:

Luke xxiv. 4-6. Matt. xxviii. 3-6.

Footnote 627:

Acts i. 3, 9.

Footnote 628:

1 Cor. xv. 6.

Footnote 629:

John xvi. 7.

Footnote 630:

Acts vii. 55.

Footnote 631:

Phil. iii. 21.

Footnote 632:

1 Cor. xv. 36.

Footnote 633:

Isaiah xxvi. 19.

Footnote 634:

Psalm lxviii. 20.

Footnote 635:

Job xix. 25, 27.

Footnote 636:

Ezek. xxxvii. 1-14.

Footnote 637:

John v. 28, 29.

Footnote 638:

2 Tim. i. 12; iv. 8.

Footnote 639:

2 Thess. i. 6-8, 10.

Footnote 640:

Eccl. ix. 4.

Footnote 641:

Eccl. iii. 21.

Footnote 642:

Rev. xx. 4.

Footnote 643:

2 Peter i. 14.

Footnote 644:

2 Cor. v. 1, 8.

Footnote 645:

Heb. xii. 23.

Footnote 646:

Luke xxiii. 43.

Footnote 647:

2 Cor. vii. 1.

Footnote 648:

2 Cor. v. 10.

Footnote 649:

2 Cor. iv. 10.

Footnote 650:

1 Thess. v. 23.

Footnote 651:

1 Cor. vi. 15.

Footnote 652:

1 Tim. ii. 8.

Footnote 653:

Rom. xii. 1.

Footnote 654:

1 Cor. vi. 20.

Footnote 655:

1 Cor. xv. 54.

Footnote 656:

Rom. xiv. 11, 12.

Footnote 657:

Dan. xii. 2.

Footnote 658:

Matt. x. 28.

Footnote 659:

John v. 28, 29.

Footnote 660:

John ii. 19.

Footnote 661:

1 Cor. xv. 12, &c.

Footnote 662:

2 Cor. iv. 10.

Footnote 663:

Matt. xxvi. 52.

Footnote 664:

Col. ii. 12.

Footnote 665:

Rom. vi. 13.

Footnote 666:

Rom. viii. 11.

Footnote 667:

1 Cor. vi. 13, 14.

Footnote 668:

1 Cor. vi. 15, 19, 20.

Footnote 669:

Gal. vi. 17.

Footnote 670:

Phil. iii. 20, 21.

Footnote 671:

Acts xiv. 22.

Footnote 672:

Matt. xxvi. 10, 12.

Footnote 673:

Gen xxiii. 3-19.

Footnote 674:

Gen. xlvii. 30.

Footnote 675:

John vi. 39, 40.

Footnote 676:

1 Cor. xv. 39-41.

Footnote 677:

1 Cor. xv. 53.

Footnote 678:

Isaiah xxvi. 21.

Footnote 679:

1 Cor. xv. 51, 52.

Footnote 680:

1 Thess. iv. 15, 16.

Footnote 681:

Heb. ix. 27.

Footnote 682:

Rom. v. 12.

Footnote 683:

John xi. 25.

Footnote 684:

Matt. xxv. 32.

Footnote 685:

Matt. v. 45.

Footnote 686:

Acts xxiv. 15.

Footnote 687:

1 John iii. 2.

Footnote 688:

Gen. xv. 1.

Footnote 689:

Psalm xvi. 5, 6.

Footnote 690:

Psalm xvii. 15.

Footnote 691:

2 Peter i. 4.

Footnote 692:

2 Thess. i. 10.

Footnote 693:

1 Thess. ii. 19, 20.

Footnote 694:

Matt. xix. 29.

Footnote 695:

Matt. v. 12.

Footnote 696:

Dan. xii. 3.

Footnote 697:

2 Tim. iv. 14.

Footnote 698:

Matt. xix. 29.

Footnote 699:

1 Cor. xiii. 12.

Footnote 700:

Matt. iii. 12; viii. 12; xxii. 13. Mark ix. 43, 44. Isaiah lxvi. 24.

Footnote 701:

Isaiah xxx. 33.

Footnote 702:

2 Thess. i. 9.

BOOK IV.
ON THE EXTERNAL MEANS OR AIDS BY WHICH GOD CALLS US INTO COMMUNION WITH
CHRIST, AND RETAINS US IN IT.

ARGUMENT.

Three parts of the Apostles’ Creed, respecting God the Creator,
Redeemer, and Sanctifier, have been explained in the former books. This
last book is an exposition of what remains, relating to the Holy
Catholic Church, and the Communion of Saints.

The chapters contained in it may be conveniently arranged in three grand
divisions:—

I. The Church.
II. The Sacraments.
III. Civil Government.

The First Division, extending to the end of the thirteenth chapter,
contains many particulars, which, however, may all be referred to four
principal heads:—

I. The marks of the Church, or the criteria by which it may be
distinguished; since we must cultivate union with it—Chap. I. II.

II. The government of the church—Chap. III.-VII.

1. The order of government in the church—Chap. III.

2. The form practised by the ancient Christians—Chap. IV.

3. The nature of the present ecclesiastical government under the
Papacy—Chap. V. The primacy of the Pope—Chap. VI. And the degrees of his
advancement to this tyrannical power—Chap. VII.

III. The power of the church—Chap. VIII.-XI.

1. Relating to articles of faith,—which resides either in the respective
bishops—Chap. VIII.—or in the church at large, represented in
councils—Chap. IX.

2. In making laws—Chap. X.

3. In ecclesiastical jurisdiction—Chap. XI.

IV. The discipline of the Church—Chap. XII. XIII.

1. The principal use of it—Chap. XII.

2. The abuse of it—Chap. XIII.

The Second Division, relating to the sacraments, contains three parts.

I. The sacraments in general—Chap. XIV.

II. Each sacrament in particular—Chap. XV.-XVIII.

1. Baptism—Chap. XV. Distinct discussion of Pædobaptism—Chap. XVI.

2. The Lord’s Supper—Chap. XVII.—and its profanation—Chap. XVIII.

III. The five other ceremonies, falsely called sacraments—Chap. XIX.

The Third Division regards civil government.

I. This government in general.

II. Its respective branches.

1. The magistrates.

2. The laws.

3. The people.

CHAPTER I.
THE TRUE CHURCH, AND THE NECESSITY OF OUR UNION WITH HER, BEING THE
MOTHER OF ALL THE PIOUS.

That by the faith of the gospel Christ becomes ours, and we become
partakers of the salvation procured by him, and of eternal happiness,
has been explained in the preceding Book. But as our ignorance and
slothfulness, and, I may add, the vanity of our minds, require external
aids, in order to the production of faith in our hearts, and its
increase and progressive advance even to its completion, God has
provided such aids in compassion to our infirmity; and that the
preaching of the gospel might be maintained, he has deposited this
treasure with the Church. He has appointed pastors and teachers, that
his people might be taught by their lips; he has invested them with
authority; in short, he has omitted nothing that could contribute to a
holy unity of faith, and to the establishment of good order.[703] First
of all, he has instituted Sacraments, which we know by experience to be
means of the greatest utility for the nourishment and support of our
faith. For as, during our confinement in the prison of our flesh, we
have not yet attained to the state of angels, God has, in his wonderful
providence, accommodated himself to our capacity, by prescribing a way
in which we might approach him, notwithstanding our immense distance
from him. Wherefore the order of instruction requires us now to treat of
the Church and its government, orders, and power; secondly, of the
Sacraments; and lastly, of Civil Government; and at the same time to
call off the pious readers from the abuses of the Papacy, by which Satan
has corrupted every thing that God had appointed to be instrumental to
our salvation. I shall begin with the Church, in whose bosom it is God’s
will that all his children should be collected, not only to be nourished
by her assistance and ministry during their infancy and childhood, but
also to be governed by her maternal care, till they attain a mature age,
and at length reach the end of their faith. For it is not lawful to “put
asunder” those things “which God hath joined together;”[704] that the
Church is the mother of all those who have him for their Father; and
that not only under the law, but since the coming of Christ also,
according to the testimony of the apostle, who declares the new and
heavenly Jerusalem to be “the mother of us all.”[705]

II. That article of the Creed, in which we profess to believe THE
CHURCH, refers not only to the visible Church of which we are now
speaking, but likewise to all the elect of God, including the dead as
well as the living. The word BELIEVE is used, because it is often
impossible to discover any difference between the children of God and
the ungodly; between his peculiar flock and wild beasts. The particle
IN, interpolated by many, is not supported by any probable reason. I
confess that it is generally adopted at present, and is not destitute of
the suffrage of antiquity, being found in the Nicene Creed, as it is
transmitted to us in ecclesiastical history. Yet it is evident from the
writings of the fathers, that it was anciently admitted without
controversy to say, “I believe the Church,” not “_in_ the Church.” For
not only is this word not used by Augustine and the ancient writer of
the work “On the Exposition of the Creed,” which passes under the name
of Cyprian, but they particularly remark that there would be an
impropriety in the expression, if this preposition were inserted; and
they confirm their opinion by no trivial reason. For we declare that we
believe _in God_ because our mind depends upon him as true, and our
confidence rests in him. But this would not be applicable to the Church,
any more than to “the remission of sins,” or the “resurrection of the
body.” Therefore, though I am averse to contentions about words, yet I
would rather adopt a proper phraseology adapted to express the subject
than affect forms of expression by which the subject would be
unnecessarily involved in obscurity. The design of this clause is to
teach us, that though the devil moves every engine to destroy the grace
of Christ, and all the enemies of God exert the most furious violence in
the same attempt, yet his grace cannot possibly be extinguished, nor can
his blood be rendered barren, so as not to produce some fruit. Here we
must regard both the secret election of God, and his internal vocation;
because he alone “knoweth them that are his;” and keeps them enclosed
under his “seal,” to use the expression of Paul;[706] except that they
bear his impression, by which they may be distinguished from the
reprobate. But because a small and contemptible number is concealed
among a vast multitude, and a few grains of wheat are covered with a
heap of chaff, we must leave to God alone the knowledge of his Church
whose foundation is his secret election. Nor is it sufficient to include
in our thoughts and minds the whole multitude of the elect, unless we
conceive of such a unity of the Church, into which we know ourselves to
be truly ingrafted. For unless we are united with all the other members
under Christ our Head, we can have no hope of the future inheritance.
Therefore the Church is called CATHOLIC, or universal; because there
could not be two or three churches, without Christ being divided, which
is impossible. But all the elect of God are so connected with each other
in Christ, that as they depend upon one head, so they grow up together
as into one body, compacted together like members of the same body;
being made truly one, as living by one faith, hope, and charity, through
the same Divine Spirit, being called not only to the same inheritance of
eternal life, but also to a participation of one God and Christ.
Therefore, though the melancholy desolation which surrounds us, seems to
proclaim that there is nothing left of the Church, let us remember that
the death of Christ is fruitful, and that God wonderfully preserves his
Church as it were in hiding-places; according to what he said to Elijah:
“I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the
knee to Baal.”[707]

III. This article of the creed, however, relates in some measure to the
external Church, that every one of us may maintain a brotherly agreement
with all the children of God, may pay due deference to the authority of
the Church, and, in a word, may conduct himself as one of the flock.
Therefore we add THE COMMUNION OF SAINTS—a clause which, though
generally omitted by the ancients, ought not to be neglected, because it
excellently expresses the character of the Church; as though it had been
said that the saints are united in the fellowship of Christ on this
condition, that whatever benefits God confers upon them, they should
mutually communicate to each other. This destroys not the diversity of
grace, for we know that the gifts of the Spirit are variously
distributed; nor does it disturb the order of civil polity, which
secures to every individual the exclusive enjoyment of his property, as
it is necessary for the preservation of the peace of society that men
should have peculiar and distinct possessions. But the community
asserted is such as Luke describes, that “the multitude of them that
believed were of one heart and of one soul;”[708] and Paul, when he
exhorts the Ephesians to be “one body, and one spirit, even as they were
called in one hope.”[709] Nor is it possible, if they are truly
persuaded that God is a common Father to them all, and Christ their
common Head, but that, being united in brotherly affection, they should
mutually communicate their advantages to each other. Now, it highly
concerns us to know what benefit we receive from this. For we believe
the Church, in order to have a certain assurance that we are members of
it. For thus our salvation rests on firm and solid foundations, so that
it cannot fall into ruin, though the whole fabric of the world should be
dissolved. First, it is founded on the election of God, and can be
liable to no variation or failure, but with the subversion of his
eternal providence. In the next place, it is united with the stability
of Christ, who will no more suffer his faithful people to be severed
from him, than his members to be torn in pieces. Besides, we are
certain, as long as we continue in the bosom of the Church, that we
shall remain in possession of the truth. Lastly, we understand these
promises to belong to us: “In mount Zion shall be deliverance.”[710] God
is in the midst of her; she shall not be moved.“[711] Such is the effect
of union with the Church, that it retains us in the fellowship of God.
The very word _communion_ likewise contains abundant consolation; for
while it is certain that whatever the Lord confers upon his members and
ours belong to us, our hope is confirmed by all the benefits which they
enjoy. But in order to embrace the unity of the Church in this manner,
it is unnecessary, as we have observed, to see the Church with our eyes,
or feel it with our hands; on the contrary, from its being an object of
faith, we are taught that it is no less to be considered as existing,
when it escapes our observation, than if it were evident to our eyes.
Nor is our faith the worse, because it acknowledges the Church which we
do not fully comprehend; for we are not commanded here to distinguish
the reprobate from the elect, which is not our province, but that of God
alone; we are only required to be assured in our minds, that all those
who, by the mercy of God the Father, through the efficacious influence
of the Holy Spirit, have attained to the participation of Christ, are
separated as the peculiar possession and portion of God; and that being
numbered among them, we are partakers of such great grace.

IV. But as our present design is to treat of the _visible_ Church, we
may learn even from the title of _mother_, how useful and even necessary
it is for us to know her; since there is no other way of entrance into
life, unless we are conceived by her, born of her, nourished at her
breast, and continually preserved under her care and government till we
are divested of this mortal flesh, and “become like the angels.”[712]
For our infirmity will not admit of our dismission from her school; we
must continue under her instruction and discipline to the end of our
lives. It is also to be remarked, that out of her bosom there can be no
hope of remission of sins, or any salvation, according to the testimony
of Joel and Isaiah;[713] which is confirmed by Ezekiel,[714] when he
denounces that those whom God excludes from the heavenly life, shall not
be enrolled among his people. So, on the contrary, those who devote
themselves to the service of God, are said to inscribe their names among
the citizens of Jerusalem. For which reason the Psalmist says, “Remember
me, O Lord, with the favour that thou bearest unto thy people: O visit
me with thy salvation; that I may see the good of thy chosen; that I may
rejoice in the gladness of thy nation; that I may glory with thine
inheritance.”[715] In these words the paternal favour of God, and the
peculiar testimony of the spiritual life, are restricted to his flock,
to teach us that it is always fatally dangerous to be separated from the
Church.

V. But let us proceed to state what belongs to this subject. Paul
writes, that Christ, “that he might fill all things, gave some apostles,
and some prophets, and some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers;
for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the
edifying of the body of Christ: till we all come in the unity of the
faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto
the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ.”[716] We see that
though God could easily make his people perfect in a single moment, yet
it was not his will that they should grow to mature age, but under the
education of the Church. We see the means expressed; the preaching of
the heavenly doctrine is assigned to the pastors. We see that all are
placed under the same regulation, in order that they may submit
themselves with gentleness and docility of mind to be governed by the
pastors who are appointed for this purpose. Isaiah had long before
described the kingdom of Christ by this character: “My Spirit that is
upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart
out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth
of thy seed’s seed, from henceforth and for ever.”[717] Hence it
follows, that all who reject the spiritual food for their souls, which
is extended to them by the hands of the Church, deserve to perish with
hunger and want. It is God who inspires us with faith, but it is through
the instrumentality of the gospel, according to the declaration of Paul,
“that faith cometh by hearing.”[718] So also the power to save resides
in God, but, as the same apostle testifies in another place, he displays
it in the preaching of the gospel. With this design, in former ages he
commanded solemn assemblies to be held in the sanctuary, that the
doctrine taught by the mouth of the priest might maintain the unity of
the faith; and the design of those magnificent titles, where the temple
is called God’s “rest,” his “sanctuary,” and “dwelling-place,” where he
is said to “dwell between the cherubim,”[719] was no other than to
promote the esteem, love, reverence, and dignity of the heavenly
doctrine; which the view of a mortal and despised man would otherwise
greatly diminish. That we may know, therefore, that we have an
inestimable treasure communicated to us from earthen vessels,[720] God
himself comes forward, and as he is the Author of this arrangement, so
he will be acknowledged as present in his institution. Therefore, after
having forbidden his people to devote themselves to auguries,
divinations, magical arts, necromancy, and other superstitions, he adds,
that he will give them what ought to be sufficient for every purpose,
namely, that he will never leave them without prophets. Now, as he did
not refer his ancient people to angels, but raised up earthly teachers,
who truly discharged the office of angels, so, in the present day, he is
pleased to teach us by the instrumentality of men. And as formerly he
was not content with the written law, but appointed the priests as
interpreters, at whose lips the people might inquire its true meaning,
so, in the present day, he not only requires us to be attentive to
reading, but has appointed teachers for our assistance. This is attended
with a twofold advantage. For on the one hand, it is a good proof of our
obedience when we listen to his ministers, just as if he were addressing
us himself; and on the other, he has provided for our infirmity, by
choosing to address us through the medium of human interpreters, that he
may sweetly allure us to him, rather than to drive us away from him by
his thunders. And the propriety of this familiar manner of teaching, is
evident to all the pious, from the terror with which the majesty of God
justly alarms them. Those who consider the authority of the doctrine as
weakened by the meanness of the men who are called to teach it, betray
their ingratitude; because among so many excellent gifts with which God
has adorned mankind, it is a peculiar privilege, that he deigns to
consecrate men’s lips and tongues to his service, that his voice may be
heard in them. Let us not therefore, on our parts, be reluctant to
receive and obey the doctrine of salvation proposed to us at his express
command; for though the power of God is not confined to external means,
yet he has confined us to the ordinary manner of teaching, the fanatical
rejecters of which necessarily involve themselves in many fatal snares.
Many are urged by pride, or disdain, or envy, to persuade themselves
that they can profit sufficiently by reading and meditating in private,
and so to despise public assemblies, and consider preaching as
unnecessary. But since they do all in their power to dissolve and break
asunder the bond of unity, which ought to be preserved inviolable, not
one of them escapes the just punishment of this impious breach, but they
all involve themselves in pestilent errors and pernicious reveries.
Wherefore, in order that the pure simplicity of faith may flourish among
us, let us not be reluctant to use this exercise of piety, which the
Divine institution has shown to be necessary, and which God so
repeatedly commends to us. There has never been found, among the most
extravagant of mortals, one insolent enough to say that we ought to shut
our ears against God; but the prophets and pious teachers, in all ages,
have had a difficult contest with the wicked, whose arrogance can never
submit to be taught by the lips and ministry of men. Now, this is no
other than effacing the image of God, which is discovered to us in the
doctrine. For the faithful under the former dispensation were directed
to seek the face of God in the sanctuary;[721] and this is so frequently
repeated in the law, for no other reason, but because the doctrine of
the law and the exhortations of the prophets exhibited to them a lively
image of God; as Paul declares that his preaching displayed “the glory
of God in the face of Jesus Christ.”[722] And in so much the greater
detestation ought we to hold those apostates, who make it their study to
cause divisions in churches, as if they would drive away the sheep from
the fold, and throw them into the jaws of wolves. But let us remember
what we have quoted from Paul—that the Church can only be edified by the
preaching of this word, and that the saints have no common bond of union
to hold them together, any longer than, while learning and profiting
with one accord, they observe the order which God has prescribed for the
Church. It was principally for this end, as I have already stated, that
the faithful under the law were commanded to resort to the sanctuary;
because Moses not only celebrates it as the residence of God, but
likewise declares it to be the place where God has fixed the record of
his name;[723] which without the doctrine of piety, he plainly suggests,
would be of no use. And it is undoubtedly for the same reason that David
complains, with great bitterness of soul, of being prevented from access
to the tabernacle by the tyrannical cruelty of his enemies.[724] To many
persons perhaps this appears to be a puerile lamentation, because it
could be but a very trivial loss, and not a privation of much
satisfaction to be absent from the court of the temple, provided he were
in the possession of other pleasures. But by this one trouble, anxiety,
and sorrow, he complains that he is grieved, tormented, and almost
consumed; because nothing is more valued by believers than this
assistance, by which God gradually raises his people from one degree of
elevation to another. For it is also to be remarked, that God always
manifested himself to the holy fathers, in the mirror of his doctrine,
in such a manner that their knowledge of him was spiritual. Hence the
temple was not only called his _face_, but in order to guard against all
superstition, was also designated as his _footstool_.[725] And this is
that happy conjunction in the unity of the faith spoken of by Paul, when
all, from the highest to the lowest, are aspiring towards the head. All
the temples which the Gentiles erected to God with any other design,
were nothing but a profanation of his worship—a crime which, though not
to an equal extent, was also frequently committed by the Jews. Stephen
reproaches them for it in the language of Isaiah: “The Most High
dwelleth not in temples made with hands; as saith the prophet, Heaven is
my throne, and earth is my footstool,”[726] because God alone sanctifies
temples by his word, that they may be legitimately used for his worship.
And if we presumptuously attempt any thing without his command, the evil
beginning is immediately succeeded by further inventions, which multiply
the mischief without end. Xerxes, however, acted with great
indiscretion, when, at the advice of the magi, he burned or demolished
all the temples of Greece, from an opinion of the absurdity that gods,
to whom all space ought to be left perfectly free, should be enclosed
within walls and roofs. As if it were not in the power of God to descend
in any way to us, and yet at the same time not to make any change of
place, or to confine us to earthly means, but rather to use them as
vehicles to elevate us towards his celestial glory, which fills all
things with its immensity, as well as transcends the heavens in its
sublimity.

VI. Now, as the present age has witnessed a violent dispute respecting
the efficacy of the ministry, some exaggerating its dignity beyond
measure, and others contending that it is a criminal transfer to mortal
man of what properly belongs to the Holy Spirit, to suppose that
ministers and teachers penetrate the mind and heart, so as to correct
the blindness of the one, and the hardness of the other,—we must proceed
to a decision of this controversy. The arguments advanced on both sides
may be easily reconciled by a careful observation of the passages, in
which God, the Author of preaching, connecting his Spirit with it,
promises that it shall be followed with success; or those in which,
separating himself from all external aids, he attributes the
commencement of faith, as well as its subsequent progress, entirely and
exclusively to himself. The office of the second Elias, according to
Malachi, was to illuminate the minds and to “turn the hearts of the
fathers to the children,” and the disobedient to the wisdom of the
just.[727] Christ declares that he sent his disciples, that they “should
bring forth fruit”[728] from their labours. What that fruit was, is
briefly defined by Peter, when he says that we are “born again, not of
corruptible seed, but of incorruptible.”[729] Therefore Paul glories
that he had “begotten” the Corinthians “through the gospel,” and that
they were “the seal of his apostleship;”[730] and even that he was “not
a minister of the letter,” merely striking the ear with a vocal sound,
but that the energy of the Spirit had been given to him to render his
doctrine efficacious.[731] In the same sense, he affirms, in another
Epistle, that his “gospel came not in word only, but also in
power.”[732] He declares also to the Galatians, that they “received the
Spirit by the hearing of faith.”[733] In short, there are several
places, in which he not only represents himself as a “labourer together
with God,”[734] but even attributes to himself the office of
communicating salvation. He certainly never advanced all these things,
in order to arrogate to himself the least praise independent of God, as
he briefly states in other passages: “Our entrance in unto you was not
in vain.”[735] “I labour, striving according to his working, which
worketh in me mightily.”[736] “He that wrought effectually in Peter to
the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward
the Gentiles.”[737] Besides, it is evident, from other places, that he
leaves ministers possessed of nothing, considered in themselves:
“Neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but
God that giveth the increase.”[738] Again: “I laboured more abundantly
than they all; yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me.”[739]
And it is certainly necessary to bear in memory those passages, in which
God ascribes to himself the illumination of the mind and renovation of
the heart, and thereby declares it to be sacrilege for man to arrogate
to himself any share in either. Yet every one who attends with docility
of mind to the ministers whom God has appointed, will learn from the
beneficial effect, that this mode of teaching has not in vain been
pleasing to God, and that this yoke of modesty has not without reason
been imposed upon believers.

VII. From what has been said, I conceive it must now be evident what
judgment we ought to form respecting the Church, which is visible to our
eyes, and falls under our knowledge. For we have remarked that the word
_Church_ is used in the sacred Scriptures in two senses. Sometimes, when
they mention the Church, they intend that which is really such in the
sight of God, into which none are received but those who by adoption and
grace are the children of God, and by the sanctification of the Spirit
are the true members of Christ. And then it comprehends not only the
saints at any one time resident on earth, but all the elect who have
lived from the beginning of the world. But the word _Church_ is
frequently used in the Scriptures to designate the whole multitude,
dispersed all over the world, who profess to worship one God and Jesus
Christ, who are initiated into his faith by baptism, who testify their
unity in true doctrine and charity by a participation of the sacred
supper, who consent to the word of the Lord, and preserve the ministry
which Christ has instituted for the purpose of preaching it. In this
Church are included many hypocrites, who have nothing of Christ but the
name and appearance; many persons ambitious, avaricious, envious,
slanderous, and dissolute in their lives, who are tolerated for a time,
either because they cannot be convicted by a legitimate process, or
because discipline is not always maintained with sufficient vigour. As
it is necessary, therefore, to believe that Church, which is invisible
to us, and known to God alone, so this Church, which is visible to men,
we are commanded to honour, and to maintain communion with it.

VIII. As far, therefore, as was important for us to know it, the Lord
has described it by certain marks and characters. It is the peculiar
prerogative of God himself to “know them that are his,”[740] as we have
already stated from Paul. And to guard against human presumption ever
going to such an extreme, the experience of every day teaches us how
very far his secret judgments transcend all our apprehensions. For those
who seemed the most abandoned, and were generally considered past all
hope, are recalled by his goodness into the right way; while some, who
seemed to stand better than others, fall into perdition. “According to
the secret predestination of God,” therefore, as Augustine observes,
“there are many sheep without the pale of the Church, and many wolves
within.” For he knows and seals those who know not either him or
themselves. Of those who externally bear his seal, his eyes alone can
discern who are unfeignedly holy, and will persevere to the end; which
is the completion of salvation. On the other hand, as he saw it to be in
some measure requisite that we should know who ought to be considered as
his children, he has in this respect accommodated himself to our
capacity. And as it was not necessary that on this point we should have
an assurance of faith, he has substituted in its place a judgment of
charity, according to which we ought to acknowledge as members of the
Church all those who by a confession of faith, an exemplary life, and a
participation of the sacraments, profess the same God and Christ with
ourselves. But the knowledge of the body itself being more necessary to
our salvation, he has distinguished it by more clear and certain
characters.

IX. Hence the visible Church rises conspicuous to our view. For wherever
we find the word of God purely preached and heard, and the sacraments
administered according to the institution of Christ, there, it is not to
be doubted, is a Church of God; for his promise can never deceive—“where
two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst
of them.”[741] But, that we may have a clear understanding of the whole
of this subject, let us proceed by the following steps: That the
universal Church is the whole multitude, collected from all nations,
who, though dispersed in countries widely distant from each other,
nevertheless consent to the same truth of Divine doctrine, and are
united by the bond of the same religion; that in this universal Church
are comprehended particular churches, distributed according to human
necessity in various towns and villages; and that each of these
respectively is justly distinguished by the name and authority of a
church; and that individuals, who, on a profession of piety, are
enrolled among Churches of the same description, though they are really
strangers to any particular Church, do nevertheless in some respect
belong to it, till they are expelled from it by a public decision. There
is some difference, however, in the mode of judging respecting private
persons and churches. For it may happen, in the case of persons whom we
think altogether unworthy of the society of the pious, that, on account
of the common consent of the Church, by which they are tolerated in the
body of Christ, we may be obliged to treat them as brethren, and to
class them in the number of believers. In our private opinion we approve
not of such persons as members of the Church, but we leave them the
station they hold among the people of God, till it be taken away from
them by legitimate authority. But respecting the congregation itself, we
must form a different judgment. If they possess and honour the ministry
of the word, and the administration of the sacraments, they are, without
all doubt, entitled to be considered as a Church; because it is certain
that the word and sacraments cannot be unattended with some good
effects. In this manner, we preserve the unity of the universal Church,
which diabolical spirits have always been endeavouring to destroy; and
at the same time without interfering with the authority of those
legitimate assemblies, which local convenience has distributed in
different places.

X. We have stated that the marks by which the Church is to be
distinguished, are, the preaching of the word and the administration of
the sacraments. For these can nowhere exist without bringing forth
fruit, and being prospered with the blessing of God. I assert not that
wherever the word is preached, the good effects of it immediately
appear; but that it is never received so as to obtain a permanent
establishment, without displaying some efficacy. However this may be,
where the word is heard with reverence, and the sacraments are not
neglected, there we discover, while that is the case, an appearance of
the Church, which is liable to no suspicion of uncertainty, of which no
one can safely despise the authority, or reject the admonitions, or
resist the counsels, or slight the censures, much less separate from it
and break up its unity. For so highly does the Lord esteem the communion
of his Church, that he considers every one as a traitor and apostate
from religion, who perversely withdraws himself from any Christian
society which preserves the true ministry of the word and sacraments. He
commends the authority of the Church, in such a manner as to account
every violation of it an infringement of his own. For it is not a
trivial circumstance, that the Church is called “the house of God, the
pillar and ground of truth.”[742] For in these words Paul signifies that
in order to keep the truth of God from being lost in the world, the
Church is its faithful guardian; because it has been the will of God, by
the ministry of the Church, to preserve the pure preaching of his word,
and to manifest himself as our affectionate Father, while he nourishes
us with spiritual food, and provides all things conducive to our
salvation. Nor is it small praise, that the Church is chosen and
separated by Christ to be his spouse, “not having spot or wrinkle,”[743]
to be “his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.”[744] Hence
it follows, that a departure from the Church is a renunciation of God
and Christ. And such a criminal dissension is so much the more to be
avoided, because, while we endeavour, as far as lies in our power, to
destroy the truth of God, we deserve to be crushed with the most
powerful thunders of his wrath. Nor is it possible to imagine a more
atrocious crime, than that sacrilegious perfidy, which violates the
conjugal relation that the only begotten Son of God has condescended to
form with us.

XI. Let us, therefore, diligently retain those characters impressed upon
our minds, and estimate them according to the judgment of God. For there
is nothing that Satan labours more to accomplish, than to remove and
destroy one or both of them; at one time to efface and obliterate these
marks, and so to take away all true and genuine distinction of the
Church; at another to inspire us with contempt of them, and so to drive
us out of the Church by an open separation. By his subtlety it has
happened, that in some ages the pure preaching of the word has
altogether disappeared; and in the present day he is labouring with the
same malignity to overturn the ministry; which, however, Christ has
ordained in his Church, so that if it were taken away, the edification
of the Church would be quite at an end. How dangerous, then, how fatal
is the temptation, when it even enters into the heart of a man to
withdraw himself from that congregation, in which he discovers those
signs and characters which the Lord has deemed sufficiently descriptive
of his Church! We see, however, that great caution requires to be
observed on both sides. For, to prevent imposture from deceiving us,
under the name of the Church, every congregation assuming this name
should be brought to that proof, like gold to the touchstone. If it have
the order prescribed by the Lord in the word and sacraments, it will not
deceive us; we may securely render to it the honour due to all churches.
On the contrary, if it pretend to the name of a Church, without the word
and sacraments, we ought to beware of such delusive pretensions, with as
much caution as, in the other case, we should use in avoiding
presumption and pride.

XII. When we affirm the pure ministry of the word, and pure order in the
celebration of the sacraments, to be a sufficient pledge and earnest,
that we may safely embrace the society in which both these are found, as
a true Church, we carry the observation to this point, that such a
society should never be rejected as long as it continues in those
things, although in other respects it may be chargeable with many
faults. It is possible, moreover, that some fault may insinuate itself
into the preaching of the doctrine, or the administration of the
sacraments, which ought not to alienate us from its communion. For all
the articles of true doctrine are not of the same description. Some are
so necessary to be known, that they ought to be universally received as
fixed and indubitable principles, as the peculiar maxims of religion;
such as, that there is one God; that Christ is God and the Son of God;
that our salvation depends on the mercy of God; and the like. There are
others, which are controverted among the churches, yet without
destroying the unity of the faith. For why should there be a division on
this point, if one church be of opinion, that souls, at their departure
from their bodies, are immediately removed to heaven; and another church
venture to determine nothing respecting their local situation, but be
nevertheless firmly convinced, that they live to the Lord; and if this
diversity of sentiment on both sides be free from all fondness for
contention and obstinacy of assertion? The language of the apostle is,
“Let us therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus minded; and if in any
thing ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you.”[745]
Does not this sufficiently show, that a diversity of opinion respecting
these nonessential points ought not to be a cause of discord among
Christians? It is of importance, indeed, that we should agree in every
thing; but as there is no person who is not enveloped with some cloud of
ignorance, either we must allow of no church at all, or we must forgive
mistakes in those things, of which persons may be ignorant, without
violating the essence of religion, or incurring the loss of salvation.
Here I would not be understood to plead for any errors, even the
smallest, or to recommend their being encouraged by connivance or
flattery. But I maintain, that we ought not, on account of every trivial
difference of sentiment, to abandon the Church, which retains the saving
and pure doctrine that insures the preservation of piety, and supports
the use of the sacraments instituted by our Lord. In the mean time, if
we endeavour to correct what we disapprove, we are acting in this case
according to our duty. And to this we are encouraged by the direction of
Paul: “If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the
first hold his peace.”[746] From which it appears, that every member of
the Church is required to exert himself for the general edification,
according to the measure of his grace, provided he do it decently and in
order; that is to say, that we should neither forsake the communion of
the Church, nor, by continuing in it, disturb its peace and well
regulated discipline.

XIII. But in bearing with imperfections of life, we ought to carry our
indulgence a great deal further. For this is a point in which we are
very liable to err, and here Satan lies in wait to deceive us with no
common devices. For there have always been persons, who, from a false
notion of perfect sanctity, as if they were already become disembodied
spirits, despised the society of all men in whom they could discover any
remains of human infirmity. Such, in ancient times, were the Cathari,
and also the Donatists, who approached to the same folly. Such, in the
present day, are some of the Anabaptists, who would be thought to have
made advances in piety beyond all others. There are others who err, more
from an inconsiderate zeal for righteousness, than from this
unreasonable pride. For when they perceive, that among those to whom the
gospel is preached, its doctrine is not followed by correspondent
effects in the life, they immediately pronounce, that there no church
exists. This is, indeed, a very just ground of offence, and one for
which we furnish more than sufficient occasion in the present unhappy
age; nor is it possible to excuse our abominable inactivity, which the
Lord will not suffer to escape with impunity, and which he has already
begun to chastise with heavy scourges. Woe to us, therefore, who, by the
dissolute licentiousness of our crimes, cause weak consciences to be
wounded on our account! But, on the other hand, the error of the persons
of whom we now speak, consists in not knowing how to fix any limits to
their offence. For where our Lord requires the exercise of mercy, they
entirely neglect it, and indulge themselves in immoderate severity.
Supposing it impossible for the Church to exist, where there is not a
perfect purity and integrity of life, through a hatred of crimes they
depart from the true Church, while they imagine themselves to be only
withdrawing from the factions of the wicked. They allege, that the
Church of Christ is holy. But that they may also understand, that it is
composed of good and bad men mingled together, let them hear that
parable from the lips of Christ, where it is compared to a net, in which
fishes of all kinds are collected, and no separation is made till they
are exposed on the shore.[747] Let them hear another parable, comparing
the Church to a field, which, after having been sown with good seed, is,
by the craft of an enemy, corrupted with tares, from which it is never
cleared till the harvest is brought into the barn.[748] Lastly, let them
hear another comparison of the Church to a threshing-floor, in which the
wheat is collected in such a manner, that it lies concealed under the
chaff, till, after being carefully purged, by winnowing and sifting, it
is at length laid up in the garner.[749] But if our Lord declares, that
the Church is to labour under this evil, and to be encumbered with a
mixture of wicked men, even till the day of judgment, it is vain to seek
for a Church free from every spot.

XIV. But they exclaim, that it is an intolerable thing that the
pestilence of crimes so generally prevails. I grant it would be happy if
the fact were otherwise; but in reply, I would present them with the
judgment of the apostle. Among the Corinthians, more than a few had gone
astray, and the infection had seized almost the whole society; there was
not only one species of sin, but many; and they were not trivial faults,
but dreadful crimes; and there was not only a corruption of morals, but
also of doctrine. In this case, what is the conduct of the holy apostle,
the organ of the heavenly Spirit, by whose testimony the Church stands
or falls? Does he seek to separate from them? Does he reject them from
the kingdom of Christ? Does he strike them with the thunderbolt of the
severest anathema? He not only does none of these things, but, on the
contrary, acknowledges and speaks of them as a Church of Christ and a
society of saints. If there remained a church among the Corinthians,
where contentions, factions, and emulations were raging; where cupidity,
disputes, and litigations were prevailing; where a crime held in
execration even among the Gentiles, was publicly sanctioned; where the
name of Paul, whom they ought to have revered as their father, was
insolently defamed; where some ridiculed the doctrine of the
resurrection, with the subversion of which the whole gospel would be
annihilated; where the graces of God were made subservient to ambition,
instead of charity; where many things were conducted without decency and
order;[750] and if there still remained a Church, because the ministry
of the word and sacraments was not rejected—who can refuse the name of a
Church to those who cannot be charged with a tenth part of those crimes?
And those who display such violence and severity against the Churches of
the present age, I ask, how would they have conducted themselves towards
the Galatians, who almost entirely deserted the gospel, but among whom,
nevertheless, the same apostle found Churches?[751]

XV. They object that Paul bitterly reproves the Corinthians for
admitting an atrocious offender into their company, and follows this
reproof with a general declaration, that with a man of scandalous life
it is not lawful even to eat.[752] Here they exclaim, If it be not
lawful to eat common bread with him, how can it be lawful to unite with
him in eating the bread of the Lord? I confess it is a great disgrace,
if persons of immoral lives occupy places among the children of God; and
if the sacred body of Christ be prostituted to them, the disgrace is
vastly increased. And, indeed, if Churches be well regulated, they will
not suffer persons of abandoned characters among them, nor will they
promiscuously admit the worthy and the unworthy to that sacred supper.
But because the pastors are not always so diligent in watching over
them, and sometimes exercise more indulgence than they ought, or are
prevented from exerting the severity they would wish, it happens that
even those who are openly wicked are not always expelled from the
society of the saints. This I acknowledge to be a fault, nor have I any
inclination to extenuate it, since Paul sharply reproves it in the
Corinthians. But though the Church may be deficient in its duty, it does
not therefore follow that it is the place of every individual to pass
judgment of separation for himself. I admit that it is the duty of a
pious man to withdraw himself from all private intimacy with the wicked,
and not to involve himself in any voluntary connection with them. But it
is one thing to avoid familiar intercourse with the wicked; and another
thing, from hatred of them, to renounce the communion of the Church. And
persons who deem it sacrilege to participate with them the bread of the
Lord, are in this respect far more rigid than Paul. For when he exhorts
us to a pure and holy participation of it, he requires not one to
examine another, or every one to examine the whole Church, but each
individual to prove himself. If it were unlawful to communicate with an
unworthy person, Paul would certainly have enjoined us to look around
us, to see whether there were not some one in the multitude by whose
impurity we might be contaminated. But as he only requires every one to
examine himself, he shows that it is not the least injury to us if some
unworthy persons intrude themselves with us. And this is fully implied
in what he afterwards subjoins: “He that eateth and drinketh unworthily,
eateth and drinketh judgment to himself.”[753] He says, not to others,
but to himself, and with sufficient reason. For it ought not to be left
to the judgment of every individual _who_ ought to be admitted into the
Church, and _who_ ought to be expelled from it. This authority belongs
to the whole Church, and cannot be exercised without legitimate order,
as will be stated more at large hereafter. It would be unjust,
therefore, that any individual should be contaminated with the
unworthiness of another, whose approach it is neither in his power nor
his duty to prevent.

XVI. But though this temptation sometimes arises even to good men, from
an inconsiderate zeal for righteousness, yet we shall generally find
that excessive severity is more owing to pride and haughtiness, and a
false opinion which persons entertain of their own superior sanctity,
than to true holiness, and a real concern for its interests. Those,
therefore, who are most daring in promoting a separation from the
Church, and act, as it were, as standard-bearers in the revolt, have in
general no other motive than to make an ostentatious display of their
own superior excellence, and their contempt of all others. Augustine
correctly and judiciously observes—“Whereas the pious rule and method of
ecclesiastical discipline ought principally to regard the unity of the
Spirit in the bond of peace, which the apostle enjoined to be preserved
by mutual forbearance, and which not being preserved, the medicinal
punishment is evinced to be not only superfluous, but even pernicious,
and therefore to be no longer medicinal; those wicked children, who, not
from a hatred of the iniquities of others, but from a fondness for their
own contentions, earnestly endeavour to draw the simple and uninformed
multitude wholly after them, by entangling them with boasting of their
own characters, or at least to divide them; those persons, I say,
inflated with pride, infuriated with obstinacy, insidious in the
circulation of calumnies, and turbulent in raising seditions, conceal
themselves under the mask of a rigid severity, lest they should be
proved to be destitute of the truth; and those things which in the Holy
Scriptures are commanded to be done with great moderation, and without
violating the sincerity of love, or breaking the unity of peace, for the
correction of the faults of our brethren, they pervert to the sacrilege
of schism, and an occasion of separation from the Church.” To pious and
peaceable persons he gives this advice: that they should correct in
mercy whatever they can; that what they cannot, they should patiently
bear, and affectionately lament, till God either reform and correct it,
or, at the harvest, root up the tares and sift out the chaff. All pious
persons should study to fortify themselves with these counsels, lest,
while they consider themselves as valiant and strenuous defenders of
righteousness, they depart from the kingdom of heaven, which is the only
kingdom of righteousness. For since it is the will of God that the
communion of his Church should be maintained in this external society,
those who, from an aversion to wicked men, destroy the token of that
society, enter on a course in which they are in great danger of falling
from the communion of saints. Let them consider, in the first place,
that in a great multitude there are many who escape their observation,
who, nevertheless, are truly holy and innocent in the sight of God.
Secondly, let them consider, that of those who appear subject to moral
maladies, there are many who by no means please or flatter themselves in
their vices, but are oftentimes aroused, with a serious fear of God, to
aspire to greater integrity. Thirdly, let them consider that judgment
ought not to be pronounced upon a man from a single act, since the
holiest persons have sometimes most grievous falls. Fourthly, let them
consider, that the ministry of the word, and the participation of the
sacraments, have too much influence in preserving the unity of the
Church, to admit of its being destroyed by the guilt of a few impious
men. Lastly, let them consider, that in forming an estimate of the
Church, the judgment of God is of more weight than that of man.

XVII. When they allege that there must be some reason why the Church is
said to be holy, it is necessary to examine the holiness in which it
excels; lest by refusing to admit the existence of a Church without
absolute and sinless perfection, we should leave no Church in the world.
It is true, that, as Paul tells us, “Christ loved the Church, and gave
himself for it, that he might sanctify and cleanse it, by the washing of
water by the word, that he might present it to himself a glorious
Church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing.”[754] It is
nevertheless equally true, that the Lord works from day to day in
smoothing its wrinkles, and purging away its spots; whence it follows,
that its holiness is not yet perfect. The Church, therefore, is so far
holy, that it is daily improving, but has not yet arrived at perfection;
that it is daily advancing, but has not yet reached the mark of
holiness; as in another part of this work will be more fully explained.
The predictions of the prophets, therefore, that “Jerusalem shall be
holy, and there shall no strangers pass through her any more,” and that
the way of God shall be a “way of holiness, over which the unclean shall
not pass,”[755] are not to be understood as if there were no blemish
remaining in any of the members of the Church; but because they aspire
with all their souls towards perfect holiness and purity, the goodness
of God attributes to them that sanctity to which they have not yet fully
attained. And though such evidences of sanctification are oftentimes
rarely to be found among men, yet it must be maintained, that, from the
foundation of the world, there has never been a period in which God had
not his Church in it; and that, to the consummation of all things, there
never will be a time in which he will not have his Church. For although,
in the very beginning of time, the whole human race was corrupted and
defiled by the sin of Adam; yet, from this polluted mass, God always
sanctifies some vessels to honour, so that there is no age which has not
experienced his mercy. This he has testified by certain promises, such
as the following: “I have made a covenant with my chosen: I have sworn
unto David, my servant, Thy seed will I establish for ever, and build up
thy throne to all generations.”[756] Again: “The Lord hath chosen Zion;
he hath desired it for his habitation. This is my rest for ever.”[757]
Again: “Thus saith the Lord, which giveth the sun for a light by day,
and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night: If
those ordinances depart from before me, saith the Lord, then the seed of
Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me for ever.”[758]

XVIII. Of this truth Christ himself, the apostles, and almost all the
prophets, have given us an example. Dreadful are those descriptions in
which Isaiah, Jeremiah, Joel, Habakkuk, and others, deplore the
disorders of the Church of Jerusalem. There was such general and extreme
corruption in the people, in the magistrates, and in the priests, that
Isaiah does not hesitate to compare Jerusalem to Sodom and Gomorrah.
Religion was partly despised, partly corrupted. Their manners were
generally disgraced by thefts, robberies, treacheries, murders, and
similar crimes. Nevertheless, the prophets on this account neither
raised themselves new churches, nor built new altars for the oblation of
separate sacrifices; but whatever were the characters of the people, yet
because they considered that God had deposited his word among that
nation, and instituted the ceremonies in which he was there worshipped,
they lifted up pure hands to him even in the congregation of the
impious. If they had thought that they contracted any contagion from
these services, surely they would have suffered a hundred deaths rather
than have permitted themselves to be dragged to them. There was nothing
therefore to prevent their departure from them, but the desire of
preserving the unity of the Church. But if the holy prophets were
restrained by a sense of duty from forsaking the Church on account of
the numerous and enormous crimes which were practised, not by a few
individuals, but almost by the whole nation,—it is extreme arrogance in
us, if we presume immediately to withdraw from the communion of a Church
where the conduct of all the members is not compatible either with our
judgment, or even with the Christian profession.

XIX. Now, what kind of an age was that of Christ and his apostles? Yet
the desperate impiety of the Pharisees, and the dissolute lives every
where led by the people, could not prevent _them_ from using the same
sacrifices, and assembling in the same temple with others, for the
public exercises of religion. How did this happen, but from a knowledge
that the society of the wicked could not contaminate those who with pure
consciences united with them in the same solemnities? If any one pay no
deference to the prophets and apostles, let him at least acquiesce in
the authority of Christ. Cyprian has excellently remarked, “Although
tares, or impure vessels, are found in the Church, yet this is not a
reason why we should withdraw from it. It only behoves us to labour that
we may be the wheat, and to use our utmost endeavours and exertions,
that we may be vessels of gold or of silver. But to break in pieces the
vessels of earth belongs to the Lord alone, to whom a rod of iron is
also given. Nor let any one arrogate to himself what is exclusively the
province of the Son of God, by pretending to fan the floor, clear away
the chaff, and separate all the tares by the judgment of man. This is
proud obstinacy and sacrilegious presumption, originating in a corrupt
frenzy.” Let these two points, then, be considered as decided; first,
that he who voluntarily deserts the external communion of the Church
where the word of God is preached, and the sacraments are administered,
is without any excuse; secondly, that the faults either of few persons
or of many, form no obstacles to a due profession of our faith in the
use of the ceremonies instituted by God; because the pious conscience is
not wounded by the unworthiness of any other individual, whether he be a
pastor or a private person; nor are the mysteries less pure and salutary
to a holy and upright man, because they are received at the same time by
the impure.

XX. Their severity and haughtiness go to still greater lengths.
Acknowledging no church but such as is pure from the smallest blemishes,
they are even angry with honest teachers, because, by exhorting
believers to progressive improvements, they teach them to groan under
the burden of sins, and to seek for pardon all their lifetime. For
hereby, they pretend, the people are drawn away from perfection. I
confess, that in urging men to perfection, we ought to labour with
unremitting ardour and diligence; but to inspire their minds with a
persuasion that they have already attained it, while they are yet in the
pursuit of it, I maintain to be a diabolical invention. Therefore, in
the Creed, _the communion of saints_ is immediately followed by _the
forgiveness of sins_, which can only be obtained by the citizens and
members of the Church, as we read in the prophet.[759] The heavenly
Jerusalem, therefore, ought first to be built, in which this favour of
God may be enjoyed, that whoever shall enter it, their iniquity shall be
blotted out. Now, I affirm that this ought first to be built; not that
there can ever be any Church without remission of sins, but because God
has not promised to impart his mercy, except in the communion of saints.
Our first entrance, therefore, into the Church and kingdom of God, is
the remission of sins, without which we have no covenant or union with
God. For thus he speaks by the prophet: “In that day will I make a
covenant for them with the beasts of the field, and with the fowls of
heaven, and with the creeping things of the ground; and I will break the
bow and the sword, and the battle out of the earth, and will make them
to lie down safely. And I will betroth thee unto me for ever; yea, I
will betroth thee unto me in righteousness, and in judgment, and in
loving-kindness, and in mercies.”[760] We see how God reconciles us to
himself by his mercy. So in another place, where he foretells the
restoration of the people whom he had scattered in his wrath, he says,
“I will cleanse them from all their iniquity, whereby they have sinned
against me.”[761] Wherefore it is by the sign of ablution, that we are
initiated into the society of his Church; by which we are taught that
there is no admittance for us into the family of God, unless our
pollution be first taken away by his goodness.

XXI. Nor does God only once receive and adopt us into his Church by the
remission of sins; he likewise preserves and keeps us in it by the same
mercy. For to what purpose would it be, if we obtained a pardon which
would afterwards be of no use? And that the mercy of the Lord would be
vain and delusive, if it were only granted for once, all pious persons
can testify to themselves; for every one of them is all his lifetime
conscious of many infirmities, which need the Divine mercy. And surely
it is not without reason, that God particularly promises this grace to
the members of his family, and commands the same message of
reconciliation to be daily addressed to them. As we carry about with us
the relics of sin, therefore, as long as we live, we shall scarcely
continue in the Church for a single moment, unless we are sustained by
the constant grace of the Lord in forgiving our sins. But the Lord has
called his people to eternal salvation; they ought, therefore, to
believe that his grace is always ready to pardon their sins. Wherefore
it ought to be held as a certain conclusion, that from the Divine
liberality, by the intervention of the merit of Christ, through the
sanctification of the Spirit, pardon of sins has been, and is daily,
bestowed upon us, who have been admitted and ingrafted into the body of
the Church.

XXII. It was to dispense this blessing to us, that the keys were given
to the Church.[762] For, when Christ gave commandment to his apostles,
and conferred on them the power of remitting sins,[763] it was not with
an intention that they should merely absolve from their sins those who
were converted from impiety to the Christian faith, but rather that they
should continually exercise this office among the faithful. This is
taught by Paul, when he says, that the message of reconciliation was
committed to the ministers of the Church, that in the name of Christ
they might daily exhort the people to be reconciled to God.[764] In the
communion of saints, therefore, sins are continually remitted to us by
the ministry of the Church, when the presbyters or bishops, to whom this
office is committed, confirm pious consciences, by the promises of the
gospel, in the hope of pardon and remission; and that as well publicly
as privately, according as necessity requires. For there are many
persons who, on account of their infirmity, stand in need of separate
and private consolation. And Paul tells us that he “taught,” not only
publicly, but also “from house to house, testifying repentance toward
God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ;”[765] and admonished every
individual separately respecting the doctrine of salvation. Here are
three things, therefore, worthy of our observation. First, that whatever
holiness may distinguish the children of God, yet such is their
condition as long as they inhabit a mortal body, that they cannot stand
before God without remission of sins. Secondly, that this benefit
belongs to the Church; so that we cannot enjoy it unless we continue in
its communion. Thirdly, that it is dispensed to us by the ministers and
pastors of the Church, either in the preaching of the gospel, or in the
administration of the sacraments; and that this is the principal
exercise of the power of the keys, which the Lord has conferred on the
society of believers. Let every one of us, therefore, consider it as his
duty, not to seek remission of sins any where but where the Lord has
placed it. Of public reconciliation, which is a branch of discipline, we
shall speak in its proper place.

XXIII. But as those fanatic spirits, of whom I spoke, endeavour to rob
the Church of this sole anchor of salvation, our consciences ought to be
still more strongly fortified against such a pestilent opinion. The
Novatians disturbed the ancient Churches with this tenet; but the
present age also has witnessed some of the Anabaptists, who resemble the
Novatians by falling into the same follies. For they imagine that by
baptism the people of God are regenerated to a pure and angelic life,
which cannot be contaminated by any impurities of the flesh. And if any
one be guilty of sin after baptism, they leave him no prospect of
escaping the inexorable judgment of God. In short, they encourage no
hope of pardon in any one who sins after having received the grace of
God; because they acknowledge no other remission of sins than that by
which we are first regenerated. Now, though there is no falsehood more
clearly refuted in the Scripture than this, yet because its advocates
find persons to submit to their impositions, as Novatus formerly had
numerous followers, let us briefly show how very pernicious their error
is both to themselves and to others. In the first place, when the saints
obey the command of the Lord by a daily repetition of this prayer,
“forgive us our debts,”[766] they certainly confess themselves to be
sinners. Nor do they pray in vain, for our Lord has not enjoined the use
of any petitions, but such as he designed to grant. And after he had
declared that the whole prayer would be heard by the Father, he
confirmed this absolution by a special promise. What do we want more?
The Lord requires from the saints a confession of sins, and that daily
as long as they live, and he promises them pardon. What presumption is
it either to assert that they are exempt from sin, or, if they have
fallen, to exclude them from all grace! To whom does he enjoin us to
grant forgiveness seventy times seven times? Is it not to our brethren?
And what was the design of this injunction, but that we might imitate
his clemency? He pardons, therefore, not once or twice, but as often as
the sinner is alarmed with a sense of his sins, and sighs for mercy.

XXIV. But to begin from the infancy of the Church: the patriarchs had
been circumcised, admitted to the privileges of the covenant, and
without doubt instructed in justice and integrity by the care of their
father, when they conspired to murder their brother. This was a crime to
be abominated even by the most desperate and abandoned robbers. At
length, softened by the admonitions of Judah, they sold him for a slave.
This also was an intolerable cruelty. Simon and Levi, in a spirit of
nefarious revenge, condemned even by the judgment of their father,
murdered the inhabitants of Sichem. Reuben was guilty of execrable
incest with his father’s concubine. Judah, with an intention of
indulging a libidinous passion, violated the law of nature by a criminal
connection with his son’s wife. Yet they are so far from being expunged
out of the number of the chosen people, that, on the contrary, they are
constituted the heads of the nation.[767] What shall we say of David?
Though he was the official guardian of justice, how scandalously did he
prepare the way for the gratification of a blind passion, by the
effusion of innocent blood! He had already been regenerated, and among
the regenerate had been distinguished by the peculiar commendations of
the Lord; yet he perpetrated a crime even among heathens regarded with
horror, and yet he obtained mercy.[768] And not to dwell any longer on
particular examples, the numerous promises which the law and the
prophets contain, of Divine mercy towards the Israelites, are so many
proofs of the manifestation of God’s placability to the offences of his
people. For what does Moses promise to the people in case of their
return to the Lord, after having fallen into idolatry? “Then the Lord
thy God will turn thy captivity, and have compassion upon thee, and will
return and gather thee from all the nations, whither the Lord thy God
hath scattered thee. If any of thine be driven out unto the outmost
parts of heaven, from thence will the Lord thy God gather thee.”[769]

XXV. But I am unwilling to commence an enumeration which would have no
end. For the prophets are full of such promises, which offer mercy to
the people, though covered with innumerable crimes. What sin is worse
than rebellion? It is described as a divorce between God and the Church:
yet this is overcome by the goodness of God. Hear his language by the
mouth of Jeremiah: “If a man put away his wife, and she go from him, and
become another man’s, shall he return unto her again? Shall not that
land be greatly polluted? But thou hast played the harlot with many
lovers, and thou hast polluted the land with thy whoredoms and with thy
wickedness. Yet return again to me, thou backsliding Israel, saith the
Lord, and I will not cause mine anger to fall upon you; for I am
merciful, saith the Lord, and will not keep anger for ever.”[770] And
surely there cannot possibly be any other disposition in him who
affirms, that he “hath no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that
the wicked turn from his way and live.”[771] Therefore, when Solomon
dedicated the temple, he appointed it also for this purpose, that
prayers, offered to obtain pardon of sins, might there be heard and
answered. His words are, “If they sin against thee, (for there is no man
that sinneth not,) and thou be angry with them, and deliver them to the
enemy, so that they carry them away captives unto the land of the enemy,
far or near; yet if they shall bethink themselves, and repent in the
land whither they were carried captives, and repent and make
supplication unto thee in the land of those that carried them captives,
saying, We have sinned, and have done perversely, we have committed
wickedness; and pray unto thee toward the land which thou gavest unto
their fathers, the city which thou hast chosen, and the house which I
have built for thy name; then hear thou their prayer and their
supplication in heaven, and forgive thy people that have sinned against
thee, and all their transgressions wherein they have transgressed
against thee.”[772] Nor was it without cause that in the law the Lord
ordained daily sacrifices for sins; for unless he had foreseen that his
people would be subject to the maladies of daily sins, he would never
have appointed these remedies.[773]

XXVI. Now, I ask whether, by the advent of Christ, in whom the fulness
of grace was displayed, believers have been deprived of this benefit, so
that they can no longer presume to supplicate for the pardon of their
sins; so that if they offend against the Lord, they can obtain no mercy.
What would this be but to affirm, that Christ came for the destruction
of his people, and not for their salvation; if the loving-kindness of
God, in the pardon of sins, which was continually ready to be exercised
to the saints under the Old Testament, be maintained to be now entirely
withdrawn? But if we give any credit to the Scriptures, which proclaim
that in Christ the grace and philanthropy of God have at length been
fully manifested, that his mercy has been abundantly diffused, and
reconciliation between God and man accomplished,[774] we ought not to
doubt that the clemency of our heavenly Father is displayed to us in
greater abundance, rather than restricted or diminished. Examples to
prove this are not wanting. Peter, who had been warned that he who would
not confess the name of Christ before men would be denied by him before
angels, denied him three times in one night, and accompanied the denial
with execrations; yet he was not refused pardon.[775] Those of the
Thessalonians who led disorderly lives, are reprehended by the apostle,
in order to be invited to repentance.[776] Nor does Peter drive Simon
Magus himself to despair; but rather directs him to cherish a favourable
hope, when he persuades him to pray for forgiveness.[777]

XXVII. What are we to say of cases in which the most enormous sins have
sometimes seized whole Churches? From this situation Paul rather
mercifully reclaimed them, than abandoned them to the curse. The
defection of the Galatians was no trivial offence.[778] The Corinthians
were still less excusable, their crimes being more numerous and equally
enormous.[779] Yet neither are excluded from the mercy of the Lord: on
the contrary, the very persons who had gone beyond all others in
impurity, unchastity, and fornication, are expressly invited to
repentance. For the covenant of the Lord will ever remain eternal and
inviolable, which he has made with Christ, the antitype of Solomon, and
with all his members, in these words: “If his children forsake my law,
and walk not in my judgments; if they break my statutes, and keep not my
commandments; then will I visit their transgression with the rod, and
their iniquity with stripes. Nevertheless my loving-kindness will I not
utterly take from him.”[780] Finally, the order of the Creed teaches us
that pardon of sins ever continues in the Church of Christ, because,
after having mentioned the Church, it immediately adds _the forgiveness
of sins_.

XXVIII. Some persons, who are a little more judicious, perceiving the
notion of Novatus to be so explicitly contradicted by the Scripture, do
not represent every sin as unpardonable, but only voluntary
transgression, into which a person may have fallen with the full
exercise of his knowledge and will. These persons admit of no pardon for
any sins, but such as may have been the mere errors of ignorance. But as
the Lord, in the law, commanded some sacrifices to be offered to expiate
the voluntary sins of believers, and others to atone for sins of
ignorance, what extreme presumption is it to deny that there is any
pardon for voluntary transgression! I maintain, that there is nothing
more evident, than that the one sacrifice of Christ is available for the
remission of the voluntary sins of the saints, since the Lord has
testified the same by the legal victims, as by so many types. Besides,
who can plead ignorance as an excuse for David, who was evidently so
well acquainted with the law? Did not David know that adultery and
murder were great crimes, which he daily punished in others? Did the
patriarchs consider fratricide as lawful? Had the Corinthians learned so
little that they could imagine impurity, incontinence, fornication,
animosities, and contentions, to be pleasing to God? Could Peter, who
had been so carefully warned, be ignorant how great a crime it was to
abjure his Master? Let us not, therefore, by our cruelty, shut the gate
of mercy which God has so liberally opened.

XXIX. I am fully aware that the old writers have explained those sins,
which are daily forgiven to believers, to be the smaller faults, which
are inadvertently committed through the infirmity of the flesh; but
solemn repentance, which was then required for greater offences, they
thought, was no more to be repeated than baptism. This sentiment is not
to be understood as indicating their design, either to drive into
despair such persons as had relapsed after their first repentance, or to
extenuate those errors, as if they were small in the sight of God. For
they knew that the saints frequently stagger through unbelief; that they
sometimes utter unnecessary oaths; that they occasionally swell into
anger, and even break out into open reproaches; and that they are
likewise chargeable with other faults, which the Lord holds in the
greatest abomination. They expressed themselves in this manner, to
distinguish between private offences and those public crimes which were
attended with great scandal in the Church. But the difficulty, which
they made, of forgiving those who had committed any thing deserving of
ecclesiastical censure, did not arise from an opinion that it was
difficult for them to obtain pardon from the Lord; they only intended by
this severity to deter others from rashly running into crimes, which
would justly be followed by their exclusion from the communion of the
Church. The word of the Lord, however, which ought to be our only rule
in this case, certainly prescribes greater moderation. For it teaches,
that the rigour of discipline ought not to be carried to such an extent,
as to overwhelm with sorrow the person whose benefit we are required to
regard as its principal object; as we have before shown more at large.

Footnote 703:

Ephes. iv. 11-16.

Footnote 704:

Mark x. 9.

Footnote 705:

Gal. iv. 26.

Footnote 706:

2 Tim. ii. 19.

Footnote 707:

Rom. xi. 4. 1 Kings xix. 18.

Footnote 708:

Acts iv. 32.

Footnote 709:

Ephes. iv. 4.

Footnote 710:

Joel ii. 32. Obad. 17.

Footnote 711:

Psalm xlvi. 5.

Footnote 712:

Matt. xxii. 30.

Footnote 713:

Isaiah xxxvii. 35. Joel ii. 32.

Footnote 714:

Ezek. xiii. 9.

Footnote 715:

Psalm cvi. 4, 5.

Footnote 716:

Ephes. iv. 10-13.

Footnote 717:

Isaiah lix. 21.

Footnote 718:

Rom. x. 17.

Footnote 719:

Psalm cxxxii. 14; lxxx. 1.

Footnote 720:

2 Cor. iv. 7.

Footnote 721:

Psalm cv. 4.

Footnote 722:

2 Cor. iv. 6.

Footnote 723:

Exod. xx. 24.

Footnote 724:

Psalm lxxxiv.

Footnote 725:

Psalm cxxxii. 7. xcix. 5.

Footnote 726:

Acts vii. 48, 49.

Footnote 727:

Mal. iv. 6.

Footnote 728:

John xv. 16.

Footnote 729:

1 Peter i. 23.

Footnote 730:

1 Cor. iv. 15. ix. 2.

Footnote 731:

2 Cor. iii. 6.

Footnote 732:

1 Thess. i. 5.

Footnote 733:

Gal. iii. 2.

Footnote 734:

1 Cor. iii. 9; xv. 10. 2 Cor. vi. 1.

Footnote 735:

1 Thess. ii. 1.

Footnote 736:

Col. i. 29.

Footnote 737:

Gal. ii. 8.

Footnote 738:

1 Cor. iii. 7.

Footnote 739:

1 Cor. xv. 10.

Footnote 740:

2 Tim. ii. 19.

Footnote 741:

Matt. xviii. 20.

Footnote 742:

1 Tim. iii. 15.

Footnote 743:

Eph. v. 27.

Footnote 744:

Eph. i. 23.

Footnote 745:

Phil. iii. 15.

Footnote 746:

1 Cor. xiv. 30.

Footnote 747:

Matt. xiii. 47.

Footnote 748:

Matt. xiii. 24.

Footnote 749:

Matt. iii. 12.

Footnote 750:

1 Cor. i. 11; iii. 3; v. 1; vi. 7; ix. 1; xiv. 26, 40; xv. 12.

Footnote 751:

Gal. i. 6; iii. 1; iv. 11.

Footnote 752:

1 Cor. v. 2, 11, 12.

Footnote 753:

1 Cor. xi. 28, 29.

Footnote 754:

Ephes. v. 25-27.

Footnote 755:

Joel iii. 17. Isaiah xxxv. 8.

Footnote 756:

Psalm lxxxix. 3, 4.

Footnote 757:

Psalm cxxxii. 13, 14.

Footnote 758:

Jer. xxxi. 35, 36.

Footnote 759:

Isaiah xxxiii. 24.

Footnote 760:

Hos. ii. 18, 19.

Footnote 761:

Jerem. xxxiii. 8.

Footnote 762:

Matt. xvi. 19; xviii. 18.

Footnote 763:

John xx. 23.

Footnote 764:

2 Cor. v. 18-20.

Footnote 765:

Acts xx. 20, 21.

Footnote 766:

Matt. vi. 12.

Footnote 767:

Gen. xxxvii. 18, 28; xxxiv. 25; xxxv. 22; xxxviii. 16.

Footnote 768:

2 Sam. xi. 4, 15; xii. 13.

Footnote 769:

Deut. xxx. 3, 4.

Footnote 770:

Jer. iii. 1, 2, 12.

Footnote 771:

Ezek. xxxiii. 11.

Footnote 772:

1 Kings viii. 46-50.

Footnote 773:

Numb. xxviii. 3.

Footnote 774:

2 Tim. i. 9, 10. Tit. ii. 11; iii. 4-7.

Footnote 775:

Matt. x. 33. Mark viii. 38. Matt. xxvi. 69, &c.

Footnote 776:

2 Thess. iii. 6, 11, 12.

Footnote 777:

Acts viii. 22.

Footnote 778:

Gal. i. 6; iii. 1; iv. 9.

Footnote 779:

1 Cor. i. 11, 12; v. 1. 2 Cor. xii. 21.

Footnote 780:

Psalm lxxxix. 30-33.

CHAPTER II.
THE TRUE AND FALSE CHURCH COMPARED.

We have already stated the importance which we ought to attach to the
ministry of the word and sacraments, and the extent to which our
reverence for it ought to be carried, so as to account it a perpetual
mark and characteristic of the Church. That is to say, that wherever
_that_ exists entire and uncorrupted, no errors and irregularities of
conduct form a sufficient reason for refusing the name of a Church. In
the next place, that the ministry itself is not so far vitiated by
smaller errors, as to be considered on that account less legitimate. It
has further been shown, that the errors which are entitled to this
forgiveness are those by which the grand doctrine of religion is not
injured, which do not suppress the points in which all believers ought
to agree as articles of faith, and which, in regard to the sacraments,
neither abolish nor subvert the legitimate institution of their Author.
But as soon as falsehood has made a breach in the fundamentals of
religion, and the system of necessary doctrine is subverted, and the use
of the sacraments fails, the certain consequence is the ruin of the
Church, as there is an end of a man’s life when his throat is cut, or
his heart is mortally wounded. And this is evident from the language of
Paul, when he declares the Church to be “built upon the foundation of
the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief
corner-stone.”[781] If the foundation of the Church be the doctrine of
the prophets and apostles, which enjoins believers to place their
salvation in Christ alone, how can the edifice stand any longer, when
that doctrine is taken away? The Church, therefore, must of necessity
fall, where that system of religion is subverted which alone is able to
sustain it. Besides, if the true Church be “the pillar and ground of
truth,”[782] that certainly can be no Church where delusion and
falsehood have usurped the dominion.

II. As this is the state of things under the Papacy, it is easy to judge
how much of the Church remains there. Instead of the ministry of the
word, there reigns a corrupt government, composed of falsehoods, by
which the pure light is suppressed or extinguished. An execrable
sacrilege has been substituted for the supper of the Lord. The worship
of God is deformed by a multifarious and intolerable mass of
superstitions. The doctrine, without which Christianity cannot exist,
has been entirely forgotten or exploded. The public assemblies have
become schools of idolatry and impiety. In withdrawing ourselves,
therefore, from the pernicious participation of so many enormities,
there is no danger of separating ourselves from the Church of Christ.
The communion of the Church was not instituted as a bond to confine us
in idolatry, impiety, ignorance of God, and other evils; but rather as a
mean to preserve us in the fear of God, and obedience of the truth. I
know that the Papists give us the most magnificent commendations of
their Church, to make us believe that there is no other in the world;
and then, as if they had gained their point, they conclude all who dare
to withdraw themselves from that Church which they describe, to be
schismatics, and pronounce all to be heretics who venture to open their
mouths in opposition to its doctrine. But by what reasons do they prove
theirs to be the true Church? They allege from ancient records what
formerly occurred in Italy, in France, in Spain; that they are descended
from those holy men, who by sound doctrine founded and raised the
Churches in these countries, and confirmed their doctrine and the
edification of the Church by their blood; and that the Church, thus
consecrated among them, both by spiritual gifts, and by the blood of
martyrs, has been preserved by a perpetual succession of bishops, that
it might never be lost. They allege the importance attached to this
succession by Irenæus, Tertullian, Origen, Augustine, and others. To
those who are willing to attend me in a brief examination of these
allegations, I will clearly show that they are frivolous, and manifestly
ridiculous. I would likewise exhort those who advance them, to pay a
serious attention to the subject, if I thought my arguments could
produce any effect upon them; but as their sole object is to promote
their own interest by every method in their power, without any regard to
truth, I shall content myself with making a few observations, with which
good men, and inquirers after truth, may be able to answer their cavils.
In the first place, I ask them, why they allege nothing respecting
Africa, and Egypt, and all Asia. It is because, in all those countries,
there has been a failure of this sacred succession of bishops, by virtue
of which they boast that the Church has been preserved among them. They
come to this point, therefore, that they have the true Church, because
from its commencement it has never been destitute of bishops, for that
some have been succeeded by others in an uninterrupted series. But what
if I oppose them with the example of Greece? I ask them again,
therefore, why they assert that the Church has been lost among the
Greeks, among whom there has never been any interruption of that
succession of bishops, which they consider as the sole guard and
preservative of the Church? They call the Greeks schismatics. For what
reason? Because, it is pretended, they have lost their privilege by
revolting from the Apostolical see. But do not they much more deserve to
lose it, who have revolted from Christ himself? It follows, therefore,
that their plea of uninterrupted succession is a vain pretence, unless
the truth of Christ, which was transmitted from the fathers, be
permanently retained pure and uncorrupted by their posterity.

III. The pretensions of the Romanists, therefore, in the present day,
are no other than those which appear to have been formerly set up by the
Jews, when they were reproved by the prophets of the Lord for blindness,
impiety, and idolatry. For as the Jews boasted of the temple, the
ceremonies, and the priesthood, in which things they firmly believed the
Church to consist; so, instead of the Church, the Papists produce
certain external forms, which are often at a great distance from the
Church, and are not at all necessary to its existence. Wherefore we need
no other argument to refute them, than that which was urged by Jeremiah
against that foolish confidence of the Jews: “Trust ye not in lying
words, saying, The temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord, the
temple of the Lord, are these.”[783] For the Lord acknowledges no place
as his temple, where his word is not heard and devoutly observed. So,
though the glory of God resided between the cherubim in the sanctuary,
and he had promised his people that he would make it his permanent seat,
yet when the priests had corrupted his worship by perverse
superstitions, he departed, and left the place without any sanctity. If
that temple which appeared to be consecrated to the perpetual residence
of God, could be forsaken and desecrated by him, there can be no reason
for their pretending that God is so attached to persons or places, or
confined to external observances, as to be constrained to remain among
those who have nothing but the name and appearance of the Church. And
this is the argument which is maintained by Paul in the Epistle to the
Romans, from the ninth chapter to the twelfth. For it had violently
disturbed weak consciences, to observe that, while the Jews appeared to
be the people of God, they not only rejected, but also persecuted, the
doctrine of the gospel. Therefore, after having discussed that doctrine,
he removes this difficulty; and denies the claim of those Jews, who were
enemies of the truth, to be considered as the Church, though in other
respects they wanted nothing that could be requisite to its external
form. And the only reason for this denial was, because they did not
receive Christ. He speaks rather more explicitly in the Epistle to the
Galatians,[784] where, in a comparison between Ishmael and Isaac, he
represents many as occupying a place in the Church, who have no right to
the inheritance, because they are not the children of a free mother.
Hence he proceeds to a contrast of the two Jerusalems, because as the
law was given on Mount Sinai, but the gospel came forth from Jerusalem,
so many who have been born and educated in bondage, confidently boast of
being the children of God and of the Church, and though they are
themselves a spurious offspring, look down with contempt on his genuine
and legitimate children. But as for us, on the contrary, who have once
heard it proclaimed from heaven, “Cast out the bondwoman and her son,”
let us confide in this inviolable decree, and resolutely despise their
ridiculous pretensions. For if they pride themselves on an external
profession, Ishmael also was circumcised. If they depend on antiquity,
he was the first born. Yet we see that he was rejected. If the cause of
this be inquired, Paul tells us that none are accounted children but
those who are born of the pure and legitimate seed of the word.[785]
According to this reason, the Lord declares that he is not confined to
impious priests, because he had made a covenant with their father Levi
to be his angel or messenger.[786] He even retorts on them their false
boasting, with which they were accustomed to oppose the prophets, that
the dignity of the priesthood ought to be held in peculiar estimation.
This he readily admits, and argues with them on this ground, because he
was prepared to observe the covenant, whereas they failed of discharging
the correspondent obligations, and therefore deserved to be rejected.
See, then, what such succession is worth, unless it be connected with a
continual imitation and conformity. Without this, the descendants, who
are convicted of a departure from their predecessors, must immediately
be deprived of all honour; unless, indeed, because Caiaphas was the
successor of many pious priests, and there had been an uninterrupted
series even from Aaron to him, that execrable assembly be deemed worthy
to be called the Church. But it would not be tolerated even in earthly
governments, that the tyranny of Caligula, Nero, Heliogabalus, and
others, should be called the true state of the republic, because they
succeeded the Bruti, the Scipios, and the Camilli. But in regard to the
government of the Church, nothing can be more frivolous than to place
the succession in the persons, to the neglect of the doctrine. And
nothing was further from the intentions of the holy doctors, whose
authority they falsely obtrude upon us, than to prove that Churches
existed by a kind of hereditary right, wherever there has been a
constant succession of bishops. But as it was beyond all doubt that,
from the beginning even down to their times, no change had taken place
in the doctrine, they assumed, what would suffice for the confutation of
all new errors, that they were repugnant to the doctrine which had been
constantly and unanimously maintained even from the days of the
apostles. They will gain nothing, therefore, by persisting to disguise
themselves under the name of the Church. The Church we regard with
becoming reverence; but when they come to the definition, they are
miserably embarrassed, for they substitute an execrable harlot in the
place of the holy spouse of Christ. That we may not be deceived by such
a substitution, beside other admonitions, let us remember this of
Augustine; for, speaking of the Church, he says, “It is sometimes
obscured and beclouded by a multitude of scandals; sometimes it appears
quiet and unmolested in a season of tranquillity, and is sometimes
disturbed and overwhelmed with the waves of tribulations and
temptations.” He produces examples, that those who were its firmest
pillars, have either undauntedly suffered banishment on account of the
faith, or secluded themselves from all society.

IV. In the same manner, the Romanists in the present day harass us, and
terrify ignorant persons with the name of the Church, though there are
no greater enemies to Christ than themselves. Although they may pretend
therefore to the temple, the priesthood, and other similar forms, this
vain glitter, which dazzles the eyes of the simple, ought by no means to
induce us to admit the existence of a Church, where we cannot discover
the word of God. For this is the perpetual mark by which our Lord has
characterized his people: “Every one that is of the truth heareth my
voice.”[787] And, “I am the good Shepherd, and know my sheep, and am
known of mine.” “My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they
follow me.” He had just before said, “The sheep follow their shepherd;
for they know his voice; and a stranger will they not follow, but will
flee from him, for they know not the voice of strangers.”[788] Why,
then, do we wilfully run into error in forming a judgment of the Church,
since Christ has designated it by an unequivocal character, that
wherever it is discovered, it infallibly assures us of the existence of
a Church, and wherever it is wanting, there is no real evidence of a
Church left. For Paul declares the Church to be founded, not upon the
opinions of men, not upon the priesthood, but upon the “doctrine of the
apostles and prophets.”[789] And Jerusalem is to be distinguished from
Babylon, the Church of Christ from the synagogue of Satan, by this
difference, by which Christ has discriminated them from each other: “He
that is of God, heareth God’s words; ye therefore hear them not, because
ye are not of God.”[790] In fine, as the Church is the kingdom of
Christ, and he reigns only by his word, can any person doubt the
falsehood of those pretensions, which represent the kingdom of Christ as
destitute of his sceptre, that is, of his holy word?

V. With respect to the charge which they bring against us of heresy and
schism, because we preach a different doctrine from theirs, and submit
not to their laws, and hold separate assemblies for prayers, for
baptism, for the administration of the Lord’s supper, and other sacred
exercises, it is indeed a most heavy accusation, but such as by no means
requires a long or laborious defence. The appellations of heretics and
schismatics are applied to persons who cause dissension, and destroy the
communion of the Church. Now, this communion is preserved by two
bonds—agreement in sound doctrine, and brotherly love. Between heretics
and schismatics, therefore, Augustine makes the following
distinction—that the former corrupt the purity of the faith by false
doctrines, and that the latter break the bond of affection, sometimes
even while they retain the same faith. But it is also to be remarked,
that this union of affection is dependent on the unity of faith, as its
foundation, end, and rule. Let us remember, therefore, that, whenever
the unity of the Church is enjoined upon us in the Scripture, it is
required, that, while our minds hold the same doctrines in Christ, our
wills should likewise be united in mutual benevolence in Christ.
Therefore, Paul, when he exhorts us to it, assumes as a foundation, that
there is “one Lord, one faith, and one baptism.”[791] And when he
inculcates our being “like-minded, and having the same love, being of
one accord, of one mind,”[792] he immediately adds, that this should be
in Christ, or according to Christ; signifying that all union which is
formed without the word of the Lord, is a faction of the impious, and
not an association of believers.

VI. Cyprian, also, after the example of Paul, deduces the origin of all
ecclesiastical concord from the supreme bishopric of Christ. He
afterwards subjoins, “There is but one Church, which is widely extended
into a multitude by the offspring of its fertility; just as there are
many rays of the sun, but the light is one; and a tree has many
branches, but only one trunk, fixed on a firm root. And when many rivers
issue from one source, though by its exuberant abundance the stream is
multiplied into numerous currents, yet the unity of the fountain still
remains. Separate a ray from the body of the sun, and its unity sustains
no division. Break off a branch from a tree, and the broken branch can
never bud. Cut off a river from the source, and it immediately dries up.
So the Church, overspread with the light of the Lord, is extended over
the whole world: yet it is one and the same light which is universally
diffused.” No representation could be more elegant to express that
inseparable connection which subsists between all the members of Christ.
We see how he continually recalls us to the fountain-head. Therefore he
pronounces the origin of heresies and schisms to be, that men neither
return to the source of truth, nor seek the Head, nor attend to the
doctrine of the heavenly Master. Now, let the Romanists exclaim that we
are heretics, because we have withdrawn from their church; while the
sole cause of our secession has been, that theirs cannot possibly be the
pure profession of the truth. I say nothing of their having expelled us
with anathemas and execrations. But this reason is more than sufficient
for our exculpation, unless they are determined to pronounce sentence of
schism also against the apostles, with whom we have but one common
cause. Christ, I say, foretold to his apostles, that for his name’s sake
they should be cast out of the synagogues.[793] Now, those synagogues,
of which he spoke, were then accounted legitimate Churches. Since it is
evident, then, that we have been cast out, and we are prepared to prove
that this has been done for the name of Christ, it is necessary to
inquire into the cause, before any thing be determined respecting us,
either on one side or the other. But this point I readily relinquish to
them. It is sufficient for me that it was necessary for us to withdraw
from them, in order to approach to Christ.

VII. But it will be still more evident, in what estimation we ought to
hold all the Churches who have submitted to the tyranny of the Roman
pontiff, if we compare them with the ancient Church of Israel, as
delineated by the prophets. There was a true Church among the Jews and
the Israelites, while they continued to observe the laws of the
covenant; because they then obtained from the favour of God those things
which constitute a Church. They had the doctrine of truth in the law;
the ministry of it was committed to the priests and prophets; they were
initiated into the Church by the sign of circumcision; and were
exercised in other sacraments for the confirmation of their faith. There
is no doubt that the commendations, with which the Lord has honoured his
Church, truly belonged to their society. But after they deserted the law
of the Lord, and fell into idolatry and superstition, they partly lost
this privilege. For who would dare to refuse the title of a Church to
those among whom God deposited the preaching of his word, and the
observance of his mysteries? On the other hand, who would dare to give
the appellation of a Church, without any exception, to that society,
where the word of God is openly and fearlessly trampled under foot;
where its ministry, the principal sinew, and even the soul of the
Church, is discontinued?

VIII. What, then, it will be said, was there no particle of a Church
left among the Jews from the moment of their defection to idolatry? The
answer is easy. In the first place, I observe, that in this defection
there were several degrees. Nor will we maintain the fall of Judah, and
that of Israel, to have been exactly the same, at the time when they
both began to depart from the pure worship of God. When Jeroboam made
the calves, in opposition to the express prohibition of God, and
dedicated a place which it was not lawful to use for the oblation of
sacrifices, in this case religion was totally corrupted. The Jews
polluted themselves with practical impieties and superstitions, before
they made any unlawful changes in the external forms of religion. For
though they generally adopted many corrupt ceremonies in the time of
Rehoboam, yet as the doctrine of the law, and the priesthood, and the
rites which God had instituted, were still preserved at Jerusalem,
believers had in that kingdom a tolerable form of a Church. Among the
Israelites, there was no reformation down to the reign of Ahab, and in
his time there was an alteration for the worse. Of the succeeding kings,
even to the subversion of the kingdom, some resembled Ahab, and others,
who would be a little better, followed the example of Jeroboam; but all,
without exception, were impious idolaters. In Judah there were various
changes; some kings corrupted the worship of God with false and
groundless superstitions, and others restored religion from its abuses;
till, at length, the priests themselves polluted the temple of God with
idolatrous and abominable rites.

IX. Now, however the Papists may extenuate their vices, let them deny,
if they can, that the state of religion is as corrupt and depraved among
them, as it was in the kingdom of Israel, in the time of Jeroboam. But
they practise a grosser idolatry, and their doctrine is equally, if not
more, impure. God is my witness, and all men who are endued with
moderate judgment, and the fact itself declares, that in this I am
guilty of no exaggeration. Now, when they try to drive us into the
communion of their Church, they require two things of us—first, that we
should communicate in all their prayers, sacraments, and ceremonies;
secondly, that whatever honour, power, and jurisdiction, Christ has
conferred upon his Church, we should attribute the same to theirs. With
respect to the first point, I confess that the prophets who were at
Jerusalem, when the state of affairs there was very corrupt, neither
offered up sacrifices apart from others, nor held separate assemblies
for prayer. For they had the express command of God, that they were to
assemble in the temple of Solomon; and they knew that the Levitical
priests, because they had been ordained by the Lord as ministers of the
sacrifices, and had not been deposed, however unworthy they might be of
such honour, still retained the lawful possession of that place. But,
what is the principal point of the whole controversy, they were not
constrained to join in any superstitious worship; on the contrary, they
engaged in no service that was not of Divine institution. But what
resemblance is there to this among the Papists? We can scarcely assemble
with them on a single occasion, without polluting ourselves with open
idolatry. The principal bond of their communion is certainly the mass,
which we abominate as the greatest sacrilege. Whether we are right or
wrong in this, will be seen in another place. It is sufficient, at
present, to show that, in this respect, our case is different from that
of the prophets, who, though they were present at the sacrifices of
impious persons, were never compelled to use, or to witness, any
ceremonies but those which God had instituted. And if we wish to have an
example entirely similar, we must take it from the kingdom of Israel.
According to the regulations of Jeroboam, circumcision continued,
sacrifices were offered, the law was regarded as sacred, the people
invoked the same God whom their fathers had worshipped; yet, on account
of novel ceremonies invented in opposition to the Divine prohibitions,
God disapproved and condemned all that was done there. Show me a single
prophet, or any pious man, who even once worshipped or offered sacrifice
at Bethel. They knew that they could not do it without contaminating
themselves with sacrilege. We have established this point, therefore,
that the attachment of pious persons to the communion of the Church,
ought not to be carried to such an extent, as to oblige them to remain
in it, if it degenerated into profane and impure rites.

X. But against their second requisition, we contend upon still stronger
ground. For if the Church be held in such consideration that we are
required to revere its judgment, to obey its authority, to receive its
admonitions, to fall under its censures, and scrupulously and uniformly
to adhere to its communion, we cannot allow their claim to the character
of the Church, without necessarily obliging ourselves to subjection and
obedience. Yet we readily concede to them what the prophets conceded to
the Jews and Israelites of their time, when things among them were in a
similar, or even in a better state. But we see how they frequently
exclaim, that their assemblies were iniquitous meetings,[794] a
concurrence in which were as criminal as a renunciation of God. And
certainly, if those assemblies were Churches, it follows that Elijah,
Micaiah, and others in Israel, were strangers to the Church of God; and
the same would be true of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Hosea, and others of that
description in Judah, whom the false prophets, priests, and people of
their day, hated and execrated as if they had been worse than any
heathens. If such assemblies were Churches, then the Church is not the
pillar of truth, but a foundation of falsehood, not the sanctuary of the
living God, but a receptacle of idols. They found themselves under a
necessity, therefore, of withdrawing from all connection with those
assemblies, which were nothing but a conspiracy against God. For the
same reason, if any one acknowledges the assemblies of the present day,
which are contaminated with idolatry, superstition, and false doctrine,
as true Churches, in full communion with which a Christian man ought to
continue, and in whose doctrine he ought to coincide, this will be a
great error. For if they be Churches, they possess the power of the
keys; but the keys are inseparably connected with the word, which is
exploded from among them. Again, if they be Churches, that promise of
Christ must be applicable to them—“Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth
shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall
be loosed in heaven.”[795] On the contrary, all who sincerely profess
themselves to be the servants of Christ, they expel from their
communion. Either, therefore, the promise of Christ must be vain, or in
this respect they are not Churches. Lastly, instead of the ministry of
the word, they have schools of impiety, and a gulf of every species of
errors. Either, therefore, in this respect they are not Churches, or no
mark will be left to distinguish the legitimate assemblies of believers
from the conventions of Turks.

XI. Nevertheless, as in former times the Jews continued in possession of
some peculiar privileges of the Church, so we refuse not to acknowledge,
among the Papists of the present day, those vestiges of the Church which
it has pleased the Lord should remain among them after its removal. When
God had once made his covenant with the Jews, it continued among them,
rather because it was supported by its own stability in opposition to
their impiety, than in consequence of their observance of it. Such,
therefore, was the certainty and constancy of the Divine goodness, the
covenant of the Lord remained among them; his faithfulness could not be
obliterated by their perfidy; nor could circumcision be so profaned by
their impure hands, but that it was always the true sign and sacrament
of his covenant. Hence the children that were born to them, God calls
his own,[796] though they could not have belonged to him but by a
special benediction. So after he had deposited his covenant in France,
Italy, Germany, Spain, and England, when those countries were oppressed
by the tyranny of Antichrist, still, in order that the covenant might
remain inviolable, as a testimony of that covenant, he preserved baptism
among them, which, being consecrated by his lips, retains its virtue in
opposition to all the impiety of men. He also, by his providence, caused
other vestiges of the Church to remain, that it might not be entirely
lost. And as buildings are frequently demolished in such a manner as to
leave the foundations and ruins remaining, so the Lord has not suffered
Antichrist either to subvert his Church from the foundation, or to level
it with the ground; though, to punish the ingratitude of men who
despised his word, he has permitted a dreadful concussion and
dilapidation to be made; yet, amidst this devastation, he has been
pleased to preserve the edifice from being entirely destroyed.

XII. While we refuse, therefore, to allow to the Papists the title of
the Church, without any qualification or restriction, we do not deny
that there are Churches among them. We only contend for the true and
legitimate constitution of the Church, which requires not only a
communion in the sacraments, which are the signs of a Christian
profession, but above all, an agreement in doctrine. Daniel and Paul had
predicted that Antichrist would sit in the temple of God.[797] The head
of that cursed and abominable kingdom, in the Western Church, we affirm
to be the Pope. When his seat is placed in the temple of God, it
suggests, that his kingdom will be such, that he will not abolish the
name of Christ, or the Church. Hence it appears, that we by no means
deny that Churches may exist, even under his tyranny; but he has
profaned them by sacrilegious impiety, afflicted them by cruel
despotism, corrupted and almost terminated their existence by false and
pernicious doctrines, like poisonous potions; in such Churches, Christ
lies half buried, the gospel is suppressed, piety exterminated, and the
worship of God almost abolished; in a word, they are altogether in such
a state of confusion, that they exhibit a picture of Babylon, rather
than of the holy city of God. To conclude, I affirm that they are
Churches, inasmuch as God has wonderfully preserved among them a remnant
of his people, though miserably dispersed and dejected, and as there
still remain some marks of the Church, especially those, the efficacy of
which neither the craft of the devil nor the malice of men can ever
destroy. But, on the other hand, because those marks, which we ought
chiefly to regard in this controversy, are obliterated, I affirm, that
the form of the legitimate Church is not to be found either in any one
of their congregations, or in the body at large.

Footnote 781:

Ephes. ii. 20.

Footnote 782:

1 Tim. iii. 15.

Footnote 783:

Jer. vii. 4.

Footnote 784:

Gal. iv.

Footnote 785:

Rom. ix. 6-8.

Footnote 786:

Mal. ii. 1-9.

Footnote 787:

John xviii. 37.

Footnote 788:

John x. 4, 5, 14, 27.

Footnote 789:

Ephes. ii. 20.

Footnote 790:

John viii. 47.

Footnote 791:

Ephes. iv. 5.

Footnote 792:

Phil. ii. 2, 5.

Footnote 793:

John xvi. 2.

Footnote 794:

Isaiah i. 13, 14.

Footnote 795:

Matt. xviii. 18.

Footnote 796:

Ezek. xiv. 20.

Footnote 797:

Dan. ix. 27. 2 Thess. ii. 3, 4.

CHAPTER III.
THE TEACHERS AND MINISTERS OF THE CHURCH; THEIR ELECTION AND OFFICE.

We must now treat of the order which it has been the Lord’s will to
appoint for the government of his Church. For although he alone ought to
rule and reign in the Church, and to have all preëminence in it, and
this government ought to be exercised and administered solely by his
word,—yet, as he dwells not among us by a visible presence, so as to
make an audible declaration of his will to us, we have stated, that for
this purpose he uses the ministry of men whom he employs as his
delegates, not to transfer his right and honour to them, but only that
he may himself do his work by their lips; just as an artificer makes use
of an instrument in the performance of his work. Some observations which
I have made already, are necessary to be repeated here. It is true that
he might do this either by himself, without any means or instruments, or
even by angels; but there are many reasons why he prefers making use of
men. For, in the first place, by this method he declares his kindness
towards us, since he chooses from among men those who are to be his
ambassadors to the world, to be the interpreters of his secret will, and
even to act as his personal representatives. And thus he affords an
actual proof, that when he so frequently calls us his temples, it is not
an unmeaning appellation, since he gives answers to men, even from the
mouths of men, as from a sanctuary. In the second place, this is a most
excellent and beneficial method to train us to humility, since he
accustoms us to obey his word, though it is preached to us by men like
ourselves, and sometimes even of inferior rank. If he were himself to
speak from heaven, there would be no wonder if his sacred oracles were
instantly received with reverence, by the ears and hearts of all
mankind. For who would not be awed by his present power? who would not
fall prostrate at the first view of infinite Majesty? who would not be
confounded by that overpowering splendour? But when a contemptible
mortal, who had just emerged from the dust, addresses us in the name of
God, we give the best evidence of our piety and reverence towards God
himself, if we readily submit to be instructed by his minister, who
possesses no personal superiority to ourselves. For this reason, also,
he has deposited the treasure of his heavenly wisdom in frail and
earthen vessels,[798] in order to afford a better proof of the
estimation in which we hold it. Besides, nothing was more adapted to
promote brotherly love, than a mutual connection of men by this bond,
while one is constituted the pastor to teach all the rest, and they who
are commanded to be disciples, receive one common doctrine from the same
mouth. For if each person were sufficient for himself, and had no need
of the assistance of another, such is the pride of human nature, every
one would despise others, and would also be despised by them. The Lord,
therefore, has connected his Church together, by that which he foresaw
would be the strongest bond for the preservation of their union, when he
committed the doctrine of eternal life and salvation to men, that by
their hands it might be communicated to others. Paul had this in view
when he wrote to the Ephesians, “There is one body, and one Spirit, even
as ye are called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one
baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all,
and in you all. But unto every one of us is given grace according to the
measure of the gift of Christ. Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up
on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men. (Now that he
ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower
parts of the earth? He that descended is the same also that ascended up
far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.) And he gave some,
apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors
and teachers; for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the
ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ; till we all come in
the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a
perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ;
that we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried
about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning
craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; but, speaking the truth
in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even
Christ; from whom the whole body fitly joined together, and compacted by
that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in
the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying
of itself in love.”[799]

II. In this passage he shows that the ministry of men, which God employs
in his government of the Church, is the principal bond which holds
believers together in one body. He also indicates that the Church cannot
be preserved in perfect safety, unless it be supported by these means
which God has been pleased to appoint for its preservation. Christ, he
says, “ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all
things.”[800] And this is the way in which he does it. By means of his
ministers, to whom he has committed this office, and on whom he has
bestowed grace to discharge it, he dispenses and distributes his gifts
to the Church, and even affords some manifestation of his own presence,
by exerting the power of his Spirit in this his institution, that it may
not be vain or ineffectual. Thus is the restoration of the saints
effected; thus is the body of Christ edified; thus we grow up unto him
who is our Head in all things, and are united with each other; thus we
are all brought to the unity of Christ; if prophecy flourishes among us,
if we receive the apostles, if we despise not the doctrine which is
delivered to us. Whoever, therefore, either aims to abolish or
undervalue this order, of which we are treating, and this species of
government, attempts to disorganize the Church, or rather to subvert and
destroy it altogether. For neither the light and heat of the sun, nor
any meat and drink, are so necessary to the nourishment and sustenance
of the present life, as the apostolical and pastoral office is to the
preservation of the Church in the world.

III. Therefore I have already remarked, that God has frequently
commended its dignity to us by every possible encomium, in order that we
might hold it in the highest estimation and value, as more excellent
than every thing else. That he confers a peculiar favour upon men by
raising up teachers for them, he fully signifies, when he commands the
prophet to exclaim, “How beautiful are the feet of him that publisheth
peace;”[801] and when he calls the apostles “the light of the world,”
and “the salt of the earth.”[802] Nor could that office be more
splendidly distinguished than when he said to them, “He that heareth
you, heareth me.”[803] But there is no passage more remarkable than that
in Paul’s Second Epistle to the Corinthians, where he professedly
discusses this question. He contends, that there is nothing more
excellent or glorious than the ministry of the gospel in the Church,
inasmuch as it is the ministration of the Spirit, and of righteousness,
and of eternal life.[804] The tendency of these and similar passages, is
to preserve that mode of governing the Church by its ministers, which
the Lord appointed to be of perpetual continuance, from sinking into
disesteem, and, at length, falling into disuse through mere contempt.
And how exceedingly necessary it is, he has not only declared in words,
but shown by examples. When he was pleased to illuminate Cornelius more
fully with the light of his truth, he despatched an angel from heaven to
send Peter to him. When he designs to call Paul to the knowledge of
himself, and to introduce him into the Church, he does not address him
with his own voice, but sends him to a man to receive the doctrine of
salvation, and the sanctification of baptism. If it was not without
sufficient reason, that an angel, who is the messenger of God, refrains
from announcing the Divine will himself, and directs a man to be sent
for in order to declare it,—and that Christ, the sole Teacher of
believers, committed Paul to the instruction of a man, the same Paul
whom he had determined to elevate into the third heaven, and to favour
with a miraculous revelation of things unspeakable,—who can now dare to
despise that ministry, or to neglect it as unnecessary, the utility and
necessity of which God has been pleased to evince by such examples?

IV. Those who preside over the government of the Church, according to
the institution of Christ, are named by Paul, first, “apostles;”
secondly, “prophets;” thirdly, “evangelists;” fourthly, “pastors;”
lastly, “teachers.”[805] Of these, only the two last sustain an ordinary
office in the Church: the others were such as the Lord raised up at the
commencement of his kingdom, and such as he still raises up on
particular occasions, when required by the necessity of the times. The
nature of the apostolic office is manifest from this command: “Go preach
the gospel to every creature.”[806] No certain limits are prescribed,
but the whole world is assigned to them, to be reduced to obedience to
Christ; that by disseminating the gospel wherever they could, they might
erect his kingdom in all nations. Therefore Paul, when he wished to
prove his apostleship, declares, not merely that he had gained some one
city for Christ, but that he had propagated the gospel far and wide, and
that he had not built upon the foundation of others, but had planted
Churches where the name of the Lord had never been heard before. The
“apostles,” therefore, were missionaries, who were to reduce the world
from their revolt to true obedience to God, and to establish his kingdom
universally by the preaching of the gospel. Or, if you please, they were
the first architects of the Church, appointed to lay its foundations all
over the world. Paul gives the appellation of “prophets,” not to all
interpreters of the Divine will, but only to those who were honoured
with some special revelation. Of these, either there are none in our
day, or they are less conspicuous. By “evangelists,” I understand those
who were inferior to the apostles in dignity, but next to them in
office, and who performed similar functions. Such were Luke, Timothy,
Titus, and others of that description; and perhaps also the seventy
disciples, whom Christ ordained to occupy the second station from the
apostles.[807] According to this interpretation, which appears to me
perfectly consistent with the language and meaning of the apostle, those
three offices were not instituted to be of perpetual continuance in the
Church, but only for that age when Churches were to be raised where none
had existed before, or were at least to be conducted from Moses to
Christ. Though I do not deny, that, even since that period, God has
sometimes raised up apostles or evangelists in their stead, as he has
done in our own time. For there was a necessity for such persons to
recover the Church from the defection of Antichrist. Nevertheless, I
call this an extraordinary office, because it has no place in
well-constituted Churches. Next follow “pastors” and “teachers,” who are
always indispensable to the Church. The difference between them I
apprehend to be this—that teachers have no official concern with the
discipline, or the administration of the sacraments, or with admonitions
and exhortations, but only with the interpretation of the Scripture,
that pure and sound doctrine may be retained among believers; whereas
the pastoral office includes all these things.

V. We have now ascertained what offices were appointed to continue for a
time in the government of the Church, and what were instituted to be of
perpetual duration. If we connect the evangelists with the apostles, as
sustaining the same office, we shall then have two offices of each
description, corresponding to each other. For our pastors bear the same
resemblance to the apostles, as our teachers do to the ancient prophets.
The office of the prophets was more excellent, on account of the special
gift of revelation, by which they were distinguished; but the office of
teachers is executed in a similar manner, and has precisely the same
end. So those twelve individuals, whom the Lord chose to promulgate the
first proclamation of his gospel to the world, preceded all others in
order and dignity. For although, according to the meaning and etymology
of the word, all the ministers of the Church may be called apostles,
because they are all sent by the Lord, and are his messengers, yet, as
it was of great importance to have a certain knowledge of the mission of
persons who were to announce a thing new and unheard before, it was
necessary that those twelve, together with Paul, who was afterwards
added to their number, should be distinguished beyond all others by a
peculiar title. Paul himself, indeed, gives this name to “Andronicus and
Junia, who,” he says, “are of note among the apostles;”[808] but when he
means to speak with strict propriety, he never applies that name except
to those of the first order that we have mentioned. And this is the
common usage of the Scripture. But the province of pastors is the same
as that of the apostles, except that they preside over particular
Churches respectively committed to each of them. Of the nature of their
functions let us now proceed to a more distinct statement.

VI. Our Lord, when he sent forth his apostles, commissioned them, as we
have just remarked, to preach the gospel, and to baptize all believers
for the remission of sins.[809] He had already commanded them to
distribute the sacred symbols of his body and blood according to his own
example.[810] Behold the sacred, inviolable, and perpetual law imposed
upon those who call themselves successors of the apostles; it commands
them to preach the gospel, and to administer the sacraments. Hence we
conclude, that those who neglect both these duties have no just
pretensions to the character of apostles. But what shall we say of
pastors? Paul speaks not only of himself, but of all who bear that
office, when he says, “Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers
of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God.”[811] Again: “A bishop
must hold fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be
able, by sound doctrine, both to exhort and to convince the
gainsayers.”[812] From these and similar passages, which frequently
occur, we may infer that the preaching of the gospel, and the
administration of the sacraments, constitute the two principal parts of
the pastoral office. Now, the business of teaching is not confined to
public discourses, but extends also to private admonitions. Thus Paul
calls upon the Ephesians to witness the truth of his declaration, “I
have kept back nothing that was profitable unto you, but have showed
you, and have taught you publicly, and from house to house, testifying
both to the Jews, and also to the Greeks, repentance toward God, and
faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.” And a little after: “I ceased not
to warn every one, night and day, with tears.”[813] But it is no part of
my present design, to enumerate all the excellences of a good pastor,
but only to show what is implied in the profession of those who call
themselves pastors; namely, that they preside over the Church in that
station, not that they may enjoy a respectable sinecure, but to instruct
the people in true piety by the doctrine of Christ, to administer the
holy mysteries, to maintain and exercise proper discipline. For the Lord
denounces to all those who have been stationed as watchmen in the
Church, that if any one perish in ignorance through their negligence, he
will require the blood of such a person at their hands.[814] What Paul
says of himself, belongs to them all: “Woe is unto me, if I preach not
the gospel,” because “a dispensation of the gospel is committed unto
me.”[815] Lastly, what the apostles did for the whole world, that every
individual pastor ought to do for his flock to which he is appointed.

VII. While we assign to them all respectively their distinct Churches,
yet we do not deny that a pastor, who is connected with one Church, may
assist others, either when any disputes arise, which may require his
presence, or when his advice is asked upon any difficult subject. But
because, in order to preserve the peace of the Church, there is a
necessity for such a regulation as shall clearly define to every one
what duty he has to do, lest they should all fall into disorder, run
hither and thither in uncertainty without any call, and all resort to
one place; and lest those who feel more solicitude for their personal
accommodation than for the edification of the Church, should, without
any cause but their own caprice, leave the Churches destitute,—this
distribution ought as far as possible to be generally observed, that
every one may be content with his own limits, and not invade the
province of another. Nor is this an invention of men, but an institution
of God himself. For we read that Paul and Barnabas “ordained elders in
the respective Churches of Lystra, Iconium, and Antioch;”[816] and Paul
himself directed Titus to “ordain elders in every city.”[817] So in
other passages he mentions “the bishops at Philippi,”[818] and
Archippus, the bishop of the Colossians.[819] And a remarkable speech of
his is preserved by Luke, addressed to “the elders of the Church of
Ephesus.”[820] Whoever, therefore, has undertaken the government and
charge of one Church, let him know that he is bound to this law of the
Divine call; not that he is fixed to his station so as never to be
permitted to leave it in a regular and orderly manner, if the public
benefit should require it; but he who has been called to one place,
ought never to think either of departing from his situation, or
relinquishing the office altogether, from any motive of personal
convenience or advantage. But if it be expedient that he should remove
to another station, he ought not to attempt this on his own private
opinion, but to be guided by public authority.

VIII. In calling those who preside over Churches by the appellations of
bishops, elders, pastors, and ministers, without any distinction, I have
followed the usage of the Scripture, which applies all these terms to
express the same meaning. For to all who discharge the ministry of the
word, it gives the title of “bishops.” So when Paul enjoins Titus to
“ordain elders in every city,” he immediately adds, “For a bishop must
be blameless.”[821] So in another Epistle he salutes more bishops than
one in one Church.[822] And in the Acts he is declared to have sent for
the elders of the Church of Ephesus, whom, in his address to them, he
calls “bishops.”[823] Here it must be observed, that we have enumerated
only those offices which consist in the ministry of the word; nor does
Paul mention any other in the fourth chapter of the Epistle to the
Ephesians, which we have quoted. But in the Epistle to the Romans, and
the First Epistle to the Corinthians, he enumerates others, as “powers,”
“gifts of healing,” “interpretation of tongues,” “governments,” “care of
the poor.”[824] Those functions which were merely temporary, I omit, as
foreign to our present subject. But there are two which perpetually
remain—“government,” and “the care of the poor.” “Governors” I apprehend
to have been persons of advanced years, selected from the people, to
unite with the bishops in giving admonitions and exercising discipline.
For no other interpretation can be given of that injunction, “He that
ruleth, let him do it with diligence.”[825] Therefore, from the
beginning, every Church has had its senate or council, composed of
pious, grave, and holy men, who were invested with that jurisdiction in
the correction of vices, of which we shall soon treat. Now, that this
regulation was not of a single age, experience itself demonstrates. This
office of government is necessary, therefore, in every age.

IX. The care of the poor was committed to the “deacons.” The Epistle to
the Romans, however, mentions two functions of this kind. “He that
giveth,” says the apostle, “let him do it with simplicity: he that
showeth mercy, with cheerfulness.”[826] Now, as it is certain that he
there speaks of the public offices of the Church, it follows that there
were two distinct orders of deacons. Unless my judgment deceive me, the
former clause refers to the deacons who administered the alms; and the
other to those who devoted themselves to the care of poor and sick
persons; such as the widows mentioned by Paul to Timothy.[827] For women
could execute no other public office, than by devoting themselves to the
service of the poor. If we admit this,—and it ought to be fully
admitted,—there will be two classes of deacons, of whom one will serve
the Church in dispensing the property given to the poor, the other in
taking care of the poor themselves.—Though the word itself (διακονια) is
of more extensive signification, yet the Scripture particularly gives
the title of “deacons” to those whom the Church has appointed to
dispense the alms and take care of the poor, and constituted stewards,
as it were, of the common treasury of the poor; and whose origin,
institution, and office, are described in the Acts of the Apostles. For
“when there arose a murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews
because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration,”[828] the
apostles pleaded their inability to discharge both offices, of the
ministry of the word and the service of tables, and said to the
multitude, “Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of
honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint
over this business.” See what were the characters of the deacons in the
apostolic Church, and what ought to be the characters of ours, in
conformity to the primitive example.

X. Now, as “all things” in the Church are required to “be done decently
and in order,”[829] there is nothing in which this ought to be more
diligently observed, than the constitution of its government; because
there would be more danger from disorder in this case than in any other.
Therefore, that restless and turbulent persons may not presumptuously
intrude themselves into the office of teaching or of governing, it is
expressly provided, that no one shall assume a public office in the
Church without a call. In order, therefore, that any one may be
accounted a true minister of the Church, it is necessary, in the first
place, that he be regularly called to it, and, in the second place, that
he answer his call; that is, by undertaking and executing the office
assigned to him. This may frequently be observed in Paul; who, when he
wishes to prove his apostleship, almost always alleges his call,
together with his fidelity in the execution of the office. If so eminent
a minister of Christ dare not arrogate to himself an authority to
require his being heard in the Church, but in consequence of his
appointment to it by a Divine commission, and his faithful discharge of
the duty assigned him,—what extreme impudence must it be, if any man,
destitute of both these characters, should claim such an honour for
himself! But having already spoken of the necessity of discharging the
office, let us now confine ourselves to the call.

XI. Now, the discussion of this subject includes four branches: what are
the qualifications of ministers; in what manner they are to be chosen;
by whom they ought to be appointed; and with what rite or ceremony they
are to be introduced into their office. I speak of the external and
solemn call, which belongs to the public order of the Church; passing
over that secret call, of which every minister is conscious to himself
before God, but which is not known to the Church. This secret call,
however, is the honest testimony of our heart, that we accept the office
offered to us, not from ambition or avarice, or any other unlawful
motive, but from a sincere fear of God, and an ardent zeal for the
edification of the Church. This, as I have hinted, is indispensable to
every one of us, if we would approve our ministry in the sight of God.
In the view of the Church, however, he who enters on his office with an
evil conscience, is nevertheless duly called, provided his iniquity be
not discovered. It is even common to speak of private persons as called
to the ministry, who appear to be adapted and qualified for the
discharge of its duties; because learning, connected with piety and
other endowments of a good pastor, constitutes a kind of preparation for
it. For those whom the Lord has destined to so important an office, he
first furnishes with those talents which are requisite to its execution,
that they may not enter upon it empty and unprepared. Hence Paul, in his
Epistle to the Corinthians, when he intended to treat of the offices
themselves, first enumerated the gifts which ought to be possessed by
the persons who sustain those offices.[830] But as this is the first of
the four points which I have proposed, let us now proceed to it.

XII. The qualifications of those who ought to be chosen bishops, are
stated at large by Paul in two passages.[831] The sum of all he says is,
that none are to be chosen but men of sound doctrine and a holy life,
not chargeable with any fault that may destroy their authority, or
disgrace their ministry. The same rule is laid down for the deacons and
governors. Constant care is required, that they be not unequal to the
burden imposed upon them, or, in other words, that they be endowed with
those talents which are necessary to the discharge of their duty. So,
when Christ was about to send forth his apostles, he furnished them with
such means and powers as were indispensable to their success.[832] And
Paul, after having delineated the character of a good and genuine
bishop, admonishes Timothy not to contaminate himself by the appointment
of any one of a different description.[833] The question relating to the
_manner_ in which they are to be chosen, I refer not to the form of
election, but to the religious awe which ought to be observed in it.
Hence the fasting and prayer, which Luke states to have been practised
by the faithful at the ordination of elders.[834] For knowing themselves
to be engaged in a business of the highest importance, they dared not
attempt any thing but with the greatest reverence and solicitude. And
above all things, they were earnest in prayers and supplications to God
for the spirit of wisdom and discretion.

XIII. The third inquiry we proposed was, by whom ministers are to be
chosen. Now, for this no certain rule can be gathered from the
appointment of the apostles, which was a case somewhat different from
the common call of other ministers. For as theirs was an extraordinary
office, it was necessary, in order to render it conspicuous by some
eminent character, that they who were to sustain it should be called and
appointed by the mouth of the Lord himself. The apostles, therefore,
entered upon their work, not in consequence of any human election, but
empowered by the sole command of God and of Christ. Hence, when they
wish to substitute another in the place of Judas, they refrain from a
certain appointment of any one, but nominate two, that the Lord may
declare by lot which of them he wills to be his successor.[835] In the
same sense must be understood the declaration of Paul, that he had been
created “an apostle, not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ,
and God the Father.”[836] The first clause, _not of men_, was applicable
to him in common with all pious ministers of the word; for no man can
lawfully exercise this ministry without having been called by God. The
other clause was special and peculiar to himself. When he glories in
this, therefore, he not only claims what belongs to a true and lawful
pastor, but likewise brings forward an evidence of his apostleship. For
whereas there were, among the Galatians, some who, from an eagerness to
diminish his authority, represented him as a common disciple deputed by
the primary apostles,—in order to vindicate the dignity of his
preaching, against which he knew these artifices were directed, he found
it necessary to show that he was not inferior to the other apostles in
any respect. Wherefore he affirms, that he had not been elected by the
judgment of men, like some ordinary bishop, but by the mouth and clear
revelation of the Lord himself.

XIV. But that the election and appointment of bishops by men is
necessary to constitute a legitimate call to the office, no sober person
will deny, while there are so many testimonies of Scripture to establish
it. Nor is it contradicted by that declaration of Paul, that he was “an
apostle, not of men, nor by man,”[837] since he is not speaking in that
passage of the ordinary election of ministers, but claiming to himself
what was the special privilege of the apostles. The immediate
designation of Paul, by the Lord himself, to this peculiar privilege,
was nevertheless accompanied with the form of an ecclesiastical call,
for Luke states, that “As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the
Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I
have called them.”[838] What end could be answered by this separation
and imposition of hands after the Holy Spirit had testified their
election, unless it was the preservation of the order of the Church in
designating ministers by men? God could not sanction that order,
therefore, by a more illustrious example than when, after having
declared that he had constituted Paul the apostle of the Gentiles, he
nevertheless directed him to be designated by the Church. The same may
be observed in the election of Matthias.[839] For the apostolic office
being of such high importance that they could not venture to fill up
their number by the choice of any one person from their own judgment,
they appointed two, one of whom was to be chosen by lot; that so the
election might obtain a positive sanction from Heaven, and yet that the
order of the Church might not be altogether neglected.

XV. Here it is inquired, whether a minister ought to be chosen by the
whole Church, or only by the other ministers and the elders who preside
over the discipline, or whether he may be appointed by the authority of
an individual. Those who attribute this right to any one man, quote what
Paul says to Titus: “For this cause I left thee in Crete, that thou
shouldst ordain elders in every city;”[840] and to Timothy: “Lay hands
suddenly on no man.”[841] But they are exceedingly mistaken, if they
suppose that either Timothy at Ephesus, or Titus in Crete, exercised a
sovereign power to regulate every thing according to his own pleasure.
For they presided over the people, only to lead them by good and
salutary counsels, not to act alone to the exclusion of all others. But
that this may not be thought to be an invention of mine, I will prove it
by a similar example. For Luke relates, that elders were ordained in the
Churches by Paul and Barnabas, but at the same time he distinctly marks
the manner in which this was done,—namely, by the suffrages or votes of
the people; for this is the meaning of the term he there
employs—χειροτονησαντες πρεσβυτερους κατ᾽ ἐκκλησιαν.[842] Those two
apostles, therefore, ordained them; but the whole multitude, according
to the custom observed in elections among the Greeks, declared by the
elevation of their hands who was the object of their choice. So the
Roman historians frequently speak of the consul, who held the
assemblies, as _appointing_ the new magistrates, for no other reason but
because he received the suffrages and presided at the election. Surely
it is not credible that Paul granted to Timothy and Titus more power
than he assumed to himself; but we see that he was accustomed to ordain
bishops according to the suffrages of the people. The above passages,
therefore, ought to be understood in the same manner, to guard against
all infringement of the common right and liberty of the Church. It is a
good remark, therefore, of Cyprian, when he contends, “that it proceeds
from Divine authority, that a priest should be elected publicly in the
presence of all the people, and that he should be approved as a worthy
and fit person by the public judgment and testimony.” In the case of the
Levitical priests, we find it was commanded by the Lord, that they
should be brought forward in the view of the people before their
consecration. Nor was Matthias added to the number of the apostles, nor
were the seven deacons appointed, without the presence and approbation
of the people.—“These examples,” says Cyprian, “show that the ordination
of a priest ought not to be performed but with the knowledge and
concurrence of the people, in order that the election which shall have
been examined by the testimony of all, may be just and legitimate.” We
find, therefore, that it is a legitimate ministry according to the word
of God, when those who appear suitable persons are appointed with the
consent and approbation of the people; but that other pastors ought to
preside over the election, to guard the multitude from falling into any
improprieties, through inconstancy, intrigue, or confusion.

XVI. There remains the Form of ordination, which is the last point that
we have mentioned relative to the call of ministers. Now, it appears
that when the apostles introduced any one into the ministry, they used
no other ceremony than imposition of hands. This rite, I believe,
descended from the custom of the Hebrews, who, when they wished to bless
and consecrate any thing, presented it to God by imposition of hands.
Thus, when Jacob blessed Ephraim and Manasseh, he laid his hands upon
their heads.[843] This custom was followed by our Lord, when he prayed
over infants.[844] It was with the same design, I apprehend, that the
Jews were directed in the law to lay their hands upon their sacrifices.
Wherefore the imposition of the hands of the apostles was an indication
that they offered to God the person whom they introduced into the
ministry. They used the same ceremony over those on whom they conferred
the visible gifts of the Spirit. But, be that as it may, this was the
solemn rite invariably practised, whenever any one was called to the
ministry of the Church. Thus they ordained pastors and teachers, and
thus they ordained deacons. Now, though there is no express precept for
the imposition of hands, yet since we find it to have been constantly
used by the apostles, such a punctual observance of it by them ought to
have the force of a precept with us. And certainly this ceremony is
highly useful both to recommend to the people the dignity of the
ministry, and to admonish the person ordained that he is no longer his
own master, but devoted to the service of God and the Church. Besides,
it will not be an unmeaning sign, if it be restored to its true origin.
For if the Spirit of God institutes nothing in the Church in vain, we
shall perceive that this ceremony, which proceeded from him, is not
without its use, provided it be not perverted by a superstitious abuse.
Finally, it is to be remarked, that the imposition of hands on the
ministers was not the act of the whole multitude, but was confined to
the pastors. It is not certain whether this ceremony was, in all cases,
performed by more pastors than one, or whether it was ever the act of a
single pastor. The former appears to have been the fact in the case of
the seven deacons, of Paul and Barnabas, and some few others.[845] But
Paul speaks of himself as having laid hands upon Timothy, without any
mention of many others having united with him. “I put thee in
remembrance, that thou stir up the gift of God which is in thee, by the
putting on of my hands.”[846] His expression, in the other Epistle, of
“the laying on of the hands of the presbytery,”[847] I apprehend not to
signify a company of elders, but to denote the ordination itself; as if
he had said, Take care that the grace which thou receivedst by the
laying on of hands, when I ordained thee a presbyter, be not in vain.

Footnote 798:

2 Cor. iv. 7.

Footnote 799:

Eph. iv. 4-16.

Footnote 800:

Eph. iv. 10.

Footnote 801:

Isaiah lii. 7.

Footnote 802:

Matt. v. 13, 14.

Footnote 803:

Luke x. 16.

Footnote 804:

2 Cor. iii. 6, &c.

Footnote 805:

Eph. iv. 11.

Footnote 806:

Mark xvi. 15.

Footnote 807:

Luke x. 1.

Footnote 808:

Rom. xvi. 7.

Footnote 809:

Matt. xxviii. 19.

Footnote 810:

Luke xxii. 19.

Footnote 811:

1 Cor. iv. 1.

Footnote 812:

Titus i. 7, 9.

Footnote 813:

Acts xx. 20, 21, 31.

Footnote 814:

Ezek. iii. 17, 18.

Footnote 815:

1 Cor. ix. 16, 17.

Footnote 816:

Acts xiv. 21, 23.

Footnote 817:

Titus i. 5.

Footnote 818:

Phil. i. 1.

Footnote 819:

Col. iv. 17.

Footnote 820:

Acts xx. 17, &c.

Footnote 821:

Titus i. 5, 7.

Footnote 822:

Phil. i. 1.

Footnote 823:

Acts xx. 17, 28, ἐπισκοπους.

Footnote 824:

1 Cor. xii. 28, δυναμεις, χαρισματα ιαματων, γενη γλωσσων,
κυβερνησεις.

Footnote 825:

Rom. xii. 8.

Footnote 826:

Rom. xii. 8, μεταδιδους, εν ἁπλοτητι, ὁ ελεων, εν ἱλαροτητι.

Footnote 827:

1 Tim. v. 9, 10.

Footnote 828:

Acts vi. 1-3.

Footnote 829:

1 Cor. xiv. 40.

Footnote 830:

1 Cor. xii. 7, &c.

Footnote 831:

1 Tim. iii. 1, &c. Titus i. 7, &c.

Footnote 832:

Luke xxi. 15; xxiv. 49. Acts i. 8.

Footnote 833:

1 Tim. v. 22.

Footnote 834:

Acts xiv. 23.

Footnote 835:

Acts i. 23.

Footnote 836:

Gal. i. 1.

Footnote 837:

Gal. i. 1.

Footnote 838:

Acts xiii. 2.

Footnote 839:

Acts i. 23.

Footnote 840:

Titus i. 5.

Footnote 841:

1 Tim. v. 22.

Footnote 842:

Acts xiv. 23.

Footnote 843:

Gen. xlviii. 14.

Footnote 844:

Matt. xix. 15.

Footnote 845:

Acts vi. 6; xiii. 3.

Footnote 846:

2 Tim. i. 6.

Footnote 847:

1 Tim. iv. 14.

CHAPTER IV.
THE STATE OF THE ANCIENT CHURCH, AND THE MODE OF GOVERNMENT PRACTISED
BEFORE THE PAPACY.

Hitherto we have treated of the mode of government in the Church, as it
has been delivered to us by the pure word of God, and of the offices in
it, as they were instituted by Christ. Now, that all these things may be
more clearly and familiarly displayed, and more deeply impressed upon
our minds, it will be useful to examine what was the form of the ancient
Church, in these particulars. It will place before our eyes an actual
exemplification of the Divine institution. For though the bishops of
those times published many canons, in which they seemed to express more
than had been expressed in the Holy Scriptures, yet they were so
cautious in framing their whole economy according to the sole standard
of the word of God, that in this respect scarcely any thing can be
detected among them inconsistent with that word. But though there might
be something to be regretted in their regulations, yet because they
directed their sincere and zealous efforts to preserve the institution
of God, without deviating from it to any considerable extent, it will be
highly useful in this place to give a brief sketch of what their
practice was. As we have stated that there are three kinds of ministers
recommended to us in the Scripture, so the ancient Church divided all
the ministers it had into three orders. For from the order of
presbyters, they chose some for pastors and teachers; the others
presided over the discipline and corrections. To the deacons was
committed the care of the poor and the distribution of the alms.
_Readers_ and _Acolytes_ were not names of certain offices, but young
men, to whom they also gave the name of _clergy_, whom they accustomed
from their youth to certain exercises in the service of the Church, that
they might better understand to what they were destined, and might enter
upon their office better prepared for it in due time; as I shall soon
show more at large. Therefore Jerome, after having mentioned five orders
of the Church, enumerates bishops, presbyters, deacons, the faithful, or
believers at large, and catechumens, or persons who had not yet been
baptized, but had applied for instruction in the Christian faith. Thus
he assigns no particular place to the rest of the clergy and the monks.

II. All those to whom the office of teaching was assigned, were
denominated presbyters. To guard against dissension, the general
consequence of equality, the presbyters in each city chose one of their
own number, whom they distinguished by the title of _bishop_. The
bishop, however, was not so superior to the rest in honour and dignity,
as to have any dominion over his colleagues; but the functions performed
by a consul in the senate, such as, to propose things for consideration,
to collect the votes, to preside over the rest in the exercise of
advice, admonition, and exhortation, to regulate all the proceedings by
his authority, and to carry into execution whatever had been decreed by
the general voice;—such were the functions exercised by the bishop in
the assembly of the presbyters. And that this arrangement was introduced
by human agreement, on account of the necessity of the times, is
acknowledged by the ancient writers themselves. Thus Jerome, on the
Epistle to Titus, says, “A presbyter is the same as a bishop. And before
dissensions in religion were produced by the instigation of the devil,
and one said, I am of Paul, and another, I am of Cephas, the Churches
were governed by a common council of presbyters. Afterwards, in order to
destroy the seeds of dissensions, the whole charge was committed to one.
Therefore, as the presbyters know that according to the custom of the
Church they are subject to the bishop who presides over them, so let the
bishops know that their superiority to the presbyters is more from
custom than from the appointment of the Lord, and they ought to unite
together in the government of the Church.” In another place, he shows
the antiquity of this institution; for he says, that at Alexandria, even
from Mark the Evangelist to Heraclas and Dionysius, the presbyters
always chose one of their body to preside over them, whom they called
their bishop. Every city, therefore, had its college of presbyters, who
were pastors and teachers. For they all executed the duties of teaching,
exhorting, and correcting, among the people, as Paul enjoins bishops to
do;[848] and in order to leave successors behind them, they laboured in
training young men, who had enlisted themselves in the sacred warfare.
To every city was assigned a certain district, which received presbyters
from it, and was reckoned as a part of that Church. Every assembly, as I
have stated, for the sole purpose of preserving order and peace, was
under the direction of one bishop, who, while he had the precedence of
all others in dignity, was himself subject to the assembly of the
brethren. If the territory placed under his episcopate was too extensive
to admit of his discharging all the duties of a bishop in every part of
it, presbyters were appointed in certain stations, to act as his
deputies in things of minor importance. These were called
_chorepiscopi_, or _country bishops_, because in the country they
represented the bishop.

III. But with respect to the office of which we are now treating, the
bishops and presbyters were equally required to employ themselves in the
dispensation of the word and sacraments. For at Alexandria only, because
Arius had disturbed the Church there, it was ordained that no presbyter
should preach to the people; as is asserted by Socrates in the ninth
book of his Tripartite History, with which Jerome hesitates not to
express his dissatisfaction. It would certainly have been regarded as a
prodigy, if any man had claimed the character of a bishop, who had not
shown himself really such in his conduct. Such was the strictness of
those times, that all ministers were constrained to discharge the duties
which the Lord requires of them. I refer not to the custom of one age
only; for even in the time of Gregory, when the Church was almost
extinct, or at least had considerably degenerated from its ancient
purity, it would not have been permitted for any bishop to abstain from
preaching. Gregory somewhere says, “A priest dies, if his sound be not
heard;[849] for he provokes the wrath of the invisible Judge against
him, if he go without the sound of preaching.” And in another place:
“When Paul declares that he is ‘pure from the blood of all,’[850] by
this declaration, we, who are called priests, are convicted, confounded,
and declared to be guilty, who to all our own crimes add the deaths of
others; for we are chargeable with slaying all those whom we daily
behold advancing to death, while we are indifferent and silent.” He
calls himself and others silent, because they were less assiduous in
their work than they ought to be. Since he spares not those who
performed half of their duty, what is it probable he would have done, if
any one had neglected it altogether? It was therefore long maintained in
the Church, that the principal office of a bishop was to feed the people
with the word of God, or to edify the Church both in public and private
with sound doctrine.

IV. The establishment of one archbishop over all the bishops of each
province, and the appointment of patriarchs at the Council of Nice, with
rank and dignity superior to the archbishops, were regulations for the
preservation of discipline. In this disquisition, however, what was of
the least frequent use cannot be wholly omitted. The principal reason,
therefore, for the institution of these orders was, that if any thing
should take place in any Church which could not be settled by a few
persons, it might be referred to a provincial synod. If the magnitude or
difficulty of the case required a further discussion, the patriarchs
were called to unite with the synods; and from them there could be no
appeal but to a general council. This constitution of government some
called a _hierarchy_—a name, in my opinion, improper, and certainly not
used in the Scriptures. For it has been the design of the Holy Spirit,
in every thing relating to the government of the Church, to guard
against any dreams of principality or dominion. But if we look at the
_thing_, without regarding the _term_, we shall find that the ancient
bishops had no intention of contriving a form of government for the
Church, different from that which God has prescribed in his word.

V. Nor was the situation of deacons at that time at all different from
what it had been under the apostles. For they received the daily
contributions of believers and the annual revenues of the Church, to
apply them to their proper uses, that is, to distribute part to the
ministers, and part for the support of the poor; subject, however, to
the authority of the bishop, to whom they also rendered an account of
their administration every year. For when the canons invariably
represent the bishop as the dispenser of all the benefactions of the
Church, it is not to be understood as if he executed that charge
himself, but because it belonged to him to give directions to the
deacon, who were to be entirely supported from the funds of the Church,
to whom the remainder was to be distributed, and in what proportion to
each person; and because he had the superintendence over the deacon, to
examine whether he faithfully discharged his office. Thus the canons,
ascribed to the apostles, contain the following injunction: “We ordain
that the bishop do have the property of the Church in his own power. For
if the souls of men, which are of superior value, have been intrusted to
him, there is far greater propriety in his taking charge of the
pecuniary concerns; so that all things may be distributed to the poor by
his authority through the presbyters and deacons, and that they may be
administered with reverence, and all concern.” And in the Council of
Antioch it was decreed, that those bishops should be censured who
managed the pecuniary concerns of the Church without the concurrence of
the presbyters and deacons. But it is unnecessary to argue this point
any further, since it is evident from many epistles of Gregory, that
even in his time, when the administration of the Church was in other
respects become very corrupt, yet this custom was still retained, that
the deacons were the stewards for the relief of the poor, under the
authority of the bishop. It is probable that subdeacons were at first
attached to the deacons, to assist them in transacting the business of
the poor; but this distinction was soon lost. Archdeacons were first
erected when the extent of the property required a new and more accurate
mode of administration; though Jerome states that there were such
offices even in his time. In their hands was placed the amount of the
annual revenues, of the possessions, and of the household furniture, and
the management of the daily contributions. Whence Gregory denounces to
the archdeacon of Thessalonica, that he would be held guilty, if any of
the property of the Church should be lost by him, either through
negligence or fraud. Their appointment to read the gospel, and to exhort
the people to pray, and their admission to the administration of the cup
in the sacred supper, were intended to dignify their office, that they
might discharge it with the more piety, in consequence of being
admonished by such ceremonies, that they were not executing some profane
stewardship, but that their function was spiritual and dedicated to God.

VI. Hence it is easy to judge what use was made of the property of the
Church, and in what manner it was dispensed. We often find it stated,
both in the decrees of the councils, and by the ancient writers, that
whatever the Church possessed, whether in lands or in money, was the
patrimony of the poor. The bishops and deacons, therefore, are
continually reminded that they are not managing their own treasures, but
those destined to supply the necessity of the poor, which if they
unfaithfully withhold or embezzle, they will be guilty of murder. Hence
they are admonished to distribute this property to the parties entitled
to it, with the greatest caution and reverence, as in the sight of God,
and without respect of persons. Hence also the solemn protestations of
Chrysostom, Ambrose, Augustine, and other bishops, assuring the people
of their integrity. Now, since it is perfectly equitable, and sanctioned
by the law of the Lord, that those who are employed in the service of
the Church should be maintained at the public expense of the Church,—and
even in that age some presbyters consecrated their patrimonies to God,
and reduced themselves to voluntary poverty,—the distribution was such,
that neither were the ministers left without support, nor were the poor
neglected. Yet, at the same time, care was taken that the ministers
themselves, who ought to set an example of frugality to others, should
not have enough to be abused to the purposes of splendour or delicacy,
but only what would suffice to supply their necessities. “For,” says
Jerome, “those of the clergy who are able to maintain themselves from
their own patrimony, if they take what belongs to the poor, are guilty
of sacrilege, and by such an abuse, they eat and drink judgment to
themselves.”

VII. At first the administration was free and voluntary, the bishops and
deacons acting with spontaneous fidelity, and integrity of conscience
and innocence of life supplying the place of laws. Afterwards, when the
cupidity or corrupt dispositions of some gave birth to evil examples, in
order to correct these abuses, canons were made, which divided the
revenues of the Church into four parts, assigning the first to the
clergy, the second to the poor, the third to the reparation of Churches
and other buildings, the fourth to poor strangers. For, though other
canons assign this last part to the bishop, this forms no variation from
the division which I have mentioned. For the intention was, that it
should be appropriated to him, neither for his own exclusive
consumption, nor for lavish or arbitrary distribution, but to enable him
to support the hospitality which Paul requires of persons in that
office.[851] And so it is explained by Gelasius and Gregory. For
Gelasius adduces no other reason why the bishop should claim any thing
for himself, than to enable him to communicate to captives and
strangers. And Gregory is still more explicit. He says, “It is the
custom of the apostolic see, at the ordination of a bishop, to command
him that all the revenue received by him be divided into four portions;
namely, one for the bishop and his family, for the support of
hospitality and entertainment; the second for the clergy; the third for
the poor; the fourth for the reparation of Churches.” It was unlawful
for the bishop, therefore, to take for his own use any thing more than
was sufficient for moderate and frugal sustenance and clothing. If any
one began to transgress the due limits, either in luxury, or in
ostentation and pomp, he was immediately admonished by his colleagues;
and if he would not comply with the admonition, he was deposed from his
office.

VIII. The portion which they applied to ornament the sacred edifices, at
first was very small; and even after the Church was become a little more
wealthy, they did not exceed moderation in this respect: whatever money
was so employed, still continued to be held in reserve for the poor, if
any pressing necessity should occur. Thus, when famine prevailed in the
province of Jerusalem, and there was no other way of relieving their
wants, Cyril sold the vessels and vestments, and expended the produce in
purchasing sustenance for the poor. In like manner, when vast numbers of
the Persians were almost perishing with hunger, Acatius, bishop of
Amida, after having convoked his clergy, and made that celebrated
speech, “Our God has no need of dishes or cups, because he neither eats
nor drinks,” melted down the vessels, and converted them into money, to
redeem the wretched, and buy food for them. Jerome also, while he
inveighs against the excessive splendour of the temples, makes
honourable mention of Exuperius, at that time bishop of Thoulouse, who
administered the emblem of our Lord’s body in a wicker basket, and the
emblem of his blood in a glass, but suffered no poor person to endure
hunger. The same that I have just said of Acatius, Ambrose relates of
himself; for when he was censured by the Arians for having broken up the
sacred vessels to pay the ransom of some captives, he made the following
most excellent defence: “He who sent forth the apostles without gold,
gathered Churches together likewise without gold. The Church has gold,
not to keep, but to expend, and to furnish relief in necessities. What
need is there to keep that which is of no service? Do not we know how
much gold and silver the Assyrians plundered from the temple of the
Lord? Is it not better that it should be melted down by the priest for
the sustenance of the poor, if other resources are wanting, than that it
should be carried away by a sacrilegious enemy? Will not the Lord say,
Wherefore hast thou suffered so many poor to die with hunger, and at the
same time hadst gold, with which thou mightest have supplied them with
food? Why have so many been carried away into captivity, and never been
redeemed? Why have so many been slain by the enemy? It would have been
better to preserve the vessels of living beings, than those of metals.
To these questions you could make no answer. For what would you say? I
was afraid that the temple of God would be destitute of ornament. God
would reply, The sacraments require no gold, nor is gold any
recommendation of that which is not purchased with gold. The ornament of
the sacraments is the redemption of captives.” In short, we see that it
was very true which was observed by the same writer in another place,
“that whatever the Church possessed at that time, was appropriated to
the relief of the necessitous,” and “that all that a bishop had,
belonged to the poor.”

IX. These, which we have enumerated, were the offices of the ancient
Church. Others, which are mentioned by ecclesiastical historians, were
rather exercises and preparations, than certain offices. For to form a
seminary, which should provide the Church with future ministers, those
holy men took under their charge, protection, and discipline, such
youths as, with the consent and sanction of their parents, enlisted
themselves in the spiritual warfare; and so they educated them from an
early age, that they might not enter on the discharge of their office
ignorant and unprepared. All who were trained in this manner, were
called by the general name of _clergy_. I could wish, indeed, that some
other more appropriate name had been given them; for this appellation
originated in error, or at least in some improper views; for Peter calls
the whole Church _the clergy_, that is, _the inheritance of the
Lord_.[852] The institution itself, however, was pious and eminently
beneficial; that those who wished to consecrate themselves and their
labours to the Church, should be educated under the care of the bishop;
that no one might minister in the Church but one who had received
sufficient previous instruction, who from his early youth had imbibed
sound doctrine, who from a strict discipline had acquired a certain
habitual gravity, and more than common sanctity of life, who had been
abstracted from secular occupations, and accustomed to spiritual cares
and studies. Now, as young soldiers by counterfeit battles are trained
to real and serious warfare, so the clergy were prepared by certain
probationary exercises, before they were actually promoted to offices.
At first they were charged with the care of opening and shutting the
temples, and they were called _ostiarii_, or _door-keepers_. Afterwards
they were called _acoluthi_, or _followers_, waiting upon the bishop in
domestic services, and accompanying him on all occasions, at first in a
way of honour, and afterwards to prevent all suspicion; moreover, that
by degrees they might become known to the people, and might acquire some
consideration among them, and at the same time that they might learn to
bear the presence of all, and have courage to speak before them, that
after being made presbyters, when they should come to preach, they might
not be confounded with shame, therefore they were appointed to read the
Scriptures from the pulpit. In this manner they were promoted by
degrees, that they might approve their diligence in the respective
exercises, till they were made subdeacons. I only contend, that these
were rather preparations for pupils, than functions reckoned among the
real offices of the Church.

X. We have said, that the first point in the election of ministers
related to the qualifications of the persons to be chosen, and the
second to the religious reverence with which the business ought to be
conducted. In both these points, the ancient Church followed the
direction of Paul and the examples of the apostles. For it was their
custom to assemble for the election of pastors with the greatest
reverence and solemn invocation of the name of God. They had likewise a
form of examination, in which they tried the life and doctrine of the
candidates by that standard of Paul. Only they ran into the error of
immoderate severity, from a wish to require in a bishop more than Paul
requires, and especially, in process of time, by enjoining celibacy. In
other things their practice was in conformity with the description of
Paul.[853] In the third point which we have mentioned, namely, by whom
ministers ought to be chosen, they did not always observe the same
order. In the primitive times there was no one admitted among the number
of the clergy, without the consent of all the people; so that Cyprian
makes a laboured defence of his having appointed one Aurelius a reader,
without consulting the Church, because he departed in this instance from
the general custom, though not without reason. He begins in the
following manner: “In appointing the clergy, my very dear brethren, we
are accustomed first to consult you, and to weigh the morals and merits
of every one of them in the general assembly.” But as there was not much
danger in these inferior exercises, because they were admitted to a long
probation, and not to a high office, the consent of the people ceased to
be asked. Afterwards, in the other offices also, except the episcopate,
the people generally left the judgment and choice to the bishop and
presbyters, so that they determined who were capable and deserving;
except when new presbyters were appointed to the parishes, for then it
was necessary to have the express consent of the body of the people at
each place. Nor is it any wonder that the people were not very
solicitous for the preservation of their right in this case. For no one
was made a subdeacon, who had not been tried for a considerable time as
one of the _clergy_, under the severe discipline which was then
practised. After he had been tried in that station, he was constituted a
deacon; in which if he conducted himself with fidelity, he obtained the
rank of a presbyter. Thus no one was promoted who had not really
undergone an examination for many years, under the eyes of the people.
And there were many canons for the punishment of their faults; so that
the Church could not be troubled with wicked presbyters or deacons,
unless it neglected the remedies within its reach. The election of
presbyters, however, always required the consent of the inhabitants of
the place; which is testified by the first canon, which is attributed to
Anacletus. And all ordinations took place at stated times of the year,
that no one might be introduced clandestinely, without the consent of
the faithful, or be promoted with too much facility, without any
attestation to his character.

XI. The right of voting in the election of bishops was retained by the
people for a long time, that no one might be obtruded who was not
acceptable to all. The Council of Antioch therefore decreed, that no
bishop should be appointed without the consent of the people, which Leo
the First expressly confirms. Hence the following injunctions: “Let him
be chosen who shall be called for by the clergy and people, or at least
by the majority of them.” Again: “Let him who is to preside over all, be
chosen by all.” For he who is appointed without having been previously
known and examined, must of necessity be intruded by force. Again: “Let
him be elected who shall have been chosen by the clergy and desired by
the people; and let him be consecrated by the bishops of that province,
with the authority of the metropolitan. So careful were the holy fathers
that this liberty of the people should not by any means be infringed,
that when the general council, assembled at Constantinople, appointed
Nectarius, they would not do it without the approbation of all the
clergy and people; as is evident from their epistle to the Council of
Rome. Wherefore, when any bishop appointed his successor, the
appointment was not confirmed but by the suffrages of all the people. Of
such a circumstance we have not only an example, but the particular form
in Augustine’s nomination of Eradius. And Theodoret, when he states that
Peter was nominated by Athanasius as his successor, immediately adds,
that this was confirmed by the clergy, and ratified by the acclamations
of the magistracy, the nobility, and all the people.

XII. I confess that there was the greatest propriety in the decree of
the Council of Laodicea, that the election should not be left to the
populace. For it scarcely ever happens that so many heads concur in one
opinion for the settlement of any business; and almost every case
verifies the observation, that the uncertain vulgar are divided by
contrary inclinations. But to this danger was applied an excellent
remedy. For in the first place, the clergy alone made their choice, and
presented the person they had chosen to the magistracy, or to the senate
and governors. They deliberated on the election, and if it appeared to
them a proper one, confirmed it, or otherwise chose another person whom
they preferred. Then the business was referred to the multitude, who,
though they were nor bound to concur in these previous opinions, yet
were less likely to be thrown into disorder. Or if the business
commenced with the multitude, this method was adopted in order to
discover who was the principal object of their wishes; and after hearing
the wishes of the people, the clergy proceeded to the election. Thus the
clergy were neither at liberty to elect whom they pleased, nor under a
necessity of complying with the foolish desires of the people. This
order is stated by Leo in another place, when he says, “It is requisite
to have the votes of the citizens, the testimonies of the people, the
authority of the governors, and the election of the clergy.” Again: “Let
there be the testimony of the governors, the subscription of the clergy,
the consent of the senate and people. Reason permits it not to be done
in any other way.” Nor is there any other meaning in that decree of the
Council of Laodicea, than that the clergy and governors should not
suffer themselves to be carried away by the inconsiderate multitude, but
by their prudence and gravity should check, on every necessary occasion,
the folly and violence of popular desires.

XIII. This mode of election was still practised in the time of Gregory,
and it is probable that it continued long after. There are many of his
epistles which furnish sufficient evidence of this fact. For in every
case relating to the creation of a new bishop in any place, he was
accustomed to write to the clergy, the senate, and the people; and
sometimes to the duke, according to the constitution of the government
in the place to which he was writing. And if, on account of disturbances
or dissensions in any Church, he confides the superintendence of the
election to some neighbouring bishop, yet he invariably requires a
solemn decree confirmed by the subscriptions of all. Even when one
Constantius was created bishop of Milan, and on account of the
incursions of the barbarians, many of the Milanese had retired to Genoa,
he thought the election would not be legitimate, unless they also were
called together, and gave their united consent. And what is more, it was
within the last five hundred years that Pope Nicholas made this decree
respecting the election of the Roman pontiff; that the cardinals should
take the lead, that in the next place they should unite with them the
rest of the clergy, and lastly that the election should be confirmed by
the consent of the people. And at the conclusion he recites that decree
of Leo, which I have just quoted, and commands it to be observed in
future. If the cabals of the wicked should go to such a length as to
constrain the clergy to quit the city in order to make a proper
election, still he ordains that some of the people should be present at
the same time. The consent of the emperor, as far as I can discover, was
required only in two Churches, at Rome and at Constantinople, because
they were the two capitals of the empire. For when Ambrose was sent to
Milan with authority from Valentinian to preside at the election of a
new bishop, that was an extraordinary measure, in consequence of the
grievous factions which raged among the citizens. At Rome the authority
of the emperor had anciently so much influence in the creation of a
bishop, that Gregory speaks of himself as having been appointed to the
government of the Church by the sole command of the emperor,
notwithstanding he had been formally chosen by the people. But the
custom was, that when any one had been chosen by the senate, clergy, and
people, it was immediately reported to the emperor, that he might either
ratify the election by his approbation, or rescind it by his negative.
Nor is there any thing repugnant to this custom in the decrees collected
by Gratian; which only say, that it is by no means to be suffered that a
king should supersede all canonical election by appointing a bishop at
his own pleasure, and that the metropolitans ought not to consecrate any
one who shall thus have been promoted by the violence of power. For it
is one thing to spoil the Church of its right, by transferring the whole
to the caprice of an individual, and another to give a king or an
emperor the honour of confirming a legitimate election by his authority.

XIV. It remains for us to state, by what ceremony the ministers of the
ancient Church, after their election, were initiated into their office.
This the Latins have called _ordination_ or _consecration_. The Greeks
have called it χειροτονια, _extension_ or _elevation of hands_, and
sometimes χειροθεσια, _imposition of hands_; though the former word
properly signifies that kind of election in which the suffrages are
declared by the lifting up of the hands. There is a decree of the
Council of Nice, that the metropolitan should meet with all the bishops
of the province, to ordain him who shall have been elected; but that if
any of them be prevented by the length of the journey, by sickness, or
by any other necessary cause, at least three should meet, and those who
are absent should testify their consent by letters. And when this canon
from disuse had grown obsolete, it was renewed in various councils. Now,
the reason why all, or at least as many as had no sufficient excuse,
were commanded to be present, was that there might be a more solemn
examination into the learning and morals of the person to be ordained;
for the business was not completed without examination. And it appears
from the epistles of Cyprian, that in the beginning the bishops were not
invited after the election, but used to be present at the election, and
that for the purpose of acting as moderators, that nothing turbulent
might take place among the multitude. For after having said that the
people have the power either to choose the worthy for priests, or to
reject the unworthy, he adds, “Wherefore it is to be carefully held and
observed as a Divine and apostolical tradition, (which is observed among
us, and in almost all the provinces,) that for the due performance of
ordinations, all the neighbouring bishops of the same province should
meet with the people over whom a bishop is to be ordained, and that the
bishop should be chosen in the presence of the people.” But because such
an assembly was sometimes very slowly collected, and there was danger
that such a delay might be abused by some for the purposes of intrigue,
it was deemed sufficient, if they assembled after the election was made,
and upon due examination consecrated the person who had been chosen.

XV. This was the universal practice, without any exception. By degrees a
different custom was introduced, and the persons elected went to the
metropolitan city to seek ordination. This change arose from ambition
and a corruption of the ancient institution, rather than from any good
reason. And not long after, when the authority of the see of Rome had
increased, another custom obtained, which was still worse; almost all
the bishops of Italy went to Rome to be consecrated. This may be seen by
the epistles of Gregory. Only a few cities, which did not so easily
yield, preserved their ancient right; of which there is an example
recorded by him in the case of Milan. Perhaps the metropolitan cities
were the only ones that retained their privilege. For almost all the
provincial bishops used to assemble in the metropolitan city to
consecrate their archbishop. The ceremony was imposition of hands. For I
read of no other ceremony practised, except that in the public assembly
the bishops had some dress to distinguish them from the rest of the
presbyters. Presbyters and deacons also were ordained solely by
imposition of hands. But every bishop ordained his own presbyters, in
conjunction with the assembly of the other presbyters of his diocese.
Now, though they all united in the same act, yet because the bishop took
the lead, and the ceremony was performed under his direction, therefore
it was called his ordination. Wherefore it is often remarked by the
ancient writers, that a presbyter differs from a bishop in no other
respect, than that he does not possess the power of ordination.

Footnote 848:

Titus i. 9.

Footnote 849:

Exod. xxxviii. 35.

Footnote 850:

Acts xx. 26.

Footnote 851:

1 Tim. iii. 2, 3.

Footnote 852:

1 Peter v. 3.

Footnote 853:

1 Tim. iii. 2-7.

CHAPTER V.
THE ANCIENT FORM OF GOVERNMENT ENTIRELY SUBVERTED BY THE PAPAL TYRANNY.

Now, it is proper to exhibit the system of ecclesiastical government at
present maintained by the see of Rome, and all its dependencies, with a
full view of that hierarchy which is perpetually in their mouths, and to
compare it with the description we have given of the primitive and
ancient Church. This comparison will show what kind of a Church there is
among those who fiercely arrogate this exclusive title, in order to
oppress, or rather to overwhelm us. Now, it is best to begin with the
vocation, that we may see who and what kind of men are called to the
ministry, and how they are introduced to it. We shall then consider how
faithfully they discharge their duty. We shall give the first place to
the bishops; and I wish it might be to their honour to hold the first
rank in this disquisition. But the subject itself will not permit me to
touch on this argument ever so slightly, without involving their deepest
disgrace. I shall remember, however, the nature of the work in which I
am now engaged, and shall not suffer my discourse, which ought to be
confined to simple doctrine, to exceed its proper bounds. But let some
one of those who have not lost all shame, answer me; What kind of
bishops are now generally chosen? To examine into their learning, is too
obsolete; and if any regard be paid to it, they choose some lawyer, who
understands pleading in a court, better than preaching in a Church. It
is evident, that for a hundred years, scarcely one in a hundred that has
been chosen, had any knowledge of the Holy Scripture. I say nothing of
the preceding ages; not that they were much better, but because our
business is only with the present Church. If we inquire into their
morals, we shall find that there have been few or none who would not
have been judged unworthy by the ancient canons. He who has not been a
drunkard, has been a fornicator; and he who has been free from both
these vices, has been either a gambler or a hunter, or dissolute in some
part of his life. For the old canons exclude a man from the episcopal
office for smaller vices than these. But the greatest absurdity of all
is, that even boys, scarcely ten years of age, have by the permission of
the pope been made bishops. And to such lengths of impudence and
stupidity have they proceeded, as not to be afraid of that extreme and
monstrous enormity, which is altogether repugnant to the common sense of
nature. Hence it appears how solemn and conscientious must have been
their elections, which were marked with such extreme negligence.

II. All the right of the people to choose has been entirely taken away.
Their suffrages, assent, subscriptions, and every thing of this kind,
have disappeared. All the power is transferred to the canons. They
confer the bishopric on whom they please, and then produce him before
the people, but to be adored, not to be examined. Leo, on the contrary,
exclaims that no reason permits this, and pronounces it to be a violent
imposition. When Cyprian declares it to be of Divine right, that an
election should not be made without the consent of the people, he shows
that a different method is repugnant to the word of God. The decrees of
various councils most severely prohibit it to be done in any other way,
and if it be done, command it to be void. If these things be true, there
is now no canonical election remaining in all the Papacy, either
according to Divine or ecclesiastical right. Now, though there were no
other evil, how will they be able to excuse themselves for having thus
deprived the Church of her right? But they say, the corruption of the
times required, that as the people and magistrates, in the choice of
bishops, were rather carried away by antipathies and partialities than
governed by an honest and correct judgment, the decision of this
business should be intrusted to a few. Let it be admitted that this was
an extreme remedy for a disease under desperate circumstances. Yet as
the medicine has been found more injurious than the disease itself, why
is there no remedy provided against this new malady? They reply, The
canons themselves have been particularly directed what course they ought
to pursue in an election. But do we doubt, that the people formerly
understood themselves to be bound by the most sacred laws, when they saw
the word of God proposed as their rule, whenever they assembled for the
election of a bishop? For that one declaration of God, in which he
describes the true character of a bishop, ought to have more weight than
millions of canons. Yet, corrupted by a most sinful disposition, they
paid no regard to law or equity. So in the present day, though there are
the best written laws, yet they remain buried in paper. At the same
time, it has been the general practice, and, as if it were founded in
reason, has obtained the general approbation, that drunkards,
fornicators, and gamblers, have been promoted to this honour. I do not
say enough. Bishoprics are the rewards of adulterers and panders. For
when they are given to hunters and fowlers, the business must be
considered as well managed. To attempt any excuse of such flagitious
proceedings is abominable. The people, I say, had a most excellent
canon, in the direction of the word of God, that “a bishop must be
blameless, apt to teach, no striker,” &c.[854] Why, then, was the right
of election transferred from the people to the canons? They reply,
Because the word of God was not attended to, amidst the tumults and
factions of the people. And why should it not now be again transferred
from them, who not only violate all laws, but, casting off all shame,
mingle and confound heaven and earth together, by their lust, avarice,
and ambition?

III. But it is a false pretence when they say, that the present practice
was introduced as a remedy. We read that in the early times, cities were
frequently thrown into confusion at the election of their bishops; yet
no one ever dared to think of depriving the citizens of their right. For
they had other ways, either of guarding against these evils, or of
correcting them when they occurred. But I will state the real truth of
the case. When the people began to be negligent about choosing, and,
considering this care as less suitable to themselves, left it to the
presbyters, the latter abused this occasion to usurp a tyrannical power,
which they afterwards confirmed to themselves by new canons. Their form
of ordination is no other than a mere mockery. For the appearance of
examination which they display in it, is so frivolous and jejune, that
it is even destitute of all plausibility. The power of nominating
bishops, therefore, which some princes have obtained by stipulation with
the Roman pontiff, has caused no new injury to the Church, because the
election has only been taken from the canons, who had seized, or rather
stolen, it without any just claim. It is certainly a most disgraceful
example, that courtiers are made bishops, and sent from the court to
seize upon the Churches; and it ought to be the concern of all pious
princes to refrain from such an abuse. For it is an impious robbery of
the Church, whenever a bishop is imposed upon any people, who have not
desired, or at least freely approved of him. But the disorderly custom
which has long prevailed in the Churches, has given occasion to princes
to assume the presentation of bishops to themselves. For they would
rather have this at their own disposal, than in the hands of those who
had no more right to it, and by whom it was not less abused.

IV. This is the goodly calling, in consequence of which bishops boast of
being successors of the apostles. The power of creating presbyters, they
say, belongs exclusively to them. But this is a gross corruption of the
ancient institution; for by their ordination they create, not presbyters
to rule and feed the people, but priests to offer sacrifice. So when
they consecrate deacons, they have nothing to do with their true and
proper office, but only ordain them to certain ceremonies about the
chalice and patine. In the Council of Chalcedon, on the contrary, it was
decreed, that there should be no absolute ordinations, that is, without
some place being at the same time assigned to the persons ordained,
where they were to exercise their office. This decree was highly useful,
for two reasons—first, that the Churches might not be burdened with an
unnecessary charge, and the money which ought to be distributed to the
poor consumed upon idle men; secondly, that the persons ordained might
consider themselves not as promoted to an honour, but as intrusted with
an office to the discharge of which they were bound by a solemn
engagement. But the Romish doctors, who think their belly ought to be
all their care, even in matters of religion, first explain the requisite
title to consist in an income sufficient for their support, whether
arising from their own patrimony or from a benefice. Therefore, when
they ordain a deacon or a presbyter, without giving themselves any
concern where he is to officiate, they readily admit him, if he be only
rich enough to maintain himself. But who can admit this, that the title
which the decree of the council requires is a competent annual income?
And because the more recent canons condemned the bishops to maintain
those whom they had ordained without a sufficient title, in order to
prevent their too great facility in the admission of candidates, they
have even contrived a way to evade this penalty. For the person ordained
mentions any title whatever, and promises that he will be content with
it. By this engagement he is debarred from an action for maintenance. I
say nothing of a thousand frauds practised in this business; as when
some falsely exhibit empty titles of benefices, from which they could
not derive five pence a year; others, under a secret stipulation, borrow
benefices which they promise to return immediately, but which, in many
instances, are never returned; and other similar mysteries.

V. But even though these grosser abuses were removed, is it not always
absurd to ordain a presbyter without assigning him any station? For they
ordain no one, but to offer sacrifice. Now, the legitimate ordination of
a presbyter consists in a call to the government of the Church, and that
of a deacon to the collection of the alms. They adorn their procedure,
indeed, with many pompous ceremonies, that its appearance may gain the
veneration of the simple; but with judicious persons, what can be gained
by those appearances unaccompanied by any solidity or truth? For they
use ceremonies either derived from Judaism, or invented among
themselves, from which it would be better to refrain. But as to any real
examination, the consent of the people, and other necessary things, they
are not mentioned. The shadow they retain of these things, I consider
not worthy of notice. By shadow, I mean those ridiculous gesticulations,
used as a dull and foolish imitation of antiquity. The bishops have
their vicars, to inquire before an ordination, into the learning of the
candidates. But in what manner? They interrogate them, whether they can
read their masses; whether they know how to decline some common noun
that may occur in reading, or to conjugate a verb, or to tell the
meaning of a word; for it is not necessary for them to know how to give
the sense of a verse. And yet none are rejected from the priesthood, who
are deficient even in these puerile elements, provided they bring some
present or recommendation to favour. In the same spirit it is, that when
the persons to be ordained present themselves at the altar, some one
inquires three times, in a language not understood, whether they are
worthy of that honour. One (who never saw them before, but, that no part
of the process might be wanting, acts his part in the farce) answers,
They are worthy. What accusation is there against these venerable
fathers, but that by sporting with such manifest sacrileges they are
guilty of unblushing mockery of God and men? But because they have been
long in possession of it, they suppose it is now become right. For
whoever ventures to open his mouth against these glaring and atrocious
enormities, they hurry him away to execution, as if he had committed a
capital crime. Would they do this if they believed that there was any
God?

VI. Now, how much better do they conduct themselves in the collation of
benefices?—a thing formerly connected with ordination, but now entirely
separated from it. The ways in which this business is managed, are
various. For the bishops are not the only persons who confer benefices,
and in those the collation of which is ascribed to them, they do not
always possess the full power, but while they retain the name of the
collation for the sake of honour, the presentation belongs to others.
Besides these, there are nominations from the colleges, resignations
either absolute or made for the sake of exchange, commendatory
rescripts, preventions, and the like. But they all conduct themselves in
such a manner, that no one can reproach another for any thing. I
maintain that scarcely one benefice in a hundred, in all the Papacy, is
at present conferred without simony, according to the definition which
the ancients gave of that crime. I do not say that they all purchase
with ready money; but show me one in twenty who obtains a benefice
without any indirect recommendation. Some are promoted by relationship,
others by alliance, others by the influence of parents, others gain
favour by their services. In short, the end for which sacerdotal offices
are conferred, is not to provide for the Churches, but for the persons
to whom they are given. And therefore they call them _benefices_, a name
by which they sufficiently declare that they view them in no other light
than as donatives of princes, by which they either conciliate the favour
of their soldiers, or reward their services. I forbear to remark that
these rewards are conferred upon barbers, cooks, muleteers, and other
dregs of the people. And, in the present day, scarcely any litigations
make more noise in the courts of justice than those respecting
benefices; so that they may be considered as a mere prey thrown out for
dogs to hunt after. Is it tolerable even to hear the name of _pastors_
given to men who have forced themselves into the possession of a Church,
as into an enemy’s farm; who have obtained it by a legal process; who
have purchased it with money; who have gained it by dishonourable
services; who, while infants just beginning to lisp, succeeded to it as
an inheritance transmitted by their uncles and cousins, and sometimes
even by fathers to their illegitimate children?

VII. Would the licentiousness of the people, however corrupt and
lawless, ever have proceeded to such a length? But it is still more
monstrous that one man—I say nothing of his qualifications, only a man
not capable of governing himself—should preside over the government of
five or six Churches. We may now see, in the courts of princes, young
men who hold one archbishopric, two bishoprics, and three abbeys. It is
a common thing for canons to be loaded with five, six, or seven
benefices, of which they take not the least care, except in receiving
the revenues. I will not object that this is every where condemned by
the word of God, which has long ceased to have the least weight with
them. I will not object that various councils have made many very severe
decrees against such disorder; for these also, whenever they please,
they fearlessly treat with contempt. But I maintain, that both these
things are execrable enormities, utterly repugnant to God, to nature,
and to the government of the Church—that one robber should engross
several Churches at once, and that the name of _pastor_ should be given
to one who could not be present with his flock, even if he would; and
yet, such is their impudence, they cover these abominable impurities
with the name of the Church, in order to exempt them from all censure.
And, moreover, that inviolable succession, to the merit of which they
boast that the Church owes its perpetual preservation, is included in
these iniquities.

VIII. Now, let us see how faithfully they exercise their office, which
is the second mark by which we are to judge of a legitimate pastor. Of
the priests whom they create, some are _monks_, others are called
_seculars_. The former of these classes was unknown to the ancient
Church, and to hold such a place in the Church was so incompatible with
the monastic profession, that anciently, when any one was chosen from a
monastery to be one of the clergy, he ceased to be a monk. And even
Gregory, in whose time there was much corruption, yet suffered not this
confusion to take place. For he enjoined, that they who became abbots
should be divested of their clerical character; for that no one could be
a monk and a clergyman at the same time, because the one would be an
impediment to the other. Now, if I inquire how that man can duly
discharge his office, whom the canons declare to be unfit for it, what
answer will they make? I suppose they will cite those abortive decrees
of Innocent and Boniface, by which monks are admitted to the honour and
authority of the priesthood, so that they may still remain in their
monasteries. But what reason is there, that any illiterate ass, as soon
as he has once occupied the see of Rome, should by one diminutive word
overturn all the usages of antiquity? But of this we shall say more
hereafter. Suffice it at present to remark, that during the purer times
of the Church, it was deemed a great absurdity for a monk to hold the
office of a priest. For Jerome denies that he performed the office of a
priest while he lived among the monks; but represents himself as one of
the people who ought to be governed by the priests. But if we grant them
this point, how do they execute their office? There are some of the
mendicants, and a few of the others, who preach. All the rest of the
monks either chant or mutter over masses in their cloisters, as if it
were the design of Jesus Christ that presbyters should be appointed for
this purpose, or as if the nature of their office admitted of it. While
the Scripture clearly testifies that it is the duty of a presbyter to
govern his own Church,[855] is it not an impious profanation to transfer
to another object, or rather to make a total change in, God’s sacred
institution? For when they are ordained monks, they are expressly
forbidden to do things which the Lord enjoins upon all presbyters. This
direction is given to them: Let a monk be content in his cloister, and
not presume to administer the sacraments, or to execute any other branch
of public duty. Let them deny, if they can, that it is a glaring mockery
of God, to create a presbyter in order that he may refrain from
discharging his true and genuine office, and to give a man the name, who
cannot possess the thing.

IX. I proceed to the seculars; of whom some are called _beneficiaries_,
that is, they have benefices by which they are maintained; others hire
themselves to labour by the day, in saying mass or singing, and live on
the wages which they gain from these employments. Benefices are either
attended with cure of souls, as bishoprics and parishes; or they are the
stipends of delicate men, who gain a livelihood by chanting, as
prebends, canonries, dignities, chaplainships, and the like. But in the
confusion which has been introduced, abbeys and priories are conferred
not only on secular priests, but also on boys, by privilege, that is, by
common and ordinary custom. As to the mercenaries, who seek their daily
sustenance, how could they act otherwise than they do, that is, to offer
themselves to hire in a mean and shameful manner; especially among such
a vast multitude as now swarms in the world? Therefore, when they are
ashamed of open begging, or think they should gain but little by that
practice, they run about like hungry dogs, and by their importunity, as
by barking, extort from reluctant hands some morsels to put into their
mouths. Here if I should endeavour to describe what a great disgrace it
is to the Church, that the office and dignity of the presbytery has been
so degraded, there would be no end. My readers, therefore, have no
reason to expect from me a long discourse, corresponding to such a
flagitious enormity. I only assert, in few words, that if it be the duty
of a presbyter, as the word of God prescribes, and the ancient canons
require, to feed the Church and administer the spiritual kingdom of
Christ,[856] all those priests who have no work or wages, except in
making merchandise of masses, not only fail of executing their office,
but have no legitimate office to execute. For there is no place assigned
to them to teach; they have no people to govern. In short, nothing
remains to them but the altar upon which to offer up Christ in
sacrifice; and this is not sacrificing to God, but to demons, as we
shall see in another place.

X. Here I touch not on the external vices, but only on the intestine
evil which is deeply rooted in their institution, and cannot be
separated from it. I shall add a remark, which will sound harshly in
their ears, but because it is true, it must be expressed—that canons,
deans, chaplains, provosts, and all who are supported by sinecures, are
to be considered in the same light. For what service can they perform
for the Church? They have discarded the preaching of the word, the
superintendence of discipline, and the administration of the sacraments,
as employments attended with too much labour and trouble. What have they
remaining, then, to boast of as true presbyters? They have chanting and
the pomp of ceremonies. But what is all this to the purpose? If they
plead custom, usage, prescription of long continuance, I will confront
them with the decision of Christ, where he has given us a description of
true presbyters, and what qualifications ought to be possessed by those
who wish to be considered as such. If they cannot bear so hard a law as
to submit themselves to the rule of Christ, let them at least allow this
cause to be decided by the authority of the primitive Church. But their
condition will not be at all better, if we judge of their state by the
ancient canons. Those who have degenerated into canons, ought to be
presbyters, as they were in former times, to govern the Church in common
with the bishop, and to be his colleagues in the pastoral office. These
_chapter dignities_, as they call them, have nothing to do with the
government of the Church; much less have the chaplainships, and the
other dregs of similar offices. In what estimation, then, shall we hold
them all? It is certain that the word of Christ and the practice of the
ancient Church agree in excluding them from the honour of the
presbytery. They contend, however, that they are presbyters; but the
mask must be torn off. Then we shall find, that their whole profession
is most foreign and remote from the office of presbyters, which is
described to us by the apostles, and which was required in the primitive
Church. All such orders, therefore, by whatever titles they may be
distinguished, since they are of modern invention, or at least are not
supported by the institution of God, or the ancient usage of the Church,
ought to have no place in a description of the spiritual government,
which the Church has received, consecrated by the mouth of the Lord
himself. Or, if they wish me to use plainer language, since chaplains,
canons, deans, provosts, and other idlers of this description, do not
even with their little fingers touch a particle of that duty which is
necessarily required in presbyters, it is not to be endured that they
should falsely usurp the honour, and thus violate the sacred institution
of Jesus Christ.

XI. There remain the bishops and the rectors of parishes, who would
afford me great pleasure if they exerted themselves to support their
office. For we would readily admit to them, that they have a pious and
honourable office, provided they discharged it. But when they wish to be
considered as pastors, notwithstanding they desert the churches
committed to them, and transfer the care of them to others, they act
just as if the office of a pastor consisted in doing nothing. If a
usurer, who never stirred his foot out of the city, should profess
himself a ploughman or vinedresser,—if a soldier, who had spent all his
time in the camp and in the field of battle, and had never seen a court
of justice or books, should offer himself as a lawyer,—who could endure
such gross absurdities? But these men act in a manner still more absurd,
who wish to be accounted and called legitimate pastors of the Church,
and yet are not willing to be so in reality. For how few of them are
there, who execute the government of their Churches even in appearance!
Many of them all their lifetime devour the revenues of Churches, which
they never approach even to look at them. Others either go themselves,
or send an agent once every year, that nothing may be lost by farming
them out. When this abuse first intruded itself, they who wished to
enjoy this kind of vacation from duty, exempted themselves by special
privileges. Now, it is a rare case for any one to reside in his own
Church; for they consider their Churches as no other than farms, over
which they place their vicars, as bailiffs or stewards. But it is
repugnant to common sense, that a man should be pastor of a flock, who
never saw one of the sheep.

XII. It appears that some seeds of this evil had sprung up in the time
of Gregory, and that the rectors of Churches began to be negligent in
preaching and teaching; for he heavily complains of it in the following
passages: “The world is full of priests; but yet there are few labourers
found in the harvest; because we undertake the sacerdotal office, but
perform not the work of the office.” Again: “Because they have no bowels
of charity, they wish to be considered as lords; they do not acknowledge
themselves to be fathers. They change the place of humility into an
aggrandizement of dominion.” Again: “But, O ye pastors, what are we
doing, who receive the wages and are not labourers? We have fallen into
extraneous employments; we undertake one thing, and perform another. We
relinquish the office of preaching; and it is our misfortune, I
conceive, that we are called bishops, since we hold a title of honour,
but not of virtue.” Since he uses such severity of language against
those who were only chargeable with a want of sufficient assiduity, or
diligence, in their office, what would he have said, if he had seen
scarcely any, or very few of the bishops, and among the rest hardly one
in a hundred, ascend a pulpit once in their lives? For things are come
to such a pitch of frenzy, that it is generally esteemed beneath the
dignity of a bishop to deliver a sermon to a congregation. In the time
of Bernard there had been some declension; but we see how sharply he
reproves and inveighs against the whole body of the clergy, who, it is
probable, however, were far less corrupt in that age than they are in
the present.

XIII. Now, if any one will closely observe and strictly examine this
whole form of ecclesiastical government, which exists at the present day
under the Papacy, he will find it a nest of the most lawless and
ferocious banditti in the world. Every thing in it is clearly so
dissimilar and repugnant to the institution of Christ, so degenerated
from the ancient regulations and usages of the Church, so at variance
with nature and reason, that no greater injury can be done to Christ,
than by pleading his name in defence of such a disorderly government. We
(they say) are the pillars of the Church, the prelates of religion, the
vicars of Christ, the heads of the faithful, because we have succeeded
to the power and authority of the apostles. They are perpetually
vaunting of these fooleries, as if they were talking to blocks of wood;
but whenever they repeat these boasts, I will ask them in return, what
they have in common with the apostles. For the question is not
respecting any hereditary honour, which may be given to men while they
are asleep, but of the office of preaching, which they so carefully
avoid. So, when we assert that their kingdom is the tyranny of
Antichrist, they immediately reply, that it is that venerable hierarchy,
which has been so often commended by great and holy men. As though the
holy fathers, when they praised the ecclesiastical hierarchy, or
spiritual government, as it had been delivered to them by the hands of
the apostles, ever dreamed of this chaos of deformity and desolation,
where the bishops for the most part are illiterate asses, unacquainted
with the first and plainest rudiments of the faith, or, in some
instances, are children just out of leading-strings; and if any be more
learned,—which, however, is a rare case,—they consider a bishopric to be
nothing but a title of splendour and magnificence; where the rectors of
Churches think no more of feeding the flock, than a shoemaker does of
ploughing; where all things are confounded with a dispersion worse than
that of Babel, so that there can no longer be seen any clear vestige of
the administration practised in the time of the fathers.

XIV. What if we proceed to inquire into their manners? “Where is that
light of the world,” which Christ requires? where that “salt of the
earth?”[857] where that sanctity, which might serve as a perpetual
example to others? There is no class of men in the present day more
infamous for profusion, delicacy, luxury, and profligacy of every kind;
no class of men contains more apt or expert masters of every species of
imposture, fraud, treachery, and perfidy; nowhere can be found equal
cunning or audacity in the commission of crime. I say nothing of their
pride, haughtiness, rapacity, and cruelty; I say nothing of the
abandoned licentiousness of every part of their lives;—enormities which
the world is so wearied with bearing, that there is no room for the
least apprehension lest I should be charged with excessive exaggeration.
One thing I assert, which it is not in their power to deny—that there is
scarcely one of the bishops, and not one in a hundred of the parochial
clergy, who, if sentence were to be passed upon his conduct according to
the ancient canons, would not be excommunicated, or, at the very least,
deposed from his office. That ancient discipline, which required a more
accurate investigation to be made into the conduct of the clergy, has so
long been obsolete, that I may be considered as making an incredible
assertion; but such is the fact. Now, let all, who fight under the
standards and auspices of the Roman see, go and boast of their
sacerdotal order. It is evident that the order which they have is not
derived from Christ, from his apostles, from the fathers, or from the
ancient Church.

XV. Now, let the deacons come forward, with that most sacred
distribution which they have of the property of the Church. They do not
at present, however, create their deacons for any such purpose; for they
enjoin them nothing but to serve at the altar, to say or chant the
gospel, and do I know not what trifles. Nothing of the alms, nothing of
the care of the poor, nothing of the whole function which they executed
in primitive times. I speak of the institution itself. For if we advert
to the fact, it is now become no office at all, but only a step towards
the priesthood. In one circumstance, those who act the part of a deacon
at the mass, exhibit a useless and frivolous resemblance of antiquity,
in receiving the offerings before the consecration. Now, it was the
ancient custom, that before the communion of the supper, the faithful
kissed each other, and then offered their alms at the altar; thus they
expressed their charity, first by a sign, and then by active
beneficence. The deacon, who was steward for the poor, received what was
given, in order to distribute it. Of the alms given at present, no more
reaches the poor than if they were thrown into the sea. This false
appearance of deaconship, therefore, is a mockery of the Church. It
contains nothing resembling the apostolic institution, or the ancient
usage. Even the distribution of the property they have turned into
another channel; and have ordered it in such a way, that it is
impossible to imagine any thing more disorderly. For as robbers, after
having murdered some ill-fated travellers, divide the plunder among
themselves, so these men, after having extinguished the light of God’s
word, and, as it were, cut the throat of the Church, have concluded that
whatever had been dedicated to sacred uses, was abandoned to plunder and
rapine. They have therefore made a division of it, and every one has
seized as large a share as he could.

XVI. Here, all the ancient usages which we have described, have not only
been disturbed, but entirely expunged and abolished The principal part
of this plunder was seized by the bishops and the presbyters of cities,
who, being enriched by it, were converted into canons. That the
partition was made in confusion is evident from the contentions which
prevail among them, even to this day, about their respective limits.
But, however it may be managed, they have taken care that not a penny of
all the property of the Church should reach the poor, who were at least
entitled to half of it. For the canons expressly allot them one fourth
part, and assign another fourth part to the bishops, to be laid out in
hospitality and other offices of charity. I say nothing of what the
clergy ought to do with their portion, and to what use they ought to
apply it. The residue, which is appropriated to the reparation of
temples, edifices, and other expenses, it has been sufficiently shown,
ought to be at the service of the poor in time of necessity. If they had
a single spark of the fear of God in their hearts, could they bear this
reflection of conscience, that every thing they eat, and drink, and
wear, is the fruit of robbery, and even of sacrilege? But though they
are little affected with the judgment of God, they should at least
consider that those, whom they wish to persuade into a belief of their
possession of such an excellent and well regulated system in their
Church as they are accustomed to boast, are men endued with sense and
reason. Let them answer me, in a word, whether deaconship be a license
for theft and robbery? If they deny this, they will also be obliged to
confess, that they have no such office left; seeing that among them the
whole administration of the revenues of the Church has been openly
perverted into a system of sacrilegious depredation.

XVII. But here they advance a most plausible plea. They allege that the
dignity of the Church is becomingly sustained by this magnificence. And
such is the impudence of some of their faction, that they dare to boast
in express terms, that this princely state of the priesthood constitutes
the only fulfilment of those predictions in which the ancient prophets
describe the splendour of the kingdom of Christ. It is not in vain, they
say, that God has made the following promises to his Church: “The kings
of Tarshish and of the isles shall bring presents; the kings of Sheba
and Seba shall offer gifts. Yea, all kings shall fall down before
him.”[858] “Awake, awake; put on thy strength, O Zion; put on thy
beautiful garments, O Jerusalem.”[859] “All they from Sheba shall come;
they shall bring gold and incense; and they shall show forth the praises
of the Lord. All the flocks of Kedar shall be gathered together unto
thee.”[860] If I should dwell long on a refutation of this presumption,
I fear I should expose myself to the charge of folly. Therefore I am not
inclined to spend my words in vain. But I ask, if any Jew were to abuse
these passages in the same manner, what reply would they make to him?
There is no doubt but they would reprove his stupidity, in transferring
to the flesh and the world things which are spiritually spoken of the
spiritual kingdom of the Messiah. For we know that, under the image of
earthly things, the prophets have represented to us the heavenly glory
of God, which ought to shine in the Church. For of those external
blessings which their words express, the Church never had less abundance
than in the days of the apostles; and yet it is acknowledged by all that
the kingdom of Christ, then flourished in its greatest vigour. What,
then, it will be asked, is the meaning of these passages? I reply, that
every thing precious, high, and excellent, ought to be in subjection to
the Lord. In regard to the express declaration, that kings shall submit
their sceptres to Christ, cast their crowns at his feet, and consecrate
their wealth to the Church, when (they will say) was it more truly and
fully exemplified, than when Theodosius, casting off the purple robes,
and relinquishing the ensigns of imperial majesty, submitted himself,
like one of the common people, to do solemn penance before God and the
Church? than when he and other such pious princes devoted their cares
and exertions to the preservation of pure doctrine in the Church, and to
the support and protection of sound teachers? But how far the priests of
that age were from rioting in superfluous riches, a single expression of
the Council of Aquileia, at which Ambrose presided, sufficiently
declares. “Poverty is honourable in the priests of the Lord.” It is true
that the bishops at that time had some wealth, which they might have
employed to display the honour of the Church, if they had considered
them as the Church’s real ornaments. But knowing that there was nothing
more inconsistent with the office of pastors, than to display and to
pride themselves on the luxury of their tables, the splendour of their
apparel, a large retinue, and magnificent palaces, they followed and
maintained the humility and modesty, and even the poverty which Christ
has consecrated in all his ministers.

XVIII. But not to dwell too long on this point, let us again collect
into a brief summary, how very much the present dispensation, or rather
dissipation, of the property of the Church, differs from that true
office of deacons, which the word of God commends to us, and which the
ancient Church observed. That portion which is employed in the ornaments
of temples, I assert, is grossly misapplied, if it be not regulated by
that moderation which the nature of sacred things requires, and which
the apostles and holy fathers have prescribed both by precept and by
examples. But what is there seen like this, in the temples at the
present day? Whatever is conformable, I do not say to that primitive
frugality, but to any honourable mediocrity, is rejected. Nothing
pleases, but what savours of the profusion and corruption of the present
times. At the same time they are so far from feeling any just concern
for the living temples, that they would suffer thousands of the poor to
perish with hunger, rather than convert the smallest chalice or silver
pitcher into money, to relieve their wants. And, not of myself to
pronounce any thing more severe, I would only request my pious readers
to indulge this one reflection. If it could happen that Exuperius,—that
bishop of Toulouse whom we have mentioned,—if Acacius, if Ambrose, or
any other such,—should be raised from the dead, what would they say? In
such extreme necessity of the poor, they surely would not approve of the
riches of the Church being applied to another use, and that an
unnecessary one. I forbear to remark, that these purposes for which they
are employed, even if there were no poor, are in many respects
injurious, but of no utility whatever. But I will not appeal to the
authority of men. The property has been dedicated to Christ, and
therefore ought to be dispensed according to his will. It will be
useless for them to allege, that this portion has been employed for
Christ, which they have squandered in a manner inconsistent with his
command. To confess the truth, however, there is not much of the
ordinary revenue of the Church lost in these expenses. For there are no
bishoprics so opulent, no abbeys so rich, in short, no benefices so
numerous or ample, as to satisfy the voraciousness of the priests.
Wishing to spare themselves, therefore, they induce the people, from
superstitious motives, to take what ought to be bestowed upon the poor,
and apply it to the building of temples, the erection of statues, the
purchase of chalices and shrines for relics, and the provision of costly
vestments. This is the gulf which swallows up all the daily alms.

XIX. Of the revenue which they derive from lands and possessions, what
can I say more than I have already said, and which is evident to the
observation of all men? We see with what fidelity the principal portion
is disposed of by those who are called bishops and abbots. What folly is
it to seek here for any ecclesiastical order! Was it reasonable that
they, whose life ought to be an eminent example of frugality, modesty,
temperance, and humility, should emulate the pomp of princes, in the
number of their attendants, the splendour of their palaces, the elegance
of their apparel, and the luxury of their tables? And how very
inconsistent it was with the office of those whom the eternal and
inviolable decree of God forbids to be greedy of filthy lucre,[861] and
commands to be content with simple fare, not only to lay their hands
upon towns and castles, but to seize on the largest provinces, and even
to assume the reins of empire! If they despise the word of God, what
reply will they make to those ancient decrees of councils, by which it
is ordained that a bishop shall have a small house near the Church, a
frugal table, and humble furniture? What will they say to that sentence
of the Council of Aquileia, which declares poverty to be honourable in
the priests of the Lord? For the direction given by Jerome to Nepotian,
that poor persons and strangers, and Christ among them, should be
familiar guests at his table, they will perhaps reject as too austere.
But they will be ashamed to contradict what he immediately
subjoins—“that it is the glory of a bishop to provide for the poor, and
the disgrace of all priests to seek to enrich themselves.” Yet they
cannot receive this, but they must all condemn themselves to ignominy.
But it is not necessary to pursue them with any further severity at
present, as it was only my intention to show, that the legitimate office
of deacon has long been entirely abolished among them, to prevent their
continuing to pride themselves on this title, for the purpose of
recommending their Church. And this design, I think, I have fully
accomplished.

Footnote 854:

1 Tim. iii. 2-7.

Footnote 855:

Acts xx. 28.

Footnote 856:

1 Cor. iv. 1.

Footnote 857:

Matt. v. 13, 14.

Footnote 858:

Psalm lxxii. 10, 11.

Footnote 859:

Isaiah iii. 1.

Footnote 860:

Isaiah lx. 6, 7.

Footnote 861:

Titus i. 7.

CHAPTER VI.
THE PRIMACY OF THE ROMAN SEE.

Hitherto we have treated of those ecclesiastical orders which existed in
the government of the ancient Church, but which afterwards, in process
of time, being corrupted and gradually more and more perverted, now in
the Papal Church merely retain their names, while in reality they are
nothing but masks. And this we have done, that by the comparison the
pious reader might judge what sort of a Church the Romanists have, for
the sake of which they represent us as guilty of schism, because we have
separated from it. But the head and summit of the whole establishment,
that is, the primacy of the Roman see, by which they endeavour to prove
that the Catholic Church is exclusively theirs, we have not yet touched
on; because it originated neither in the institution of Christ nor in
the usage of the ancient Church, as did the other offices, which we have
shown were handed down from antiquity, but since, through the corruption
of the times, have degenerated, and even assumed altogether a new form.
And yet they endeavour to persuade the world, that the principal and
almost only bond of the unity of the Church is adherence to the see of
Rome, and perseverance in obedience to it. This is the foundation on
which they principally rest, when they wish to deny us all claim to the
Church, and to arrogate it to themselves; that they retain the head, on
which the unity of the Church depends, and without which it must be torn
asunder and crumble to pieces. For their notion is, that the Church is
like a mutilated and headless body, unless it be subject to the Roman
see as its head. Therefore, when they dispute respecting their
hierarchy, they always commence with this axiom, that the Roman pontiff,
as the vicar of Christ, who is Head of the Church, presides over the
universal Church in his stead, and that the Church cannot be well
constituted, unless that see holds the primacy above all others.
Wherefore it is necessary to discuss this subject also, that nothing
belonging to the good government of the Church may be omitted.

II. Let the question, therefore, be stated thus: Whether it be necessary
to the true system of what they call the hierarchy or government of the
Church, that one see should have the preëminence above all the rest in
dignity and power, so as to be the head of the whole body. Now, we
subject the Church to very unreasonable laws, if we impose this
necessity upon it without the word of God. Therefore, if our adversaries
wish to gain their cause, it is necessary for them, in the first place,
to show that this economy was instituted by Christ. For this purpose
they allege the high-priesthood ordained in the law, and the supreme
jurisdiction of the high-priest which God appointed at Jerusalem. But it
is easy to give an answer to this, or, indeed, various answers, if they
would not be satisfied with one. In the first place, there is no reason
for extending to the whole world what was useful in a single nation; on
the contrary, the case of a single nation and that of the whole world
are widely different. Because the Jews were surrounded on all sides with
idolaters, God, in order to prevent their being distracted by a variety
of religions, fixed the seat of his worship in the centre of the
country, and there he set over them one principal priest, to whom they
were all to be subject, for the better preservation of unity among them.
Now, when the true religion has been diffused over the whole world, who
does not perceive it to be utterly absurd to assign the government of
the east and west to one man? It is just as if it were contended, that
the whole world ought to be governed by one magistrate, because there is
only one in a small district. But there is another reason why this ought
not to be made a precedent for imitation. Every one knows that the
Jewish high-priest was a type of Christ: now that the priesthood has
been transferred, that right must also be transferred. To whom, then, is
it transferred? Certainly not to the pope, as he impudently presumes to
boast, when he assumes this title to himself; but to Christ, who
exercises that office alone without vicar or successor, and resigns the
honour to no other. For this priesthood, which was prefigured in the
law, consists not only in preaching or doctrine, but in the propitiation
of God, which Christ effected in his death, and in that intercession
which he is now making with the Father.

III. There is no reason, therefore, why they should confine us to this
example, as if it were a law perpetually binding, whereas we see it was
only of temporary duration. From the New Testament they have nothing to
adduce in support of their opinion, but that it was said to one, “Thou
art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my Church.”[862] Again:
“Peter, lovest thou me? Feed my sheep.”[863] But to render these proofs
substantial, it is necessary for them first to show that he who is
commanded to feed the flock of Christ, is invested with authority over
all Churches, and that binding and loosing are no other than governing
the whole world. But as Peter had received the command from the Lord to
feed the Church, so he exhorts all other presbyters to do the same.[864]
Hence it is easy to infer, that this charge of Christ conferred nothing
peculiar upon Peter beyond others, or that Peter communicated equally to
others the right which he had received. But, not to dispute to no
purpose, we have in another place, from the mouth of Christ himself, a
clear explanation of what he intends by _binding_ and _loosing_, namely,
“remitting and retaining sins.”[865] The manner of _binding_ and
_loosing_ is shown by the whole tenor of Scripture, and particularly by
Paul, when he says that the ministers of the gospel have received a
commission to reconcile men to God,[866] and that they have authority to
inflict punishment on those who shall reject this favour.[867]

IV. How grossly they pervert those passages which make mention of
binding and loosing, I have hinted before, and shall hereafter have to
state more at large. At present it is worth while to see what they can
extract from that celebrated answer of Christ to Peter. He promised him
“the keys of the kingdom of heaven.” He said, “Whatsoever thou shalt
bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven.”[868] If we can agree
respecting the word _keys_, and the manner of _binding_, all dispute
will immediately cease. For the pope himself will readily relinquish the
charge committed to the apostles, which, being full of labour and
trouble, would deprive him of his pleasures without yielding him any
profit. Since it is the doctrine of the gospel that opens heaven to us,
it is beautifully expressed by the metaphorical appellation of
_keys_.—There is no other way in which men are _bound_ and _loosed_,
than when some are reconciled to God by faith, and others are more
firmly bound by their unbelief. If the pope assumed nothing but this to
himself, I am persuaded there is no man who would either envy him or
contend with him.—But this succession being laborious, and by no means
lucrative, and, therefore, not at all satisfactory to the pope, hence
arises a controversy on the meaning of Christ’s promise to Peter.
Therefore I infer from the subject itself, that it only denotes the
dignity of the apostolic office, which cannot be separated from the
burden of it. For if the definition which I have given be admitted,—and
it cannot without the greatest effrontery be rejected,—then here is
nothing given to Peter that was not also common to his colleagues;
because otherwise there would not only be a personal injury done to
them, but the majesty of the doctrine would be diminished. This our
adversaries strenuously oppose. But what does it avail them to strike
upon this rock? For they can never prove, but that as the preaching of
the same gospel was enjoined upon all the apostles, so they were all
equally armed with the power of binding and loosing. They allege that
Christ, when he promised to give the keys to Peter, constituted him head
of the universal Church. But what he there promised to one, he in
another passage confers upon all the rest together, and delivers it, as
it were, into their hands.[869] If the same power, which had been
promised to one, was granted to all, in what respect is he superior to
his colleagues? His preëminence, they say, consists in this—that he
receives separately by himself, as well as in common with them, that
which is only given to the others in common. What if I reply, with
Cyprian and Augustine, that Christ did this, not to prefer one man
before others, but to display the unity of the Church? For this is the
language of Cyprian: “That in the person of one man God gave the keys to
them all, to signify the unity of them all; that, therefore, the rest
were, the same as Peter, endued with an equal participation both of
honour and of power; but that Christ commences with one, to show that
the Church is one.” Augustine says, “If there had not been in Peter a
mysterious representation of the Church, the Lord would not have said to
him, I will give thee the keys; for if this was said to Peter alone, the
Church possesses them not; but if the Church has the keys, Peter, when
he received them, must have represented the whole Church.” And in
another place: “When a question was put to them all, Peter alone
answers, Thou art the Christ; and to him Christ says, I will give thee
the keys, as if the power of binding and loosing had been conferred upon
him alone; whereas he made that answer on behalf of all, and received
this power in common with all, as sustaining the character of unity. He
is mentioned, therefore, one for all, because there is unity in all.”

V. But this declaration, “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will
build my Church,”[870] they say, is no where to be found addressed to
any other. As if in this passage Christ affirmed any thing respecting
Peter, different from what Paul, and even Peter himself, asserts,
respecting all Christians. For Paul makes “Christ the chief
corner-stone,” upon which they are built who “grow unto a holy temple in
the Lord.”[871] And Peter enjoins us to be “as lively stones,” who,
being founded on that “corner-stone, elect and precious,”[872] are by
this connection at once united to our God and to each other. This
belongs to Peter, they say, above the rest, because it is expressly
attributed to him in particular. I readily allow Peter the honour of
being placed among the first in the structure of the Church, or, if they
insist upon it, the very first of all the faithful; but I will not
permit them to infer from this that he possessed a primacy over the
rest. For what kind of reasoning is this: he excels the rest in ardour
of zeal, in doctrine, in magnanimity; therefore he possesses authority
over them? As though we might not with greater plausibility conclude
that Andrew was superior to Peter, because he preceded him in time, and
introduced him to Christ;[873] but this I pass over. I am willing that
Peter should have the precedence, but there is a great difference
between the honour of preceding others, and authority over them. We see
that the apostles generally paid this deference to Peter, that he used
to speak first in their assembly, and took the lead in proposing,
exhorting, and admonishing; but we read not a word of his power.

VI. We are not yet, however, come to that question; I only mean at
present to show, that they have no solid argument, when they wish to
erect an empire over the universal church upon no other foundation than
the name of Peter. For those antiquated fooleries with which they
endeavoured at first to impose on the world, are not worthy of a
relation, much less of a refutation—that the Church was founded on
Peter, because it is said, “Upon this rock I will build my Church.”[874]
They allege in their defence, that it has been so explained by some of
the fathers. But when this is contradicted by the whole tenor of
Scripture, what avails it to set up their authority in opposition to
God? And why do we dispute about the meaning of those words, as though
they were ambiguous or obscure? whereas nothing can be expressed with
greater clearness or precision. Peter, in his own name and that of his
brethren, had confessed that Christ was “the Son of God.”[875] Upon this
rock Christ builds his Church, because it is the only foundation, as
Paul says, “other” than which “can no man lay.”[876] Nor do I reject the
authority of the fathers in this case, from a want of testimonies in
their writings to support what I maintain, if I were inclined to adduce
them. But as I have observed, I am unwilling to be unnecessarily tedious
to my readers in arguing so clear a subject; especially as it has been
long ago discussed with sufficient copiousness and care by other writers
on our side of the question.

VII. Yet, in fact, we can obtain no better decision of this point than
from the Scripture itself, if we compare all the places where it shows
what office and power Peter held among the apostles, how he conducted
himself, and in what manner he was received by them. On an examination
of the whole, we shall only find that he was one of the twelve, equal to
the rest, their companion, not their master. He proposes to the assembly
indeed, if there be any thing to be done, and delivers his opinion on
what is necessary to be done; but he hears the observations of others,
and not only gives them the opportunity of speaking their sentiments,
but leaves them to decide, and when they have determined, he follows and
obeys.[877] When he writes to pastors, he does not command them with
authority like a superior; but makes them his colleagues, and exhorts
them with a courteousness which is usual among equals.[878] When he is
accused for having associated with the Gentiles, though this is an
unjust accusation, yet he answers it, and vindicates himself.[879]
Commanded by his colleagues to go with John to Samaria, he refuses
not.[880] The apostles, by sending him, declared that they did not
consider him as their superior. By his compliance and undertaking the
commission intrusted to him, he confessed that he was a colleague with
them, but had no authority over them. If none of these facts had
remained upon record, yet the Epistle to the Galatians might alone
easily remove every doubt; where Paul devotes nearly two whole chapters
to the sole purpose of showing that he was equal to Peter in the dignity
of the apostleship. Hence he relates that he went to Peter, not to
profess subjection to him, but to testify to all the harmony of their
doctrine; and that Peter required no such thing as submission, but gave
him the right hand of fellowship, that they might labour together in the
vineyard of the Lord; that no less grace had been conferred upon him
among the Gentiles, than upon Peter among the Jews; and lastly, that
when Peter acted with some degree of unfaithfulness, he was reproved by
him, and stood corrected by the reproof.[881] All these things fully
prove, either that there was an equality between Paul and Peter, or at
least that Peter had no more power over the rest than they had over him.
And this, as I have already observed, is the professed object of Paul—to
prevent his being considered as inferior in his apostolic character to
Peter or John, who were his colleagues, not his masters.

VIII. But though I grant them what they require respecting Peter, by
admitting that he was the chief of the apostles, and superior in dignity
to all the others, yet there is no reason why they should convert a
particular instance into a universal rule, and make what was done but
once a perpetual precedent; for the cases are widely different. There
was one chief among the apostles; doubtless because they were few in
number. If there be one president over twelve men, will it therefore
follow that there ought to be but one president over a hundred thousand
men? That twelve should have one among them to preside over the rest, is
no wonder. For this is consistent with nature, and the common sense of
mankind requires, that in every assembly, even though they are all equal
in power, yet there should be one to act as moderator, by whom the
others should be regulated. There is no court, council, parliament, or
assembly of any description, which has not its president or chairman. So
there would be no absurdity, if we acknowledged that the apostles gave
this preëminence to Peter. But that which obtains among a small company
is not immediately to be applied to the whole world, to the government
of which no one man is sufficient. But the whole economy of nature, they
say, teaches us, that there ought to be one supreme head over all. And
in proof of this they adduce the example of cranes and bees, which
always choose for themselves one leader, and no more. I admit the
examples which they produce; but do bees collect together from all parts
of the world to choose one king? Each king is content with his own hive.
So, among cranes, every flock has its own leader. What will they prove
from this, but that every Church ought to have its own bishop? Next they
call us to consider examples from civil governments. They quote an
observation from Homer, that it is not good to have many governors, with
similar passages of other profane writers in commendation of monarchy.
The answer is easy; for monarchy is not praised by Ulysses in Homer, or
by any others, from an opinion that one king ought to govern the whole
world. Their meaning is, that one kingdom does not admit of two kings,
and that no prince can bear a partner in his throne.

IX. But supposing it to be, as they contend, good and useful that the
whole world should be comprehended in one monarchy, which, however, is a
monstrous absurdity; but if this were admitted, I should not, therefore,
grant the same system to be applicable to the government of the Church.
For the Church has Christ for its sole Head, under whose sovereignty we
are all united together, according to that order and form of government
which he himself has prescribed. They offer a gross insult to Christ,
therefore, when they assign the preëminence over the universal Church to
one man, under the pretence that it may not be destitute of a head. For
“Christ is the head; from whom the whole body, fitly joined together,
and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the
effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the
body.”[882] We see how he places all men, without exception, in the
_body_, reserving to Christ alone the honour and name of _head_. We see
how he assigns to all the members respectively a certain measure, and a
determinate and limited function; so that the perfection of grace, as
well as the supreme power of government, resides in Christ alone. I am
aware of their usual cavil in evasion of this argument—that Christ is
properly styled the sole Head, because he alone governs by his own
authority and in his own name, but that this is no reason why there may
not be under him another _ministerial head_, as their phrase is, to act
as his vicegerent on earth. But they gain nothing by this cavil, except
they first prove that this ministry was ordained by Christ. For the
apostle teaches, that all the subordinate ministration is distributed
among the members, but that the power proceeds from that one heavenly
Head.[883] Or, if they wish me to speak in plainer terms, since the
Scripture declares Christ to be the Head, and ascribes this honour to
him alone, it ought not to be transferred to any other, except to one
whom Christ himself has appointed his representative. But such an
appointment is not only nowhere to be found, but may be abundantly
refuted by various passages.

X. Paul gives us a lively description of the church on various
occasions, but without making any mention of its having one head upon
earth. On the contrary, from the description which he gives, we may
rather infer that such a notion is foreign from the institution of
Christ. Christ, at his ascension, withdrew from us his visible presence;
nevertheless “he ascended that he might fill all things.”[884] He is
still, therefore, present, and will always continue present with the
Church. With a view to show us the manner in which he manifests himself,
Paul calls our attention to the offices which he employs. There is “one
Lord,” he says, “in you all. But unto every one of us is given grace
according to the measure of the gift of Christ. And he gave some,
apostles; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers.”[885]
Why does he not say, that he has appointed one to preside over all as
his vicegerent? For his subject absolutely required it, and it ought by
no means to have been omitted, if it had been true. “Christ,” he says,
“is present with us.” How? “By the ministry of men whom he has appointed
to the government of the Church.” Why not rather, “By the ministerial
head, to whom he has delegated his authority?” He mentions a unity; but
it is in God, and in the faith of Christ. He attributes nothing to men
but a common ministry, and to every individual his particular share. In
that commendation of unity, after having said, “There is one body, one
Spirit, one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one
baptism,”[886] why has he not likewise immediately added, “one supreme
pontiff to preserve the Church in unity?” For if it had been true,
nothing could have been more proper. Let that passage be duly
considered. There is no doubt that he intends there a representation of
the sacred and spiritual government of the Church, which has since
received the name of _hierarchy_. Monarchy among ministers, or the
government of one over all the rest, he not only does not mention, but
indicates that there is no such thing. There is no doubt also that he
meant to express the nature of the union, by which the faithful are
connected with Christ their Head. Now, he not only makes no mention of
any ministerial head, but attributes to every one of the members a
particular operation, according to the measure of grace distributed to
each. Nor is there any foundation for their far-fetched argument from a
comparison of the heavenly and earthly hierarchy; for, in judging of the
former, it is not safe to go beyond the discoveries of the Scripture,
and in constituting the latter, it is not right to follow any other
model than that which the Lord himself has delineated in his word.

XI. Now, though I should make them another concession, which they will
never obtain from judicious persons, that the primacy of the Church was
established in Peter, and to be continued by a perpetual succession, how
will they prove that its seat was fixed at Rome, so that whoever is
bishop of that city must preside over the whole world? By what right do
they restrict to one place this dignity, which was conferred without the
mention of any place? Peter, they say, lived and died at Rome. What
shall we say of Christ himself? Was it not at Jerusalem that he
exercised the office of a bishop while he lived, and fulfilled the
priestly office by his death? The Prince of pastors, the supreme Bishop,
the Head of the Church, could not obtain this honour for the place where
he lived and died; how then could Peter, who was far inferior to him?
Are not these follies worse than puerile? Christ gave the honour of
primacy to Peter; Peter settled at Rome; therefore he fixed the seat of
the primacy in that city. For the same reason the ancient Israelites
ought to have fixed the seat of their primacy in the desert, because it
was there that Moses, their chief teacher, and the prince of their
prophets, exercised his ministry, and died.

XII. Let us see how wretchedly they reason. Peter, they say, had the
preëminence among the apostles. Therefore, the Church in which he
settled ought to have this privilege. But where was he first stationed?
They reply, at Antioch. Then I infer that the Church of Antioch is
justly entitled to the primacy. They confess that it was originally the
first, but allege that Peter, on his removal from it, transferred the
honour which was attached to him to Rome. For there is an epistle of
Pope Marcellus to the presbyters of Antioch, in which he says, “The see
of Peter was at first among you, but at the command of the Lord was
afterwards removed to this city.” So the Church of Antioch, which was
originally the first, has given place to the see of Rome. But I ask, By
what oracle did that wise pope know that the Lord had commanded this?
For if this cause is to be decided on the footing of right, it is
necessary for them to answer, whether this privilege be personal, or
real, or mixed. It must be one of these. If they affirm it to be
personal, then it has nothing to do with the place. If they allege it to
be real, then when it has once been given to a place, it cannot be taken
away from it by the death or removal of the person. It remains,
therefore, for them to declare it to be mixed; and then it will not be
sufficiently simple to consider the place, unless there be an agreement
also with respect to the person. Let them choose which they will, I
shall immediately conclude, and will easily prove, that the assumption
of the primacy by the see of Rome is without any foundation.

XIII. Let us suppose the case, however, that the primacy was, as they
pretend, transferred from Antioch to Rome. Why did not Antioch retain
the second place? For, if Rome has the preëminence of all other sees,
because Peter presided there till the close of his life, to what city
shall the second place be assigned, but to that which was his first see?
How came Alexandria, then, to have the precedence of Antioch? Is it
reasonable that the Church of a mere disciple should be superior to the
see of Peter? If honour be due to every Church according to the dignity
of its founder, what shall we say of the other Churches? Paul mentions
three apostles, “who seemed to be pillars, James, Peter, and John.”[887]
If the first place be given to the see of Rome, in honour of Peter, are
not the second and third places due to Ephesus and Jerusalem, the sees
of John and James? But among the patriarchates, Jerusalem had the last
place; Ephesus could not be allowed even the farthest corner. Other
Churches also, as well those which were founded by Paul, as those over
which the other apostles presided, were left without any distinction.
The see of Mark, who was only one of the disciples, obtained the honour.
Either let them confess that this was a preposterous arrangement, or let
them concede to us, that it is not a perpetual rule, that every Church
should be entitled to the degree of honour which was enjoyed by its
founder.

XIV. All that they say of the settlement of Peter in the Church of Rome
appears to me of very questionable authority. The statement of Eusebius,
that he presided there twenty-five years, may be refuted without any
difficulty. For it appears, from the first and second chapter to the
Galatians, that about twenty years after the death of Christ, he was at
Jerusalem, and that from thence he went to Antioch, where he remained
for some time, but it is not certain how long. Gregory says seven years,
and Eusebius twenty-five. But from the death of Christ to the end of the
reign of Nero, under whom they affirm Peter to have been slain, there
were only thirty-seven years. For our Lord suffered in the eighteenth
year of the reign of Tiberius. If we deduct twenty years, during which,
according to the testimony of Paul, Peter dwelt at Jerusalem, there will
remain only seventeen years, which must now be divided between those two
bishoprics. If he continued long at Antioch, he could not have resided
at Rome, except for a very short time. This point is susceptible of
still clearer proof. Paul wrote his Epistle to the Romans on a journey
when he was going to Jerusalem,[888] where he was seized, and from
whence he was sent to Rome. It is probable, therefore, that this Epistle
was written four years before his arrival at Rome. Yet it contains no
mention of Peter; which ought on no account to have been omitted, if he
had presided over that Church. And in the conclusion, where he recites a
long catalogue of pious persons to whom he sends his salutations, where,
in short, he enumerates all that were known to him, he still says not a
word of Peter.[889] It is unnecessary to use any long or laboured
arguments with persons of sound judgment; for the case itself, and the
whole argument of the Epistle proclaims, that if Peter had been at Rome,
he ought not to have been omitted.

XV. Paul was afterwards brought as a prisoner to Rome. Luke says that he
was received by the brethren, but says nothing of Peter.[890] From that
city Paul wrote to several Churches. In some of these epistles he
introduces salutations, in the names of certain brethren who were with
him; but they contain not a single word implying that Peter was there at
that time. Who will think it credible that, if he had been there, Paul
could have passed him over in total silence? Moreover, in his Epistle to
the Philippians, after having said that he had no one who discovered
such sincere concern respecting the work of the Lord as Timothy, he
complains that “all seek their own.”[891] And to Timothy himself he
makes yet a heavier complaint: “At my first answer no man stood with me,
but all men forsook me.”[892] Where was Peter then? For if they say that
he was at Rome, how deep is the ignominy which Paul fixes upon him, that
he was a deserter of the gospel? For he is speaking of the faithful,
because he adds his prayer, “that it may not be laid to their charge.”
How long, then, and at what time, did Peter hold that see? It will be
said, it is the uniform opinion of ancient writers, that he governed
that Church till his death. But those writers themselves are not agreed
who was his successor. Some say it was Linus; and others, Clement. They
likewise relate many absurd and fabulous stories respecting the
disputation held between him and Simon Magus. And Augustine, when
treating of superstitions, acknowledges that the custom, which obtained
at Rome, of not fasting on the day on which Peter gained the victory
over Simon Magus, arose from an opinion entertained without any
sufficient authority. In the last place, the transactions of that age
are so perplexed by a variety of representations, that we must not give
implicit credit to every thing that is recorded. Yet, in consequence of
this agreement of the ancient writers, I will not dispute his having
died at Rome; but that he was bishop there, and especially for any
considerable time, is what I cannot be persuaded to believe. Nor am I
anxious respecting this point, because Paul testifies that the
apostleship of Peter particularly belonged to the Jews, and that his own
was directed to us. To add our confirmation, therefore, to the compact
which they established between themselves, or rather to admit the
validity of the ordinance of the Holy Spirit, it becomes us rather to
look up to the apostleship of Paul than to that of Peter. For their
different provinces were allotted to them by the Holy Spirit, who sent
Peter to the Jews, and Paul to us. The Romanists, therefore, may seek
for their primacy elsewhere, but not in the word of God, which affords
not the least foundation for it.

XVI. Let us now proceed to show, that our adversaries have no more
reason for boasting of the authority of the ancient Church than of the
testimony of the word of God. For when they bring forward this
principle, that the unity of the Church cannot be preserved, unless it
have one supreme head upon earth, to whom all the members should be
subject, and that, therefore, the Lord gave the primacy to Peter, and
afterwards by right of succession, to the see of Rome, that it might
remain there to the end of time,—they also assert that this has been the
usage from the beginning. Now, as they grossly pervert various
testimonies, I would first make this preliminary remark. I do not deny
that the ancient writers uniformly give great honour to the Roman
Church, and speak of it in respectful terms. This I consider as arising
principally from three causes. In the first place, that opinion which, I
know not how, had been received, that it had been founded and settled by
the ministry of Peter, operated very powerfully to gain it credit and
authority, and, therefore, among the Western churches it was called _the
Apostolic See_. In the second place, because it was the capital of the
empire; and on this account it is probable that it contained men
superior in learning and prudence, skill and experience, to those of any
other place; due regard was paid to this circumstance, that the glory of
the city and other far more excellent gifts of God might not appear to
be undervalued. In the third place, while the Eastern and Greek
Churches, and even those in Africa, were agitated by numerous
dissensions of opinion among themselves, the Church of Rome was more
peaceable and less disturbed. Hence it happened, that pious and holy
bishops, on being expelled from their sees, frequently resorted thither,
as to an asylum or port of safety. For as the people of Europe have less
subtlety and activity of mind than the inhabitants of Asia and Africa,
so they are not so volatile or desirous of novelty. It considerably
increased the authority of the Church of Rome, therefore, that in those
uncertain times it was not so much agitated as the other Churches, and
was more tenacious of the doctrine which it had once received than all
the rest, as we shall presently show more at large. On account of these
three causes, I say, it was held in more than common respect, and
received many honourable testimonies from ancient writers.

XVII. But when our adversaries wish to make this a reason for ascribing
to that Church the primacy and sovereign power over other Churches, they
run, as I have already observed, into a gross error. To make this the
more evident, I will first briefly show what the ancient writers thought
respecting this unity, on which our opponents so urgently insist.
Jerome, writing to Nepotian, after having enumerated many examples of
unity, at length descends to the hierarchy of the Church. “Every
Church,” he says, “has its distinct bishop, archpresbyter, and
archdeacon, and all the order of the Church depends upon its governors.”
This is the language of a Roman priest, recommending unity in the order
of the Church. Why does he not mention that all Churches are connected
together under one head, as by a common bond? Nothing would have been
more in favour of his argument; nor can it be pretended that he omitted
it for want of recollection; he would most readily have mentioned it, if
the fact had permitted him. It is beyond all doubt, therefore, that he
saw this to be the true kind of unity, which is most excellently
described by Cyprian in the following passage: “There is only one
bishopric, of which every bishop holds an integral part; and there is
but one Church, which is widely extended into a multitude by the
offspring of its fertility. As the sun has many rays, but only one
light; as a tree has many branches, but only one trunk, fixed on a firm
root; and as many rivers issue from one spring, and notwithstanding the
number of the streams in which its overflowing abundance is diffused,
yet the unity of the source remains the same;—so also the Church,
illuminated with the light of the Lord, extends its rays over the whole
earth, yet it is one and the same light which is universally diffused,
nor is the unity of the body destroyed. It stretches its branches, it
pours out its ample streams, all over the world; yet there is but one
root, and one source.” Again: “The spouse of Christ cannot be corrupted;
she acknowledges one Master, and preserves her fidelity to him
inviolate.” We see how he attributes the universal bishopric, which
comprehends the whole Church, to Christ alone, and says that integral
portions of it are confided to all those who discharge the episcopal
office under this head. Where is the primacy of the see of Rome, if the
universal bishopric be vested in Christ alone, and every bishop hold an
integral portion of it? My object, in these quotations, has been, to
convince the reader, by the way, that this principle, which the
Romanists assume as an admitted and indubitable maxim, namely, that the
unity of the Church requires the supremacy of some earthly head, was
altogether unknown to the ancients.

Footnote 862:

Matt. xvi. 18.

Footnote 863:

John xxi. 16.

Footnote 864:

1 Peter v. 2.

Footnote 865:

John xx. 23.

Footnote 866:

2 Cor. v. 18.

Footnote 867:

2 Cor. x. 6.

Footnote 868:

Matt. xvi. 19.

Footnote 869:

Matt. xviii. 18. John xx. 23.

Footnote 870:

Matt. xvi. 18.

Footnote 871:

Eph. ii. 21, 22.

Footnote 872:

1 Peter ii. 4, 5.

Footnote 873:

John i. 40-42.

Footnote 874:

Matt. xvi. 18.

Footnote 875:

Matt. xvi. 16.

Footnote 876:

1 Cor. iii. 11.

Footnote 877:

Acts xv. 6-29.

Footnote 878:

1 Peter v. 1.

Footnote 879:

Acts xi. 2, &c.

Footnote 880:

Acts viii. 14, 15.

Footnote 881:

Gal. i. 2.

Footnote 882:

Eph. iv. 15, 16.

Footnote 883:

Eph. i. 22; iv. 15; v. 23. Col. i. 18; ii. 10.

Footnote 884:

Eph. iv. 10.

Footnote 885:

Eph. iv. 5-7, 11.

Footnote 886:

Eph. iv. 4, 5.

Footnote 887:

Gal. ii. 9.

Footnote 888:

Rom. xv. 25.

Footnote 889:

Rom. xvi.

Footnote 890:

Acts xxviii. 15.

Footnote 891:

Phil. ii. 20, 21.

Footnote 892:

2 Tim. iv. 16.

CHAPTER VII.
THE RISE AND PROGRESS OF THE PAPAL POWER TO ITS PRESENT EMINENCE,
ATTENDED WITH THE LOSS OF LIBERTY TO THE CHURCH, AND THE RUIN OF ALL
MODERATION.

In support of the antiquity of the primacy of the see of Rome, there is
nothing to be found anterior to the decree of the Council of Nice, by
which the bishop of Rome is allotted the first place among the
patriarchs, and is directed to superintend the neighbouring Churches.
When the council makes a distinction between him and the other
patriarchs, so as to assign to all their respective limits, it clearly
does not constitute him the head of them all, but only makes him one of
the principal. Vitus and Vincentius attended the council on the behalf
of Julius, who at that time presided over the Church of Rome. They were
seated in the fourth place. If Julius had been acknowledged as the head
of the Church, would his representatives have been degraded to the
fourth seat? Would Athanasius have presided in a general council, where
the form of the hierarchical system ought most particularly to have been
observed? In the council of Ephesus, it appears that Celestine, who was
then bishop of Rome, made use of a disingenuous artifice to secure the
dignity of his see. For when he sent his legates thither, he requested
Cyril, patriarch of Alexandria, who was otherwise to preside, to act on
his behalf. For what purpose could this request be made, but that his
name might, at any rate, occupy the first place? For his legates sat in
a lower station, were asked their sentiments among others, and
subscribed in their order; at the same time the patriarch of Alexandria
united Celestine’s name with his own. What shall I say of the second
Council of Ephesus, where, though the legates of Leo were present, yet
Dioscorus, patriarch of Alexandria, presided as in his own right? They
will object, that this was not an orthodox council, because it condemned
Flavianus, a holy man, bishop of Constantinople, and acquitted Eutyches,
and sanctioned his heresy. But when the council was assembled, and the
bishops took their respective seats, it is certain that the legates of
the Roman Church were present among the others, as in a holy and
legitimate council. Yet they contended not for the first place, but
yielded it to another, which they would not have done if they had
considered it as belonging to them. For the bishops of Rome have never
been ashamed of raising the greatest contentions for their dignity, and
they have not hesitated, on this account alone, to harass and agitate
the Church with various and pernicious controversies. But because Leo
saw that it would be too presumptuous a demand to require the first
place for his legates, therefore he waived it.

II. Next follows the Council of Chalcedon, in which, by the permission
of the emperor, the legates of the Roman Church occupied the first
place. But Leo himself confessed that this was an extraordinary
privilege. For when he requested it from Marcian the emperor, and
Pulcheria the empress, he did not pretend it to be his right, but only
alleged, in support of his claim, that the Eastern bishops who presided
in the Council of Ephesus had thrown every thing into confusion, and
abused their power. Since it was necessary, therefore, to have a
discreet moderator, and it was improbable that those who had once been
so unsteady and disorderly would be fit for the office, he requested
that, on account of the misconduct and incompetence of the others, the
task of presiding should be transferred to him. That which is sought as
a special privilege and an exception to a common custom, certainly does
not arise from a general rule. Where the only pretext is, that it was
necessary to have a new president, because the former ones had violated
their duty, it is evident that this had not been the case before, and it
ought not to be perpetual, but was merely done in the contemplation of
present danger. The bishop of Rome, therefore, had the first place in
the Council of Chalcedon, not because it was the right of his see, but
because the council was in want of a discreet and suitable president, in
consequence of those to whom that honour belonged having excluded
themselves from it by their own intemperance and violence. And what I
say was proved, in fact, by Leo’s successor. For when he sent his
legates to the fifth Council of Constantinople, which was held a
considerable time after, he contended not for the first seat, but
without any difficulty suffered it to be taken by Menna, patriarch of
Constantinople. So in the Council of Carthage, at which Augustine was
present, the place of president was filled by Aurelius, archbishop of
that city, and not by the legates of the Roman see, though the express
object of their attendance was to support the authority of the Roman
pontiff. And, moreover, there was a general council held in Italy, at
which the bishop of Rome was not present. This was the Council of
Aquileia, at which Ambrose presided, who was then in high credit with
the emperor. There was no mention made of the bishop of Rome. We see,
therefore, that the dignity of Ambrose caused the see of Milan at that
time to have the precedence above that of Rome.

III. With respect to the title of primacy, and other titles of pride, of
which the pope now strangely boasts, it is not difficult to judge when
and in what manner they were introduced. Cyprian, bishop of Carthage,
makes frequent mention of Cornelius, who was bishop of Rome. He
distinguishes him by no other appellation than that of _brother_, or
_fellow bishop_, or _colleague_. But when he writes to Stephen, the
successor of Cornelius, he not only treats him as equal to himself and
others, but even addresses him with considerable severity, charging him
at one time with arrogance, and at another with ignorance. Since the
time of Cyprian, we know what was the decision of the whole African
Church on this subject. For the Council of Carthage prohibited that any
one should be called “the prince of priests,” or “the first bishop,” but
only “the bishop of the first see.” But any one who examines the more
ancient records, will find that at that time the bishop of Rome was
content with the common appellation of _brother_. It is certain that as
long as the Church retained its true and uncorrupted form, all those
names of pride, which in succeeding times have been insolently usurped
by the Roman see, were altogether unknown: nothing was heard of a
supreme pontiff or a sole head of the Church upon earth. And if the
bishop of Rome had been presumptuous enough to make any such assumption,
there were judicious men who would immediately have repressed his folly.
Jerome, being a Roman presbyter, was not reluctant to assert the dignity
of his Church as far as matter of fact and the state of the times
admitted; yet we see how he also reduces it to an equality with others.
“If it be a question of authority,” he says, “the world is greater than
a city. Why do you allege to me the custom of a single city? Why do you
set up a few instances, which have given rise to pride, against the laws
of the Church? Wherever there is a bishop, whether at Rome, at Eugubium,
at Constantinople, or at Rhegium, he is of the same dignity and of the
same priesthood. The power of riches, or the abasement of poverty, makes
no bishop superior or inferior to another.”

IV. Respecting the title of _universal bishop_, the first contention
arose in the time of Gregory, and was occasioned by the ambition of
John, bishop of Constantinople. For he wanted to make himself universal
bishop—an attempt which had never been made by any one before. In that
controversy Gregory does not plead against this as the assumption of a
right which belonged to himself, but resolutely protests against it
altogether, as a profane and sacrilegious application, and even as the
forerunner of Antichrist. He says, “If he who is called _universal_
falls, the foundation of the whole Church sinks at once.” In another
place: “It is a most melancholy thing to hear with any patience, that
our brother and companion in the episcopal office should look down with
contempt on all others, and be called _sole bishop_. But what does this
pride of his indicate, but that the times of Antichrist are already at
hand? For indeed he imitates him, who, despising the society of angels,
endeavoured to usurp supreme power to himself.” In another place,
writing to Eulogius, bishop of Alexandria, and Anastasius, bishop of
Antioch, he says, “None of my predecessors would ever use this profane
word. For if one patriarch be called _universal_, the name of patriarch
is taken away from all the rest. But far be it from any Christian heart
to wish to arrogate to himself any thing that would in the least degree
diminish the honour of his brethren. To consent to that execrable term
is no other than to destroy the faith. Our obligation to preserve the
unity of the faith is one thing, and to repress the haughtiness of pride
is another. But I confidently assert, that whoever calls himself
_universal bishop_, or desires to be so called, in such aggrandizement
is the precursor of Antichrist, because he proudly sets up himself above
all others.” Again, to Anastasius, bishop of Antioch: “I have said that
the bishop of Constantinople can have no peace with us, unless he would
correct the haughtiness of that superstitious and proud title which has
been invented by the first apostate; and to say nothing of the injury
done to your dignity, if one bishop be called _universal_, when he
falls, the whole Church sinks at once.” But his assertion that this
honour was offered to Leo in the Council of Chalcedon has not the least
appearance of truth. For there is not a word of this in the acts of that
council. And Leo himself, who in many of his epistles censures the
decree passed there in favour of the see of Constantinople, would
certainly not have passed over this argument, which would have been the
most plausible of all, if that honour had really been offered to him,
and he had refused it; and, having otherwise an immoderate thirst for
honour, he would not readily have omitted a circumstance so much to his
praise. Gregory was mistaken, therefore, in supposing that title to have
been given to the see of Rome by the Council of Chalcedon. I forbear to
remark how ridiculous it is for him to assert that the holy council
conferred such a title, which he at the same time declares was profane,
execrable, abominable, proud, and sacrilegious, and even invented by the
devil, and published by the herald of Antichrist. And yet he adds that
his predecessor refused it, lest, by the dignity given to one
individual, all other bishops should be deprived of the honour due to
them. In another place he says, “No one has ever wished to be called by
such a name; no one has arrogated to himself this presumptuous title;
lest, by assuming to himself the exclusive dignity of supreme bishop, he
might seem to deny the episcopal honour to all his brethren.”

V. I come now to the jurisdiction which the Roman pontiff asserts that
he indisputably holds over all churches. I know what violent contentions
there were in ancient times on this subject. For there has never been a
period when the Roman see did not aspire to some authority over other
Churches. And it will not be unsuitable to the present occasion to
investigate the means by which it gradually rose to some power. I am not
yet speaking of that unbounded empire which it has more recently
usurped; that I shall defer to its proper place. But here it will be
necessary to point out in a few words in what manner and by what methods
it formerly exalted itself, so as to assume any jurisdiction over other
Churches. When the Eastern Churches were disturbed and divided by the
factions of the Arians, in the reign of Constantius and Constans, sons
of Constantine the Great, and Athanasius, the principal defender of the
orthodox faith, was driven from his see, that calamity constrained him
to go to Rome, in order that, by the authority of the Roman see, he
might in some degree repress the rage of his enemies, and confirm the
faithful, who were in extreme distress. He was honourably received by
Julius, then bishop of Rome, and prevailed on the bishops of the West to
undertake the defence of his cause. Thus the pious in the Eastern
Churches, finding themselves in great want of foreign aid, and seeing
that their principal succour was to be obtained from the Church of Rome,
readily ascribed to it all the authority that they possibly could. But
all this amounted to nothing more than that communion with it was held
in high estimation, and it was accounted ignominious to be
excommunicated from it. This dignity was afterwards considerably
augmented by men of wicked and abandoned lives; for to escape the
punishments which they deserved, they resorted thither as to a common
asylum. Therefore, if a priest was condemned by his bishop, or a bishop
by the synod of his province, they immediately appealed to Rome. And the
bishops of Rome received such appeals with culpable eagerness,
considering it as a kind of extraordinary power to interfere in the
concerns of distant Churches. Thus when Eutyches was condemned by
Flavianus, patriarch of Constantinople, he complained to Leo that he had
been treated with injustice. Leo, without any delay, but with equal
temerity and expedition, undertook the patronage of a bad cause, issued
bitter invectives against Flavianus, as if he had condemned an innocent
man without hearing his defence, and by this ambitious conduct he for
some time afforded considerable support to the impiety of Eutyches. It
appears that similar circumstances frequently happened in Africa. For as
soon as any wicked man was convicted before the ordinary tribunal, he
flew to Rome, and brought various false accusations against his
superiors; and the see of Rome was always ready to interpose. This
presumption constrained the African bishops to pass a decree that no one
should appeal beyond the sea on pain of excommunication.

VI. But however this might be, let us examine what jurisdiction or power
the Roman see then possessed. Now, ecclesiastical power consists in
these four things—the ordination of bishops, the calling of councils,
the hearing of appeals, or jurisdiction, and corrective admonitions, or
censures. All the ancient councils command bishops to be ordained by
their own metropolitans; and they never direct the bishop of Rome to be
called to this office except in his own province. By degrees, however, a
custom was introduced for all the bishops of Italy to go to Rome to be
consecrated, except the metropolitans, who did not suffer themselves to
be subjected to this bondage. But when any metropolitan was to be
ordained, the bishop of Rome sent one of his priests to assist at the
ceremony, but not to preside. There is an example of this in an epistle
of Gregory, respecting the consecration of Constantius, archbishop of
Milan, after the death of Laurentius. I do not suppose, however, that
this was a very ancient practice. It is probable that at first they sent
legates to each other, from a principle of respect and affection, to
witness the ordination, and testify their mutual communion; and that
what was originally voluntary, was afterwards considered as necessary.
However this may be, it is evident that in ancient times the bishop of
Rome did not possess the power of consecrating bishops, except in his
own province, that is, in the Churches dependent upon his see; as is
declared by one of the canons of the Council of Nice. Consecration was
followed by the sending of a synodical epistle; and in this the bishop
of Rome had no superiority over others. It was the custom of the
patriarchs, immediately after their consecration, to make a solemn
declaration of their faith in a written communication to their brethren,
professing their adherence to the doctrine of the holy and orthodox
councils. Thus, by making a confession of their faith, they mutually
approved themselves to each other. If the bishop of Rome had received
such a confession from others, and not given it to other bishops in his
turn, this would have been an instance of acknowledged superiority; but,
as he was under the same obligation to give it as to require it, and was
subject to the common law, it was certainly a token of equality, and not
of dominion. We have examples of this in the epistles of Gregory to
Anastasius and Cyriacus of Constantinople, and to all the patriarchs
together.

VII. Next follow admonitions or censures, which, as the bishops of Rome
formerly employed them towards others, they also received from others in
their turn. Irenæus, bishop of Lyons, sharply reproved Victor, bishop of
Rome, for having raised a pernicious dissension in the Church on
subjects of no importance. Victor submitted to the reproof without any
opposition. It was a liberty at that time commonly used by the holy
bishops to exercise the privilege of brethren towards the bishop of
Rome, by admonishing and reproving him whenever he committed any fault.
He, in like manner, when occasion required, admonished others of their
duty, and reproved them for their faults. For Cyprian, when he exhorts
Stephen, bishop of Rome, to admonish the bishops of France, argues not
from any superior authority, but from the common rights which priests
enjoy among each other. If Stephen had then possessed any authority over
France, would not Cyprian have said, You should chastise them, because
they are subject to you? But he expresses himself in a very different
manner. “This fraternal union,” says he, “by which we are connected
together, requires us to administer to each other mutual admonition.”
And we see with what severity of language, though otherwise a man of a
mild disposition, he censures even Stephen himself, when he considered
him assuming too much consequence. In this respect, also, there is yet
no appearance of the bishop of Rome having been invested with any
jurisdiction over those who were not of his province.

VIII. With respect to the calling of councils, it was the duty of every
metropolitan, at stated seasons, to summon a provincial synod. There the
bishop of Rome had no authority. But a universal council could only be
called by the emperor. For if any one of the bishops had attempted this,
not only he would not have been obeyed by those who were out of his
province, but such an attempt would have led to immediate confusion.
Therefore the emperor sent a summons to attend to all of them alike.
Socrates, indeed, in his Ecclesiastical History, states that Julius,
bishop of Rome, expostulated with the Eastern bishops, for not having
invited him to the Council of Antioch; whereas the canons had forbidden
that any thing should be decreed without the knowledge of the bishop of
Rome. But who does not see that this is to be understood of those
decrees which bind the universal Church? Now, it is no wonder if there
was so much respect paid to the antiquity and eminence of the city, and
to the dignity of the see, as to determine that no general decree
respecting religion should be passed in the absence of the bishop of
Rome, unless he refused to be present. But what is this towards dominion
over the whole Church? For we do not deny that the bishop of Rome was
one of the principal, but we will not admit, what the Romanists now
contend, that he had the authority over all.

IX. There remains the fourth kind of ecclesiastical power, which
consists in appeals. It is evident that he possesses supreme authority,
to whose tribunal appeals are made. Many often appealed to the bishop of
Rome; and he also attempted to assume the cognizance of causes; but he
always became an object of derision whenever he exceeded his proper
limits. I shall say nothing of the East, or of Greece; but it appears
that the bishops of France strenuously resisted him, when he discovered
an inclination to usurp authority over them. In Africa, this subject
occasioned a long controversy. For when the Council of Milevum, at which
Augustine was present, had denounced excommunication against all who
should appeal beyond the sea, the bishop of Rome endeavoured to get this
decree rescinded. He sent legates to state that this privilege had been
given to him by the Council of Nice. The legates produced certain acts
which they alleged to be the acts of the Council of Nice, and which they
had brought from the archives of their Church. They were resisted by the
Africans, who denied that the bishop of Rome ought to be credited in his
own cause. They therefore determined to send to Constantinople, and
other cities of Greece, to obtain copies liable to less suspicion. It
was found that these copies contained no such passages as the Roman
legates had pretended. So the decree was confirmed, which had taken the
supreme cognizance of appeals from the bishop of Rome. This transaction
discovered the scandalous impudence of the Roman pontiff. For when he
had fraudulently substituted the council of Sardis for that of Nice, he
was disgracefully detected in a manifest falsehood. But still greater
wickedness and effrontery were betrayed by those who added to the acts
of the council a forged epistle, in which a bishop of Carthage condemns
the arrogance of his predecessor, Aurelius, for having dared to withdraw
himself from obedience to the apostolic see, presents the submission of
himself and his Church, and humbly supplicates for pardon. These are the
glorious monuments of antiquity upon which the majesty of the Roman see
is founded; while, under the pretext of antiquity, they advance such
puerile falsehoods, as require not the least penetration to detect.
“Aurelius,” says this famous epistle, “elated with diabolical audacity
and obstinacy, was a rebel against Christ and St. Peter, and therefore
deserved to be anathematized.” But what said Augustine? What said all
the fathers who were present at the Council of Milevum? But what
necessity is there for spending many words to refute that stupid
fabrication, which even the Romanists themselves, if they have any
modesty left, cannot look at without being exceedingly ashamed? So
Gratian, the compiler of the decretal,—whether from wickedness or
ignorance I know not,—after having recited that canon, that those who
appealed beyond the sea should be excommunicated, adds this exception,
unless they appeal to the see of Rome. What can be done with such men,
who are so destitute of common sense as to make that one case an
exception to a law, to guard against which every one sees that the law
was made? For the council, in condemning appeals beyond the sea, only
prohibited any one from appealing to Rome; and this admirable expositor
excepts Rome from the general prohibition!

X. But to put an end at once to this question, a single transaction,
related by Augustine, will be sufficient to show what kind of
jurisdiction was anciently possessed by the bishop of Rome. Donatus,
bishop of Casæ Nigræ, had accused Cæcilianus, bishop of Carthage. The
accused was condemned without a hearing; for, knowing that the bishops
had conspired against him, he would not appear. The matter was then
brought before the Emperor Constantine. With a view to have the cause
decided by an ecclesiastical judgment, he referred the cognizance of it
to Melchiades, bishop of Rome, with whom he associated some other
bishops from Italy, France, and Spain. If it was part of the ordinary
jurisdiction of the see of Rome to hear an appeal in an ecclesiastical
cause, why did Melchiades suffer any colleagues to be appointed with him
at the pleasure of the Emperor? and, moreover, why did he himself
undertake the business rather at the command of the Emperor than from
his own authority? But let us hear what took place afterwards.
Cæcilianus was victorious. Donatus of Casæ Nigræ was convicted of
calumny. He appealed. Constantine referred the appeal to the bishop of
Arles. He sat in judgment on the decision of the bishop of Rome. If the
Roman see possessed the supreme jurisdiction, subject to no appeal, how
did Melchiades submit to such an insult, as for the bishop of Arles to
be preferred before him? And who was the Emperor that did this? It was
Constantine the Great, of whom they boast that he not only devoted all
his attention, but employed almost all the power of his empire, to exalt
the dignity of their see. We see, then, how very far the bishop of Rome
was at that time from that supreme dominion which he pretends to have
been given him by Christ over all Churches, and which he falsely boasts
of having exercised in all ages with the consent of the whole world.

XI. I know what numerous epistles, and rescripts, and edicts, there are,
in which the pontiffs have confidently advanced the most extravagant
claims respecting this power. But it is also known to every person,
possessed of the least sense or learning, that most things contained in
them are so extremely absurd, that it is easy to discover at the first
glance from what source they have proceeded. For what man of sound
judgment, and in his sober senses, can suppose that Anacletus was the
author of that curious interpretation, which Gratian quotes under his
name—that Cephas means a head? There are many such fooleries collected
together by Gratian without any judgment, which the Romanists in the
present day employ against us in defence of their see; and such phantoms
with which they used to delude the ignorant in the darkest times, they
still persist in bringing forward amidst all the light of the present
age. But I have no intention to devote much labour to the refutation of
such things, which manifestly refute themselves by their extreme
absurdity. I confess that there are also genuine epistles of the ancient
pontiffs, in which they extol the majesty of their see by the most
magnificent titles. Such are some epistles of Leo; who, though he was a
man of learning and eloquence, had likewise an immoderate thirst for
glory and dominion; but whether the Churches at that time gave credit to
his testimony when he thus exalted himself, is a subject of inquiry.
Now, it appears that many were offended at his ambition, and resisted
his claims. In one epistle he deputes the bishop of Thessalonica to act
as his representative in Greece and other adjacent countries; in another
he delegates the bishop of Arles, or some other bishop, to be his vicar
in France. So he appoints Hormisdas, bishop of Seville, his vicar in
Spain. But in all cases he mentions, by way of exception, that he makes
such appointments on condition that they shall in no respect infringe
the ancient privileges of the metropolitans. But Leo himself declares
this to be one of their privileges, that if any difficulty should arise,
the metropolitan was to be consulted in the first place. These
delegations, therefore, were accompanied with this condition—that there
was to be no interference with any bishop in his ordinary jurisdiction,
with any metropolitan in hearing appeals, or with any provincial synod
in the regulation of the Churches. Now, what was this but to abstain
from all jurisdiction, and only to interpose for the settlement of
disputes, as far as was consistent with the law and nature of
ecclesiastical communion?

XII. In the time of Gregory, this ancient custom had already undergone a
considerable change. For when the empire was convulsed and torn asunder,
when France and Spain were afflicted with repeated and numerous wars and
distresses, Illyricum laid waste, Italy harassed, and Africa almost
ruined with incessant calamities,—in order to preserve the unity of the
faith amidst such a violent convulsion of civil affairs, or at least to
prevent its total destruction, all the bishops round about connected
themselves more closely with the bishop of Rome. The consequence was,
that the power as well as the dignity of that see was greatly increased.
I am not much concerned, however, respecting the methods by which this
was effected. It is at least evident, that it was greater at that period
than in the preceding ages. And even then it was very far from an
unlimited dominion, for one man to govern all others according to his
own pleasure. But the see of Rome was held in such reverence, that its
authority would repress and correct the refractory and obstinate, who
could not be confined to their duty by the other bishops. For Gregory
embraces every opportunity of protesting, that he as faithfully
maintained the rights of others, as he required them to maintain his.
“Nor under the influence of ambition,” says he, “do I withhold from any
one that which is his right; but I desire to honour my brethren in all
things.”—There is not a sentence in his writings which contains a
prouder boast of the majesty of his primacy than the following: “I know
no bishop who is not subject to the apostolic see, when he is found in
fault.” But he immediately adds, “Where there is no fault to require
subjection, all are equal by right of humility.” He attributes to
himself the authority to correct those who have transgressed; if all do
their duty, he places himself on an equality with them. But he assumed
this authority to himself, and they who were willing consented to it,
while others, who disapproved of it, were at liberty to oppose it with
impunity; and this, it is notorious, was the conduct of the majority.
Besides, it is to be remarked, that he is there speaking of the primate
of Constantinople, who had been condemned by a provincial synod, and had
disregarded the united judgment of the assembly. His colleagues
complained to the emperor of his obstinacy. The emperor appointed
Gregory to decide the cause. We see, then, that he made no attempt to
interfere with the ordinary jurisdiction; and that the very thing which
he does for the assistance of others, he does only at the command of the
emperor.

XIII. This, therefore, was all the power which was then possessed by the
bishop of Rome,—to oppose rebellious and refractory persons, in cases
which required some extraordinary remedy, and that in order to assist,
not to hinder, other bishops. Therefore he assumes to himself no more
power over others than he grants to all others over himself, when he
professes that he is ready to be reproved by all, and to be corrected by
all. So in another epistle he commands the bishop of Aquileia to come to
Rome to plead his cause in a controversy which had arisen between him
and his neighbours, respecting an article of faith; nevertheless he
gives this command, not from his own authority, but in consequence of
the mandate of the emperor. Nor does he announce himself as the sole
judge, but promises to assemble a synod to judge of the whole affair.
But though there was still such moderation, that the power of the Roman
see had its certain limits, which it was not permitted to exceed, and
the bishop of Rome himself no more presided over others than he was
subject to them, yet it appears how very displeasing this situation was
to Gregory. For he frequently complains, that under the name of being a
bishop, he was forced back to the world, and that he was more involved
in secular cares than ever he had been while he was a layman; so that in
that honour he was oppressed with the tumult of worldly business. In
another passage he says, “Such a vast burden of occupations presses me
down, that my mind is incapacitated for any elevation towards things
above. I am tossed about with numerous causes, like so many waves; and
after my former seasons of retirement and tranquillity, I am disquieted
with the tempests of a tumultuous life; so that I may truly say, I am
come into the depth of the sea, and the tempest has drowned me.” Judge,
then, what he would have said, if he had fallen upon these times. If he
did not fulfil the office of a pastor, yet he was employed in it. He
refrained from all interference in the civil government, and
acknowledged himself to be subject to the emperor in common with others.
He never intruded into the care of other Churches, except when he was
constrained by necessity. And yet he considered himself to be in a
labyrinth, because he could not wholly devote himself to the exclusive
duties of a bishop.

XIV. The bishop of Constantinople, as we have already stated, was at
that time engaged in a contest with the bishop of Rome, respecting the
primacy. For after the seat of the empire was fixed at Constantinople,
the majesty of the government seemed to require that Church to be the
next in dignity to the Church of Rome. And indeed at the beginning
nothing contributed more to establish the primacy in the Church of Rome
than the circumstance of that city being then the capital of the empire.
Gratian recites a rescript under the name of Pope Lucinus, in which he
says that the distinction of cities appointed to be the residence of
metropolitans and primates, was regulated by no other rule than the
nature of the civil government previously established in them. There is
another similar rescript, also, under the name of Pope Clement, in which
he says, that patriarchs had been appointed in those cities which had
anciently been the stations of arch-flamens. This statement, though
erroneous, approaches to the truth. For it is certain, that in order to
make as little change as possible, the provinces were divided according
to the existing state of things, and that primates and metropolitans
were placed in those cities which had precedence of the rest in dignity
and power. Therefore, in the Council of Turin, it was decreed, that
those which were the chief cities of the respective provinces in the
civil government, should be the principal sees of bishops; and that if
the honour of the civil government should happen to be transferred from
one city to another, the seat of the metropolitan should be removed to
the same place. But Innocent, the Roman pontiff, seeing the ancient
dignity of his city beginning to decline, after the translation of the
seat of the empire to Constantinople, and trembling for the honour of
his see, enacted a contrary law; in which he denies the necessity of a
change of the ecclesiastical capitals, in consequence of a change of the
imperial capitals. But the authority of a council ought to be preferred
to the sentence of an individual, and we may justly suspect Innocent
himself in his own cause. He proves by his decree, however, that the
original regulation had been for the seats of metropolitans to be
disposed according to the civil rank of the respective cities.

XV. According to this ancient ordinance, it was decreed in the first
Council of Constantinople, that the bishop of that city should have the
next rank and dignity to the bishop of Rome, because that was a new
Rome. But when a similar decree was passed long after in the Council of
Chalcedon, Leo strenuously opposed it. And he not only took the liberty
of pouring contempt on what had been decided by upwards of six hundred
bishops, but likewise heavily reproached them with having taken from
other sees the honour which they had ventured to confer on the Church of
Constantinople. Now, what could incite him to disturb the world for so
insignificant a cause, but mere ambition? He says, that what had once
been determined by the Council of Nice, ought to have been maintained
inviolable. As if the Christian faith were endangered by the preference
of one Church to another, or as if the patriarchates had been
distributed by the Council of Nice with any other view than the
preservation of external order. Now, we know that external order admits,
and even requires, various changes, according to the various
circumstances of different periods. It is a futile pretence, therefore,
of Leo, that the honour, which the authority of the Nicene council had
given to the see of Alexandria, ought not to be conferred on that of
Constantinople. For common sense dictates, that this was such a decree
as might be abolished according to the state of the times. And besides,
the repeal met with no opposition from the bishops of the East, who were
most interested in the matter. Proterius, who had been appointed bishop
of Alexandria instead of Dioscorus, was present; as were other
patriarchs, whose dignity was lessened by this measure. It was for them
to oppose it, and not Leo, who retained his original station unaltered.
When they all suffered it to pass without any objection, and even
assented to it, and the bishop of Rome was the only one who resisted it,
it is easy to judge by what motive he was influenced. He foresaw, what
actually came to pass not long after, that as the glory of Rome was
declining, Constantinople would not be content with the second place,
but would contend for the primacy. Yet all his clamour was unavailing;
the decree of the council was confirmed. Therefore his successors,
seeing themselves vanquished, peaceably refrained from such obstinacy;
for they decreed that he should be accounted the second patriarch.

XVI. But a little while after, John, who presided over the Church of
Constantinople while Gregory was bishop of Rome, had the arrogance to
assume the title of universal patriarch. Gregory, not afraid of
defending his see in a good cause, resolutely opposed this assumption.
And certainly it betrayed intolerable pride and folly in John to wish to
make the limits of his bishopric the same with those of the empire. Now,
Gregory did not claim to himself what he denied to another; but
execrated the title, by whomsoever it might be usurped, as wicked and
impious. In one of his epistles he expresses his displeasure with
Eulogius, bishop of Alexandria, for having complimented him with such a
title. “Behold,” says he, “in the preface of the epistle which you have
directed to myself, who have forbidden it, you have taken care to
introduce that appellation of pride, by calling me universal pope. Which
I entreat that your holiness will not do any more; because all that you
give to another beyond what is reasonable, is deducted from yourself. I
consider nothing an honour to me, by which I see the honour of my
brethren diminished. For my honour is the honour of the universal
Church, and the perfect vigour of my brethren. If your holiness calls me
universal pope, this is denying that you have any share in that which is
wholly attributed to me.” Gregory’s was a good and honourable cause; but
John, being supported by the favour of Mauritius the emperor, could not
be diverted from his purpose; and Cyriacus, his successor, was equally
inflexible.

XVII. At length Phocas, who ascended the throne after the murder of
Mauritius, being more favourable to the Romans,—for what reason I know
not, unless because he had been crowned at Rome without any
difficulty,—granted to Boniface the Third what Gregory had never
demanded,—that Rome should be the head of all Churches. Thus the
controversy was decided. Yet this grant of the emperor could not have
been so much to the advantage of the see of Rome, if it had not been
followed by other things. For Greece and all Asia soon after separated
from its communion. France reverenced it only so far as not to carry its
obedience beyond its inclinations; nor was it reduced to entire
subjection, till Pepin had usurped the crown. For after Zachary, the
Roman pontiff, had assisted Pepin in the commission of treason and
robbery, in deposing his lawful sovereign, and taking possession of the
throne, he was rewarded by having the see of Rome invested with
jurisdiction over the Gallican Churches. As robbers are accustomed to
divide their common booty, so those worthy persons concerted together,
that Pepin should have the temporal and civil sovereignty after the
deposition of the rightful monarch, and that Zachary should be made the
head over all bishops, and enjoy the spiritual power. At first this was
feeble, as is generally the case with new establishments; but it was
afterwards confirmed by the authority of Charlemagne, and almost from a
similar cause; for he also was indebted to the Roman pontiff, for his
exertions in raising him to the dignity of emperor. Now, though it is
probable that the Churches, before that time, had in general been
greatly disfigured, it is evident that in France and Germany the ancient
form of the Church was then entirely obliterated. The archives of the
parliament of Paris still contain brief registers of those times, which,
in relating ecclesiastical events, make frequent mention of the treaties
both of Pepin and Charlemagne with the Roman pontiff; from which it may
be concluded that an alteration was then made in the ancient state of
the Church.

XVIII. From that time, as things daily became worse and worse, the
tyranny of the Roman see was gradually established and increased, and
that partly through the ignorance, and partly through the indolence, of
the bishops. For while the Roman pontiff was usurping every thing to
himself, and proceeding from one assumption to another, without any
limits, in defiance of law and justice, the bishops did not exert
themselves with the zeal which became them to repress his cupidity, and
where there was no want of inclination, they were destitute of real
learning and knowledge, so that they were not at all equal to such an
important undertaking. We see, therefore, what a horrible profanation of
every thing sacred, and what a total disorganization of the Church there
was at Rome in the days of Bernard. He complains that the ambitious, the
avaricious, the simoniacal, the sacrilegious, the adulterous, the
incestuous, and all who were chargeable with the most atrocious crimes,
from every part of the world, resorted to Rome, in order to procure or
to retain ecclesiastical honours by the apostolical authority; and that
fraud, circumvention, and violence, were generally practised. He says,
that the judicial process which was then pursued was execrable, and not
only unbecoming of the Church, but disgraceful to any civil court. He
exclaims, that the Church is full of ambitious men, and that there is
not one who is any more afraid of perpetrating the most flagitious
crimes, than robbers in their den when they are distributing the plunder
which they have seized on the highway. “Few,” he says, “regard the mouth
of the legislator; they all look at his hands, and that not without
cause, for those hands transact all that is done by the pope. What a
business it is, that they are bought with the spoils of the Church, who
say to you, Well done, well done! The life of the poor is sown in the
streets of the rich; silver glitters in the mire; people run to it from
all parts; it is borne away, not by the poorest, but by the strongest,
or perhaps by him who runs fastest. This custom, or rather this mortal
corruption, commenced not with you; I wish it may end with you. In these
circumstances you, a pastor, are proceeding, covered with abundant and
costly attire. If I might dare to use the expression, these are rather
the pastors of devils than of sheep. Did Peter act in this manner? Was
Paul guilty of such trifling? Your court has been accustomed to receive
men good, more than to make them so. For the wicked are not improved in
it, but the good are corrupted.” The abuses of appeals which he relates,
no pious person can read without the greatest horror. At length,
respecting the insatiable cupidity of the see of Rome in the usurpation
of jurisdiction, he concludes in the following manner: “I speak the
murmur and common complaint of the Churches. They exclaim that they are
divided and dismembered. There are few or none of them who do not either
bewail or dread this plague. Do you inquire what plague? Abbots are torn
away from their bishops, bishops from their archbishops. It is wonderful
if this can be excused. By such conduct you prove that you have a
plenitude of power, but not of justice. You act thus because you can,
but the question is whether you ought. You are appointed to preserve to
all their respective honour and rank, and not to envy them.” These few
passages I have thought proper to recite, out of a great many, partly
that the readers may see how sadly the Church had then declined, and
partly that they may know into what sorrow and lamentation all good men
were plunged by this calamity.

XIX. But though we should grant to the Roman pontiff in the present day
the same eminence and extent of jurisdiction which this see possessed in
the middle ages, as in the times of Leo and Gregory, what is that to the
Papacy in its present state? I am not yet referring to the temporal and
secular power, which we shall afterwards examine in its proper place;
but the spiritual government itself of which they boast, what
resemblance has it to the condition of those times? For the Romanists
designate the pope no otherwise than as the supreme head of the Church
on earth, and universal bishop of the whole world. And the pontiffs
themselves, when they speak of their authority, pronounce with great
superciliousness, that they have the power to command, and that to
others is only left the necessity to obey; that all their decrees are to
be received as if they were confirmed by the voice of St. Peter; that
for want of their presence, provincial synods have no authority; that
they have the power to ordain priests and deacons for all the Churches,
and to summon to their see those who have been elsewhere ordained. In
the Decretal of Gratian there are innumerable pretensions of this kind,
which I forbear to recite, lest I should be too tedious to my readers.
But the sum of them all comes to this; that the Roman pontiff alone has
the supreme cognizance of all ecclesiastical causes, whether in judging
and determining doctrines, in enacting laws, in regulating discipline,
or in exercising jurisdiction. It would also be tedious and superfluous
to enumerate the privileges which they assume to themselves in
reservations, as they call them. But what is the most intolerable of
all, they leave no judgment on earth to curb or restrain their cupidity,
if they abuse such unlimited power. “It cannot be lawful,” they say,
“for any one to reject the judgment of this see, on account of the
primacy of the Roman Church.” Again: “The judge shall not be judged,
either by the emperor or by kings, or by all the clergy, or by the
people.” This is arrogance beyond all bounds, for one man to constitute
himself judge of all, and to refuse to submit to the judgment of any.
But what if he exercise tyranny over the people of God, if he divide and
desolate the kingdom of Christ, if he disturb and overturn the whole
Church, if he pervert the pastoral office into a system of robbery? Even
though he should go to the greatest extremes of profligacy and mischief,
he denies that he is at all accountable for his conduct. For these are
the very words of the pontiffs: “God has been pleased to decide the
causes of other men by the judgment of men, but the prelate of this see
he has, without all question, reserved to his own judgment.” Again, “The
actions of our subjects are judged by us; but ours by God alone.”

XX. And that such edicts might have the more weight, they have falsely
substituted the names of ancient pontiffs, as if things had been so
regulated from the beginning; whereas it is very certain, that every
thing, which attributes to the Roman pontiff more than we have stated to
have been given him by the ancient councils, is a novel and recent
fabrication. They have even gone to such a pitch of impudence as to
publish a rescript, under the name of Anastasius, patriarch of
Constantinople, which declares that it had been ordained by the ancient
canons, that nothing should be done even in the remotest provinces,
without being first reported to the Roman see. Beside the notorious
falsehood of this, what man will think it credible, that such a eulogium
of the Roman see proceeded from the adversary and rival of its honour
and dignity? But it was necessary that these Antichrists should be
carried to such an extreme of madness and blindness, that their iniquity
may be evident to all men of sound understanding, who only choose to
open their eyes. But the Decretal Epistles, complied by Gregory the
Ninth, as well as the Constitutions of Clement the Fifth, and the
Decrees of Martin, still more openly and expressly betray, in every
page, the inhuman ferocity and tyranny of barbarous kings. But these are
the oracles from which the Romanists wish their Papacy to be
appreciated. Hence proceeded those famous axioms, which at the present
day are universally received by them as oracles: That the pope cannot
err; that the pope is superior to all councils; that the pope is the
universal bishop of all Churches, and supreme head of the Church upon
earth. I pass over the far greater absurdities, which foolish canonists
maintain in their schools; which, however, the Roman theologians not
only assent to, but even applaud, in order to flatter their idol.

XXI. I shall not treat them with all the severity which they deserve. To
this consummate insolence, another person would oppose the declaration
of Cyprian among the bishops at the Council of Carthage, of which he was
president: “No one of us calls himself bishop of bishops, or, by
tyrannical fear, constrains his colleagues to the necessity of obeying
him.” He would object what was decreed at Carthage some time after,
“That no one should be called _prince of priests, or first bishop_.” He
would collect many testimonies from histories, many canons of councils,
and various passages from the writings of the fathers, by which the
Roman pontiff would be reduced to the rank of other bishops. I pass over
these things, however, that I may not appear to lay too much stress upon
them. But let the most able advocates of the Roman see answer me, with
what face they can dare to defend the title of _universal bishop_, which
they find to have been so often anathematized by Gregory. If the
testimony of Gregory be entitled to any credit, they cannot make their
pontiff universal bishop without thereby declaring him to be Antichrist.
Nor was the title of _head_ any more in use at that time; for in one of
his epistles he says, “Peter is the principal member in the body; John,
Andrew, and James, were heads of particular people. Yet they are all
members of the Church under one head. Even the saints before the law,
the saints under the law, the saints under grace, are all placed among
the members, and no one ever wished himself to be called _universal_.”
The arrogant pretensions of the pontiff to the power of commanding are
very inconsistent with an observation made by Gregory in another
passage. For when Eulogius, bishop of Alexandria, had represented
himself as commanded by him, he replies in the following manner:—“I
beseech you, let me not hear the word _command_ mentioned again; for I
know what I am, and what you are. In station, you are my brethren; in
holiness, you are my fathers. Therefore I gave no command, but intended
to suggest to you such things as appeared to be useful.” By extending
his jurisdiction, as he does, without any limits, the pope does a
grievous and atrocious injury, not only to other bishops, but to all
other Churches, which he distracts and divides by such conduct, in order
to establish his own see upon their ruins. But when he exempts himself
from all the judgments of others, and determines to reign in such a
tyrannical manner as to have no law but his own pleasure, this is
certainly so unbecoming, and foreign from the order of the Church, that
it is altogether intolerable, and incapable of any defence. For it is
utterly repugnant, not only to every sentiment of piety, but even of
humanity.

XXII. But that I may not be obliged to pursue and discuss every
particular point, I again appeal to those of my contemporaries, who
would be considered as the most able and faithful advocates of the Roman
see, whether they are not ashamed to defend the present state of the
Papacy, which is evidently a hundred times more corrupt than it was in
the times of Gregory and Bernard, but which even then so exceedingly
displeased those holy men. Gregory every where complains, that he was
excessively distracted with occupations unsuitable to his office; that
under the name of being a bishop, he was carried back to the world; that
he was involved in secular cares, to a greater extent than he could
remember to have been while he was a layman; that he was oppressed with
the tumult of worldly business, so that his mind was incapacitated for
any elevation towards things above; that he was tossed about with
numerous causes like so many waves, and disquieted with the tempests of
a tumultuous life, so that he might justly say, “I am come into the
depth of the sea.” Amidst these worldly avocations, however, he could
still instruct the people by public preaching, give private admonition
and reproof to those who required it, regulate his Church, give advice
to his colleagues, and exhort them to their duty; beside these things,
he had some time left for writing; yet he deplores his calamity, in
being plunged into the depth of the sea. If the administration of that
age was a sea, what must be said of the Papacy in its present state? For
what resemblance is there between them? Here we find no sermons
preached, no attention to discipline, no concern for the Churches, no
spiritual function performed; in a word, nothing but the world. Yet this
labyrinth is praised, as though nothing could be found better
constituted, or better administered. What complaints are poured out by
Bernard, what lamentations does he utter, when he beholds the vices of
his times? What would he say, then, if he could behold this our iron,
or, if possible, worse than iron age? What impudence is it, not only
pertinaciously to defend as sacred and Divine what all the holy fathers
have reprobated with one voice, but also to abuse their testimony in
vindication of the Papacy, which it is evident was utterly unknown to
them! In the time of Bernard, however, I confess the corruption was so
great that there was no great difference between that age and the
present; but those who adduce any plea for the existing state of things
from the time of Leo, Gregory, and others in that middle period, must be
destitute of all shame. This conduct resembles that of any one, who, to
vindicate the monarchy of the Roman emperors, should commend the ancient
state of the Roman government; which would be no other than borrowing
the praises of liberty to adorn a system of tyranny.

XXIII. Lastly, though all these things were conceded to them, they would
be called to a new controversy, when we deny that there exists at Rome a
Church in which such privileges can reside, or a bishop capable of
exercising these dignified prerogatives. Supposing, therefore, all these
things to be true, which, however, we have already refuted,—that, by the
voice of Christ, Peter had been constituted head of the universal
Church; that the honour vested in him he had committed to the Roman see;
that this had been established by the authority of the ancient Church,
and confirmed by long usage; that all men, with one consent, had
invariably acknowledged the supreme power of the Roman pontiff; that he
had been the judge in all causes and of all men, and had been subject to
the judgment of none;—though they should have all these concessions, and
any more that they wished, yet I reply in one word, that none of them
would be of any avail, unless there be at Rome a Church and a bishop.
They must of necessity allow, that Rome cannot be the mother of
Churches, unless it be itself a Church, and that he cannot be the prince
of bishops, who is not a bishop himself. Do they wish, then, to make
Rome the apostolic see? Let them show me a true and legitimate
apostleship. Do they wish to have the supreme pontiff? Let them show me
a bishop. But where will they show us any form or appearance of a
Church? They mention it, indeed, and have it frequently in their mouths.
But the Church is known by certain marks, and a bishopric is a name of
office. I am not now speaking of the people, but of the government
itself, which ought always to appear in the Church. Where is the
ministry, such as Christ’s institution requires? Let us remember what
has already been said of the office of presbyters and bishops. If we
bring the office of cardinals to that rule, we shall confess that they
have no resemblance to presbyters. And I should wish to know what
resemblance the pontiff himself bears to a bishop. The first duty of the
episcopal office is to instruct the people from the word of God; the
second duty, closely connected with the first, is to administer the
sacraments; the third is to admonish, exhort, and reprove those who
offend, and to regulate the people by holy discipline. Which of these
duties does he perform? Which of them does he even pretend to perform?
Let them tell me, then, upon what principle they require him to be
considered as a bishop, who never, even in appearance, with his little
finger touches the least portion of the duty.

XXIV. The case of a bishop is different from that of a king, who still
retains the honour and title of a king, though he execute none of the
royal functions. But in judging of a bishop, regard is to be paid to the
commission of Christ, which ought always to continue in force in the
Church. Let the Romanists, therefore, furnish me with a solution of this
difficulty. I deny that their pontiff is the chief of bishops, because
he is not a bishop himself. Now, they must prove this second member of
my position to be false, if they will obtain the victory in the first.
But what must be the conclusion, if he not only has no characteristic of
a bishop, but every thing contrary to it? But here where shall I begin?
with his doctrine, or his conduct? What shall I say? What shall I omit?
Where shall I stop? I will make this assertion—that as the world is at
present filled with so many corrupt and impious doctrines, loaded with
such various kinds of superstitions, blinded with such numerous errors,
and immerged in such profound idolatry,—there is not one of these evils
which has not originated from the see of Rome, or at least been
confirmed by it. Nor is there any other cause for the violent rage of
the pontiffs against the revived doctrine of the gospel, and for their
exertion of all their power to crush it, and their instigation of all
kings and princes to persecute it, but that they see that their whole
kingdom will decline and fall to the ground, where the primitive gospel
of Christ shall be received. Leo was cruel; Clement was sanguinary; Paul
is ferocious. But it is not so much that nature has impelled them to
impugn the truth, as that this was the only way to defend their power.
As they cannot be safe, therefore, without ruining Christ, they labour
in this cause as if it were in the defence of their religion, their
habitations, their lives. What, then, shall we consider that as the
apostolic see, where we behold nothing but a horrible apostasy? Shall he
be regarded as the vicar of Christ, who, by his furious exertions in
persecuting the gospel, unequivocally declares himself to be Antichrist?
Shall he be deemed Peter’s successor, who rages with fire and sword to
demolish all that Peter built? Shall we acknowledge him to be head of
the Church, who, after severing the Church from Christ, its only true
Head, divides and tears it in pieces? Though it be admitted that Rome
was once the mother of all Churches, yet from the time when it began to
be the seat of Antichrist, it has ceased to be what it was before.

XXV. Some persons think us too severe and censorious, when we call the
Roman pontiff Antichrist. But those who are of this opinion do not
consider that they bring the same charge of presumption against Paul
himself, after whom we speak, and whose language we adopt. And lest any
one should object, that we improperly pervert to the Roman pontiff those
words of Paul, which belong to a different subject, I shall briefly show
that they are not capable of any other interpretation than that which
applies them to the Papacy. Paul says, that Antichrist “sitteth in the
temple of God.”[893] In another place, also, the Holy Spirit, describing
his image in the person of Antiochus, declares that his kingdom will
consist in “speaking great words,” or blasphemies, “against the Most
High.”[894] Hence we conclude, that it is rather a tyranny over the
souls of men, than over their bodies, which is erected in opposition to
the spiritual kingdom of Christ. And in the next place, that this
tyranny is one which does not abolish the name of Christ or of his
Church, but rather abuses the authority of Christ, and conceals itself
under the character of the Church, as under a mask. Now, though all the
heresies and schisms which have existed from the beginning belong to the
kingdom of Antichrist, yet when Paul predicts an approaching apostasy,
he signifies by this description that that seat of abomination shall
then be erected, when a universal defection shall have seized the
Church, notwithstanding many members, dispersed in different places,
persevere in the unity of the faith. But when he adds, that even in his
days “the mystery of iniquity” did “already work”[895] in secret what it
was afterwards to effect in a more public manner, he gives us to
understand that this calamity was neither to be introduced by one man,
nor to terminate with one man. Now, when he designates Antichrist by
this character,—that he would rob God of his honour in order to assume
it to himself,—this is the principal indication which we ought to follow
in our inquiries after Antichrist, especially where such pride proceeds
to a public desolation of the Church. As it is evident therefore that
the Roman pontiff has impudently transferred to himself some of the
peculiar and exclusive prerogatives of God and Christ, it cannot be
doubted that he is the captain and leader of this impious and abominable
kingdom.

XXVI. Now, let the Romanists go and object antiquity against us; as if,
in such a subversion of every thing, the honour of the see could remain,
where no see exists. Eusebius relates that God, in order to make way for
his vengeance, removed the Church from Jerusalem to Pella. What we are
informed did happen once, may have happened oftener. Therefore to attach
the honour of the primacy to any particular place, so that he who is in
fact the most inveterate enemy of Christ, the greatest adversary of the
gospel, the desolater and destroyer of the Church, the most cruel
murderer and butcher of all the saints, must nevertheless be accounted
the vicar of Christ, the successor of Peter, the chief prelate of the
Church, merely because he occupies what was anciently the first see, is
a thing extremely ridiculous and absurd. I forbear to remark the immense
difference between the pope’s chancery, and a well regulated
administration of the Church; though this one thing is sufficient to
remove every difficulty on this subject. For no man in his sound senses
will include the episcopal office in lead and in bulls, much less in
that school of frauds and chicaneries, in which the pope’s spiritual
government consists. It has justly been remarked, therefore, that the
Roman Church which is boasted of, has long ago been converted into a
secular court, which is all that is now to be seen at Rome. Nor am I
here accusing the vices of individuals, but proving that the Papacy
itself is diametrically opposite to the legitimate order of the Church.

XXVII. But if we proceed to persons, it is well known what kind of men
we shall find sustaining the character of vicars of Christ. Julius, and
Leo, and Clement, and Paul, will be pillars of the Christian faith, and
the principal oracles of religion, who never knew any thing of Christ,
except what they had learned in the school of Lucian. But why do I
enumerate three or four pontiffs, as though it were doubtful what kind
of religion the pontiffs and the whole college of cardinals have
professed long ago, and profess in the present day? For of the secret
theology which prevails among them, the first article is, that there is
no God; the second, that all that is written and preached concerning
Jesus Christ is falsehood and imposture; the third, that the doctrine of
a future life, and that of the final resurrection, are mere fables. This
opinion, I confess, is not entertained by all, and is expressed by few
of them; yet it long ago began to be the ordinary religion of the
pontiffs. Though this is notorious to all who are acquainted with Rome,
yet the Roman theologians persist in boasting that the possibility of
error in the pope has been prevented by the privilege of Christ, because
he said to Peter, “I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail
not.”[896] What can they gain by such impudent mockery, except it be to
convince the whole world of their having arrived at such an extreme of
presumption, that they neither fear God nor regard men?

XXVIII. But let us suppose the impiety of those pontiffs, whom I have
mentioned, to be concealed, because they have not published it by
sermons or by writings, but only betrayed it in their chambers and at
their tables, or at least within the walls of their palaces. But if they
wish to establish this privilege to which they pretend, they must
expunge from the number of the pontiffs John the Twenty-second, who
publicly maintained that souls are mortal, and that they perish together
with the bodies till the day of resurrection. And to show that the whole
see, with its principal pillars, was then entirely overturned, not one
of the cardinals resisted this capital error; but the university of
Paris urged the king of France to compel the pope to a retraction. The
king interdicted his subjects from all communion with him, unless he
should speedily repent; and he caused this to be proclaimed, in the
usual manner, by a herald. Compelled by necessity, the pontiff abjured
his error. This example renders it unnecessary for me to dispute any
longer against the assertion of our adversaries, that the see of Rome
and its pontiffs cannot err respecting the faith, because Christ said to
Peter, “I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not.” John certainly
fell from the true faith in so disgraceful a manner, that he might
furnish to posterity a signal proof, that those who succeed Peter in his
bishopric are not all Peters. The argument itself, however, is too
puerile to need any answer. For if they are determined to apply to
Peter’s successors every thing that was said to Peter, it will follow
that they are all Satans, because the Lord also said to Peter, “Get thee
behind me, Satan; thou art an offence unto me.”[897] It will be as easy
for us to retort this passage against them, as it is for them to object
the other against us.

XXIX. But it affords me no pleasure to contend with them in such
fooleries, and therefore I return from the digression. To confine
Christ, and the Holy Spirit, and the Church, to one particular place, so
that whoever presides there, even though he be a devil, must,
nevertheless, be deemed the vicar of Christ, and the head of the Church,
because that place was formerly the see of Peter, I maintain to be not
only impious and dishonourable to Christ, but altogether absurd and
repugnant to common sense. The Roman pontiffs for a long time have
either been totally indifferent to religion, or have shown themselves
its greatest enemies. They are no more made the vicars of Christ,
therefore, by the see which they occupy, than an idol is to be taken for
God, because it is placed in his temple. Now, if a judgment is to be
formed on their conduct, let the pontiffs answer for themselves in what
part of it they can at all be recognized as bishops. In the first place,
the mode of life generally pursued at Rome, not only without any
opposition from them, but with their connivance, and even tacit
approbation, is altogether disgraceful to bishops, whose duty it is to
restrain the licentiousness of the people by a rigid discipline. I will
not, however, be so severe against them as to charge them with the
faults of other persons. But while both themselves and their families,
with almost the whole college of cardinals, and the whole host of their
clergy, are so abandoned to all kinds of debauchery, impurity, and
obscenity, and to every species of enormity and crime, that they
resemble monsters rather than men, they prove themselves to have no just
claim to the character of bishops. They need not be afraid, however,
that I shall proceed to a further disclosure of their turpitude. For it
is unpleasant to meddle with such abominable pollution, and it is
necessary to spare chaste ears. Besides, I conceive, I have more than
sufficiently proved what I intended, that even if Rome had anciently
been the head of all Churches, yet at the present day she is not worthy
of being accounted one of the smallest toes of the Church’s feet.

XXX. With respect to the cardinals, as they are called, I know not how
it has come to pass that they have so suddenly risen to such high
dignity. In the time of Gregory, this title was exclusively applied to
bishops; for whenever he mentions cardinals, he speaks of them not only
as belonging to the Church of Rome, but to any other Churches; so that,
in short, a cardinal priest is no other than a bishop. I find no such
title at all in the writers of any preceding age; and at that time, I
observe, they were far inferior to bishops, to whom they are now so far
superior. This passage of Augustine is well known: “Though, according to
the titles of honour which have long been used in the Church, a bishop
is superior to a presbyter, yet Augustine is in many things inferior to
Jerome.” He clearly makes not the least distinction between a presbyter
of the Roman Church and those of other Churches, but places them all
alike below the bishops. And this order was so long observed, that in
the Council of Carthage, when two legates attended from the Roman see,
one a bishop, the other a presbyter, the presbyter was obliged to take
the lowest seat. But not to go too far into antiquity for examples, we
have the acts of a council held under Gregory at Rome, at which the
presbyters sat in the lowest place, and subscribed separately; and the
deacons were not allowed to subscribe at all. And, indeed, the priests
had no other office at that time, than to attend and assist the bishop
in the ministry of the word and the administration of the sacraments.
Now, their condition is so changed, that they are become the cousins of
kings and emperors. And there is no doubt but they rose by degrees,
together with their head, till they reached their present high dignity.
This also I have thought proper to suggest by the way in a few words,
that the reader may more fully understand, that the Roman see, in its
present circumstances, is widely different from its ancient state, under
the pretext of which it is now maintained and defended. But whatever
they may have been in former times, since they have now no true and
legitimate office in the Church, and only retain a mere name and useless
mask of one, and since every thing belonging to them is quite contrary
to it, it was necessary that what Gregory often forebodes should
actually befall them: “I say it with tears, I denounce it with groans,
that since the sacerdotal order is fallen within, it will not long be
able to stand without.” Or rather it was necessary that what Malachi
declares of similar characters should be fulfilled in them: “Ye are
departed out of the way; ye have caused many to stumble at the law; ye
have corrupted the covenant of Levi, saith the Lord of hosts. Therefore
have I also made you contemptible and base before all the people.”[898]
I now leave it to all pious persons to consider the nature of the lofty
fabric of the Roman hierarchy, to which the Papists, with nefarious
impudence, and without any hesitation, sacrifice even the word of God
itself, which ought to have been held venerable and sacred by heaven and
earth, by men and angels.

Footnote 893:

2 Thess. ii. 4.

Footnote 894:

Dan. vii. 25.

Footnote 895:

2 Thess. ii. 7.

Footnote 896:

Luke xxii. 32.

Footnote 897:

Matt. xvi. 23.

Footnote 898:

Mal. ii. 8, 9.

CHAPTER VIII.
THE POWER OF THE CHURCH RESPECTING ARTICLES OF FAITH, AND ITS LICENTIOUS
PERVERSION, UNDER THE PAPACY, TO THE CORRUPTION OF ALL PURITY OF
DOCTRINE.

The next subject is the power of the Church, which is to be considered
as residing, partly in the respective bishops, partly in councils, and
those either provincial or general. I speak only of the spiritual power
which belongs to the Church. Now, it consists either in doctrine, in
legislation, or jurisdiction. The subject of doctrine contains two
parts—the authority to establish doctrines, and the explication of them.
Before we enter on the particular discussion of each of these points, we
would apprize the pious readers, that whatever is asserted respecting
the power of the Church, they should be mindful to refer to the end for
which Paul declares it to have been given, namely, “to edification, and
not to destruction;”[899] and all who make a legitimate use of it,
consider themselves as nothing more than “servants of Christ,”[900] and
the people’s “servants for Jesus’ sake.”[901] Now, the only way to edify
the Church is, for the ministers themselves to study to preserve to
Jesus Christ his rightful authority, which can no longer be secure than
while he is left in possession of what he has received from the Father,
that is, to be the sole Master in the Church.[902] For of him alone, and
of no other, is it said, “Hear ye him.”[903] The power of the Church,
therefore, is not to be depreciated, yet it must be circumscribed by
certain limits, that it may not be extended in every direction,
according to the caprice of men. It will, therefore, be highly useful to
observe how it is described by the prophets and apostles. For if we
simply grant to men the power which they may be pleased to assume, it
must be obvious to every one, what a door will be opened for tyranny,
which ought never to be seen in the Church of Christ.

II. Here, therefore, it is necessary to remember, that whatever
authority and dignity is attributed by the Holy Spirit, in the
Scripture, either to the priests and prophets under the law, or to the
apostles and their successors, it is all given, not in a strict sense to
the persons themselves, but to the ministry over which they were
appointed, or, to speak more correctly, to the word, the ministration of
which was committed to them. For if we examine them all in succession,
we shall not find that they were invested with any authority to teach or
to answer inquiries, but in the name and word of the Lord. For when they
were called to their office, it was at the same time enjoined that they
should bring forward nothing of themselves, but should speak from the
mouth of the Lord. Nor did he send them forth in public to address the
people, before he had instructed them what they should say, that they
might speak nothing beside his word. Moses himself, the prince of all
the prophets, was to be heard above all others; but he was first
furnished with his commission, that he might not be able to announce any
thing except from the Lord. Therefore the people, when they received his
doctrine, were said to “believe the Lord and his servant Moses.”[904]
The authority of the priests also, that it might not fall into contempt,
was confirmed by the severest punishments.[905] But, on the other hand,
the Lord shows on what condition they were to be heard, when he says,
“My covenant was with Levi. The law of truth was in his mouth.” And just
afterwards, “The priest’s lips should keep knowledge, and they should
seek the law at his mouth; for he is the messenger of the Lord of
hosts.”[906] Therefore, if a priest would be heard, it was necessary for
him to prove himself the messenger of God, by faithfully communicating
the commands which he had received from his master; and where attention
to the priests is enjoined, it is expressly stated, that “they shall
teach the sentence of the law”[907] of God.

III. The power of the prophets is fully and beautifully described in
Ezekiel. “Son of man,” says the Lord, “I have made thee a watchman unto
the house of Israel; therefore hear the word at my mouth, and give them
warning from me.”[908] When he is commanded to hear from the mouth of
the Lord, is he not prohibited to invent any thing of himself? And what
is it to give warning from the Lord, but, to speak in such a manner as
to be able to declare with confidence that the message he has brought is
not his own, but the Lord’s? The Lord expresses the same thing in other
words in the prophecy of Jeremiah: “The prophet that hath a dream, let
him tell a dream; and he that hath my word, let him speak my word
faithfully.”[909] He clearly delivers a law for them all; its import is,
that he permits no one to teach more than he has been commanded; and he
afterwards gives the appellation of “chaff” to every thing that has not
proceeded from himself alone. Not one of the prophets opened his mouth,
therefore, without having first received the words from the Lord. Hence
their frequent use of these expressions: “The word of the Lord,” “The
burden of the Lord,” “Thus saith the Lord,” “The mouth of the Lord hath
spoken;” and this was highly necessary; for Isaiah exclaimed, “I am a
man of unclean lips;”[910] and Jeremiah said, “Behold, I cannot speak,
for I am a child.”[911] What could proceed from the pollution of the
one, and the folly of the other, but impure and foolish speeches, if
they had spoken their own words? But their lips were holy and pure, when
they began to be the organs of the Holy Spirit. While the prophets were
bound by this law to deliver nothing but what they had received, they
were likewise adorned with eminent power and splendid titles. For when
the Lord declares, “See, I have this day set thee over the nations, and
over the kingdoms, to root out, and to pull down, and to destroy, and to
throw down, and to build, and to plant,” he at the same time assigns the
reason—“Behold, I have put my words in thy mouth.”[912]

IV. If we advert to the apostles, they are certainly honoured with many
extraordinary characters. It is said that they are “the light of the
world,” and “the salt of the earth;”[913] that “he that heareth” them
“heareth Christ;”[914] that “whatsoever” they “shall bind on earth shall
be bound in heaven, and whatsoever” they “shall loose on earth shall be
loosed in heaven.”[915] But their very name shows what degree of liberty
they were allowed in their office; that if they were apostles, they were
not to declaim according to their own pleasure, but to deliver with
strict fidelity the commands of him who had sent them. And the language
of Christ is sufficiently clear, in which he has defined their message
by the following commission: “Go ye, and teach all nations whatsoever I
have commanded you.”[916] He had even received and imposed on himself
the same law, in order that no one might refuse to submit to it. “My
doctrine,” says he, “is not mine, but his that sent me.”[917] He who was
always the eternal and only counsellor of the Father, and was
constituted by the Father the Lord and Master of all, yet because he
sustained the office of a teacher, prescribed, by his own example, the
rule which all ministers ought to follow in their teaching. The power of
the Church, therefore, is not unlimited, but subject to the word of the
Lord, and, as it were, included in it.

V. But whereas it has been a principle received in the Church from the
beginning, and ought to be admitted in the present day, that the
servants of God should teach nothing which they have not learned from
him, yet they have had different modes of receiving instruction from
him, according to the variety of different periods; and the present mode
differs from those which have preceded it. In the first place, if the
assertion of Christ be true, that “no man knoweth the Father except the
Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him,”[918] it must always
have been necessary for those who would arrive at the knowledge of God,
to be directed by that eternal wisdom. For how could they have
comprehended the mysteries of God, or how could they have declared them,
except by the teaching of him, to whom alone the secrets of the Father
are intimately known? The saints in former ages, therefore, had no other
knowledge of God than what they obtained by beholding him in the Son, as
in a mirror. By this observation I mean that God never manifested
himself to man in any other way than by his Son, his only wisdom, light,
and truth. From this fountain Adam, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and
others, drew all the knowledge which they possessed of heavenly
doctrine; from this fountain the prophets themselves drew all the
celestial oracles which they spoke and wrote. But this wisdom has not
always manifested itself in the same way. With the patriarchs God
employed secret revelations; for the confirmation of which, however, he
at the same time added such signs that they could not entertain the
least doubt that it was God who spake to them. What the patriarchs had
received, they transmitted from hand to hand to their posterity; for the
Lord had committed it to them on the express condition that they should
so propagate it. Succeeding generations, from the testimony of God in
their hearts, knew that what they heard was from heaven, and not from
the earth.

VI. But when it pleased God to raise up a more visible form of a church,
it was his will that his word should be committed to writing, in order
that the priests might derive from it whatever they would communicate to
the people, and that all the doctrine which should be delivered might be
examined by that rule. Therefore, after the promulgation of the law,
when the priests were commanded to teach “out of the mouth of the Lord,”
the meaning is, that they should teach nothing extraneous, or different
from that system of doctrine which the Lord had comprised in the law; it
was not lawful for them to add to it or to diminish from it. Afterwards
followed the prophets, by whom God published new oracles, which were to
be added to the law; yet they were not so new but that they proceeded
from the law, and bore a relation to it. For in regard to doctrine, the
prophets were merely interpreters of the law, and added nothing to it
except prophecies of things to come. Except these, they brought forward
nothing but pure explication of the law. But because it pleased God that
there should be a more evident and copious doctrine, for the better
satisfaction of weak consciences, he directed the prophecies also to be
committed to writing, and to be accounted a part of his word. To these
likewise were added the histories, which were the productions of the
prophets, but composed under the dictation of the Holy Spirit. I class
the Psalms with the prophecies, because what we attribute to the
prophecies is common to the Psalms. That whole body of Scripture,
therefore, consisting of the Law, the Prophets, the Psalms, and the
Histories, was the word of God to the ancient Church; and to this
standard the priests and teachers, even to the coming of Christ, were
bound to conform their doctrine; nor was it lawful for them to deviate
either to the right hand or to the left, because their office was wholly
confined within these limits, that they should answer the people from
the mouth of God. And this may be inferred from that remarkable passage
of Malachi, where he commands the Jews to remember the law, and to be
attentive to it, even till the publication of the gospel.[919] For in
that injunction he drives them off from all adventitious doctrines, and
prohibits even the smallest deviation from the path which Moses had
faithfully showed them. And it is for this reason that David so
magnifies the excellence of the law, and recounts so many of its
praises; to prevent the Jews from desiring any addition to it, since it
contained every thing necessary for them to know.

VII. But when, at length, the Wisdom of God was manifested in the flesh,
it openly declared to us all that the human mind is capable of
comprehending, or ought to think, concerning the heavenly Father. Now,
therefore, since Christ, the Sun of Righteousness, has shone upon us, we
enjoy the full splendour of Divine truth, resembling the brightness of
noonday, whereas the light enjoyed before was a kind of twilight. For
certainly the apostle intended to state no unimportant fact when he
said, that “God, who, at sundry times, and in divers manners, spake in
time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days
spoken unto us by his Son;”[920] for he here suggests, and even plainly
declares, that God will not in future, as in ages past, speak from time
to time by one and another, that he will not add prophecies to
prophecies, or revelations to revelations, but that he has completed all
the branches of instruction in his Son, so that this is the last and
eternal testimony that we shall have from him; for which reason this
whole period of the New Testament, from the appearance of Christ to us
in the first promulgation of his gospel, even to the day of judgment, is
designated as “the last time,” “the last times,” “the last days;” in
order that, being content with the perfection of the doctrine of Christ,
we may learn neither to invent any thing new or beyond it ourselves, nor
to receive any such thing from the invention of others. It is not
without cause, therefore, that the Father has given us his Son by a
peculiar privilege, and appointed him to be our teacher, commanding
attention to be paid to him, and not to any mere man. He has recommended
his tuition to us in few words, when he says, “Hear ye him;”[921] but
there is more weight and energy in them than is commonly imagined; for
they call us away from all the instructions of men, and place us before
him alone; they command us to learn from him alone all the doctrine of
salvation, to depend upon him, to adhere to him, in short, as the words
express, to listen solely to his voice. And, indeed, what ought now to
be either expected or desired from man, when the Word of Life himself
has familiarly presented himself before us? It is rather necessary that
the mouths of all men should be shut, since he has once spoken, in whom
it has pleased the heavenly Father that all the treasures of wisdom and
knowledge should be hidden,[922] and has spoken in a manner becoming the
wisdom of God, in which there is no imperfection, and the Messiah, who
was expected to reveal all things;[923] that is, has spoken in such a
manner as to leave nothing to be said by others after him.

VIII. Let us lay down this, then, as an undoubted axiom, that nothing
ought to be admitted in the Church as the word of God, but what is
contained first in the law and the prophets, and secondly in the
writings of the apostles, and that there is no other method of teaching
aright in the Church than according to the direction and standard of
that word. Hence we conclude, also, that the apostles were allowed no
more discretion than the prophets before them—namely, to expound the
ancient Scripture, and to show that the things delivered in it were
accomplished in Christ; but this they were only to do from the Lord,
that is to say, under the guidance and dictation of the Spirit of
Christ. For Christ limited their mission by this condition, when he
ordered them to go and teach, not the fabrications of their own
presumption, but whatsoever he had commanded them.[924] And nothing
could be more explicit than what he said on another occasion: “Be not ye
called Rabbi; for one is your Master, even Christ.”[925] To fix this
more deeply in their minds, he repeats it twice in the same place. And
because their weakness was such that they were unable to comprehend the
things which they had heard and learned from the lips of their Master,
the Spirit of truth was promised to them, to lead them into the true
understanding of all things.[926] For that restriction is to be
attentively remarked, which assigns to the Holy Spirit the office of
suggesting to their minds all that Christ had before taught them with
his mouth.

IX. Therefore Peter, who had been fully taught by his Master how far his
office extended, represents nothing as left for himself or others, but
to dispense the doctrine committed to them by God. “If any man speak,”
says he, “let him speak as the oracles of God;”[927] that is, not with
hesitation or uncertainty, like persons conscious of no sufficient
authority, but with the noble confidence which becomes a servant of God
furnished with his certain commission. What is this but rejecting all
the inventions of the human mind, from whatever head they may proceed,
in order that the pure word of God may be taught and learned in the
Church of believers? What is this but removing all the decrees, or
rather inventions of men, whatever be their station, that the ordinances
of God alone may be observed? These are the spiritual “weapons, mighty
through God to the pulling down of strong-holds,” by which the faithful
soldiers of God “cast down imaginations, and every high thing that
exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bring into captivity
every thought to the obedience of Christ.”[928] This is the extent of
the power with which the pastors of the Church, by whatever name they
may be distinguished, ought to be invested;—that by the word of God they
may venture to do all things with confidence; may constrain all the
strength, glory, wisdom, and pride of the world to obey and submit to
his majesty; supported by his power, may govern all mankind, from the
highest to the lowest; may build up the house of Christ, and subvert the
house of Satan; may feed the sheep, and drive away the wolves; may
instruct and exhort the docile; may reprove, rebuke, and restrain the
rebellious and obstinate; may bind and loose; may discharge their
lightnings and thunders, if necessary; but all in the word of God.
Between the apostles and their successors, however, there is, as I have
stated, this difference—that the apostles were the certain and authentic
amanuenses of the Holy Spirit, and therefore their writings are to be
received as the oracles of God; but succeeding ministers have no other
office than to teach what is revealed and recorded in the sacred
Scriptures. We conclude, then, that it is not now left to faithful
ministers to frame any new doctrine, but that it behoves them simply to
adhere to the doctrine to which God has made all subject, without any
exception. In making this observation, my design is to show, not only
what is lawful to individuals, but also to the universal Church. With
respect to particular persons, Paul had certainly been appointed by the
Lord an apostle to the Corinthians; yet he denies that he had any
dominion over their faith.[929] Who can now dare to arrogate to himself
a dominion which Paul testifies did not belong to him? If he had
sanctioned such a license of teaching, that whatever the pastor
delivered, he might require, as a matter of right, that the same should
be implicitly believed, he would never have recommended to the same
Corinthians such a regulation as this: “Let the prophets speak two or
three, and let the other judge. If any thing be revealed to another that
sitteth by, let the first hold his peace.”[930] For here he exempted
none, but made the authority of every one subject to the control of the
word of God. But the case of the universal Church, it will be said, is
different. I reply—Paul has obviated this objection in another place,
when he says that “faith cometh by hearing, and hearing, by the word of
God.”[931] But if it be the word of God alone upon which faith is
suspended, towards which it looks, and on which it relies, I ask what is
there left for the word of the whole world? Here it will be impossible
for any man to hesitate who has really known what faith is. For it ought
to rest on such firm ground as to stand invincible and undismayed in
opposition to Satan, to all the machinations of hell, and to all the
assaults of the world. This stability we shall find in the word of God
alone. Besides the reason which we are here required to consider is of
universal application—that God denies to man the right of promulgating
any new article of faith, in order that he alone may be our Master in
spiritual doctrine, as he alone is true beyond all possibility of
deceiving or being deceived. This reason is no less applicable to the
whole Church than to every individual believer.

X. But if this power, which we have shown to belong to the Church, be
compared with that which has now for some ages past been claimed over
the people of God by the spiritual tyrants who have falsely called
themselves bishops and prelates of religion, there will be no more
resemblance than there is between Christ and Belial. It is not my
intention here to expose the shameful methods in which they have
exercised their tyranny: I shall only state the doctrine, which they
defend in the present age, not only by their writings, but also by fire
and sword. As they take it for granted that a universal council is the
true representative of the Church, having assumed this principle, they
at once determine, as beyond all doubt, that such councils are under the
immediate direction of the Holy Spirit, and therefore cannot err. Now,
as they themselves influence the councils, and even constitute them, the
fact is, that they assume to themselves all that they contend for as
belonging to the councils. They wish our faith, therefore, to stand or
fall at their pleasure, that whatever they may have determined on one
side or the other, may be implicitly received by our minds as fully
decided; so that if they approve of any thing, we must approve of the
same without any hesitation; and if they condemn any thing, we must
unite in the condemnation of it. At the same time, according to their
own caprice, and in contempt of the word of God, they fabricate
doctrines which, for no other reason than this, they require to be
believed. For they acknowledge no man as a Christian, who does not fully
assent to all their dogmas, affirmative as well as negative, if not with
an explicit, at least with an implicit faith, because they pretend that
the Church has authority to make new articles of faith.

XI. First, let us hear by what arguments they prove this authority to
have been given to the Church; and then we shall see how far their
allegations respecting the Church contribute to support their cause. The
Church, they say, has excellent promises, that she is never to be
forsaken by Christ, her spouse, but will be led by his Spirit into all
truth.[932] But of the promises which they are accustomed to allege,
many are given no less to each believer in particular, than collectively
to the whole Church. For though the Lord was addressing the twelve
apostles when he said, “Lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of
the world;”[933] and “I will pray the Father, and he shall give you
another comforter, even the Spirit of truth;”[934] he made these
promises not only to the apostles considered as a body, but to every one
of the number, and even to the other disciples whom he had already
received, or who were afterwards to be added to them. Now, when they
interpret these promises, replete with peculiar consolation, in such a
sense as if they were given to no individual Christian, but only to the
whole Church collectively, what is this but depriving all Christians of
the confidence with which such promises ought to animate them? Here I do
not deny that the whole society of believers, being adorned with a
manifold variety of gifts, possesses a more ample and precious treasure
of heavenly wisdom, than each particular individual; nor do I intend
that these things are spoken of believers in common, as if they were all
equally endued with the spirit of understanding and doctrine; but we
must not allow the adversaries of Christ, in defence of a bad cause, to
wrest the Scripture to a sense which it was not intended to convey.
Leaving this remark, I freely acknowledge that the Lord is continually
present with his servants, and that he guides them by his Spirit; that
this is not a spirit of error, ignorance, falsehood, or darkness, but
“the spirit of wisdom, and revelation, and truth,” from whom they may
certainly learn “the things that are given to” them “of God,” or, in
other words, “may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the
riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints.”[935] But as it is
nothing more than the first fruits, a kind of foretaste of that Spirit
that is enjoyed by believers in the present state, even by those of them
who are favoured with more excellent graces than others, there remains
nothing for them, but that, conscious of their imbecility, they
solicitously confine themselves within the limits of the word of God;
lest, if they proceed far by their own sense, they should wander from
the right way, in consequence of being not yet fully enlightened by that
Spirit, by whose teaching alone truth is distinguished from falsehood.
For all confess with Paul, that they have not yet attained the mark;
therefore they rather press on towards daily improvement, than boast of
perfection.[936]

XII. But they will object, that whatever is partially attributed to
every one of the saints, completely and perfectly belongs to the whole
Church. Notwithstanding the plausibility of this position, yet I deny it
to be true. I admit that God distributes the gifts of his Spirit by
measure to every member of his Church, in such a manner that nothing
necessary is wanting to the whole body, when those gifts are bestowed in
common. But the riches of the Church are always such as to be very far
from that consummate perfection boasted by our adversaries. Yet the
Church is not left destitute in any respect, but that it always has what
is sufficient; for the Lord knows what its necessity requires. But to
restrain it within the bounds of humility and pious modesty, he bestows
no more than he sees to be expedient. Here, I know, they are accustomed
to object, that the Church has been “cleansed by the washing of water by
the word, that he might present it to himself a glorious Church, not
having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing, but that it should be holy
and without blemish;”[937] and that for this reason it is called “the
pillar and ground of the truth.”[938] But the former of these passages
rather indicates what Christ is daily performing in his Church, than any
thing that he has already accomplished. For if he is daily sanctifying,
purifying, polishing, and cleansing his people, it must be evident that
they still have some spots and wrinkles, and that something is still
wanting to their sanctification. How vain and visionary is it to imagine
the Church already perfectly holy and immaculate, while all its members
are the subjects of corruption and impurity! It is true that the Church
is sanctified by Christ, but it is only the commencement of their
sanctification that is seen in the present state; the end and perfect
completion of it will be when Christ, the Holy of Holies, shall fill it
truly and entirely with his holiness. It is likewise true that its spots
and wrinkles are effaced, but in such a manner that they are in a daily
course of obliteration, till Christ at his coming shall entirely efface
all that remains. For, unless we admit this, we must of necessity
assert, with the Pelagians, that the righteousness of believers is
perfect in the present life, and with the Cathari and Donatists, must
allow no infirmity in the Church. The other passage, as we have already
seen, has a meaning totally different from what they pretend. For after
Paul had instructed Timothy in the true nature of the office of a
bishop, he says, “These things I write unto thee, that thou mayest know
how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God;” and to enforce
his conscientious attention to this object, he adds, that the Church
itself is “the pillar and ground of the truth.”[939] Now, what is the
meaning of this expression, but that the truth of God is preserved in
the Church, and that by the ministry of preaching? As in another place
he states, that Christ “gave some apostles, and some prophets, and some
evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, that we be no more carried
about with every wind of doctrine,” or deluded by men, but that, being
enlightened with the true knowledge of the Son of God, we may “all come
into the unity of the faith.”[940] The preservation of the truth,
therefore, from being extinguished in the world, is in consequence of
the Church being its faithful guardian, by whose efforts and ministry it
is maintained. But if this guardianship consists in the ministry of the
prophets and apostles, it follows that it wholly depends on the faithful
preservation of the purity of the word of God.

XIII. And that the readers may better understand upon what point this
question principally turns, I will briefly state what our adversaries
require, and wherein we oppose them. When they assert that the Church
cannot err, their meaning is, as they themselves explain it, that as it
is governed by the Spirit of God, it may safely proceed without the
word; that whithersoever it goes, it can neither think nor speak any
thing that is not true; and, therefore, that if it determine any thing
beyond or beside the Divine word, the same is to be considered in no
other light than as a certain oracle of God. If we grant the first
point, that the Church cannot err in things essential to salvation, our
meaning is, that its security from error is owing to its renouncing all
its own wisdom, and submitting itself to the Holy Spirit, to be taught
by means of the word of God. This, then, is the difference between us.
They ascribe to the Church an authority independent of the word; we
maintain it to be annexed to the word, and inseparable from it. And what
is there surprising that the spouse and disciple of Christ is subject to
her Lord and Master, so as to be assiduously and sedulously awaiting his
commands and instructions? For it is the order of a well regulated
family, for the wife to obey the command of the husband; it is the order
of a well disciplined school, that nothing be heard there but the
instructions of the master. Wherefore let not the Church be wise of
itself, nor think any thing of itself, but let it fix the boundary of
its wisdom where Christ has made an end of speaking. In this manner it
will distrust all the inventions of its own reason; but in those things
in which it is supported by the word of God, it will not waver with any
distrust or hesitation, but will rest upon it with strong certainty and
unshaken constancy. Thus confiding in the amplitude of the promises it
has received, it will have an excellent support for its faith, so that
it cannot doubt that the Holy Spirit, the best guide in the right way,
is always present with it; but, at the same time, it will remember what
advantage the Lord intends should be received from his Spirit. “The
Spirit,” says he, “whom I will send from the Father, will guide you into
all truth.” But how will this be done? Christ says, “He shall bring all
things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.”[941] He
announces, therefore, that nothing more is to be expected from his
Spirit, than that he will enlighten our minds to discover the truth of
his doctrine. Wherefore it is very judiciously observed by Chrysostom,
that “many boast of the Holy Spirit; but in those who speak from
themselves this is a false pretence. As Christ testified that he spake
not of himself, because he spake from the law and the prophets, so, if,
under the name of the Spirit, any thing be obtruded that is not
contained in the gospel, let us not believe it. For as Christ is the
accomplishment of the law and the prophets, so is the Spirit, of the
gospel.” These are the words of Chrysostom. Now, it is easy to infer how
great is the error of our adversaries, who boast of the Holy Spirit for
no other purpose than to recommend, under his name, doctrines strange
and inconsistent with the word of God, whereas it is his determination
to be connected with the word by an indissoluble bond; and this was
declared by Christ when he promised him to his Church. And so he is, in
point of fact. The sobriety which the Lord has once prescribed to his
Church, he will have to be perpetually observed; and he has forbidden
the Church to add any thing to his word, or to diminish any thing from
it. This is the inviolable decree of God and of the Holy Spirit, which
our adversaries endeavour to abrogate, when they pretend that the Church
is governed by the Spirit without the word.

XIV. Here, again, they cavil, that it was necessary for the Church to
add some things to the writings of the apostles, or at least for the
apostles themselves afterwards to supply in their discourses what they
had not so explicitly delivered in their writings, because Christ
declared to them, “I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot
bear them now;”[942] and that these are the ordinances which have been
received by usage and custom without the Scripture. But what effrontery
is here betrayed! I confess that the disciples were ignorant, and not
very docile, when the Lord made this declaration to them; but they were
not so stupid, when they committed their doctrine to writing, as to
render it necessary for them afterwards to supply in their discourses
what they had from ignorance omitted in their writings. But if, when
they published their writings, they had already been led by the Spirit
into all truth, what hindered them from comprising and leaving on record
in those writings a perfect system of evangelical doctrine? Let us grant
our opponents, however, what they ask: only let them enumerate those
things which required to be revealed, and are not contained in the
apostolical writings. If they dare to attempt this, I will reply in the
words of Augustine, “Where the Lord has been silent, which of us can
say, These things or those are intended; and if he dare to say so, how
will he prove it?” But why do I contend a point that is unnecessary? For
even children know that the apostolic writings, which these men
represent as incomplete and essentially deficient, contain the fruit of
that revelation which the Lord then promised them.

XV. What, say they, did not Christ place the doctrines and decrees of
the Church beyond all controversy, when he commanded him who should dare
to contradict it, to be regarded “as a heathen man and a publican?”[943]
In the first place, Christ in that text makes no mention of doctrine,
but only asserts the authority of the Church in pronouncing censures for
the correction of vices, in order that its judgment may not be opposed
by any who are admonished or reproved. But leaving this remark, it is
astonishing, that they have no more modesty than to presume to boast of
that passage. For what will they extort from it, but that it is unlawful
to despise the consent of the Church, which never consents to any thing
except the truth of the word of God? The Church is to be heard, they
say. Who denies it? For it pronounces nothing but from the word of the
Lord. If they require any thing further, let them know that these words
of Christ afford them no support. Nor ought it to be esteemed too
contentious in me to insist so strenuously on this point—That it is not
lawful for the Church to invent any new doctrine, or to teach and
deliver, as of Divine authority, any thing more than the Lord has
revealed in his word. All persons of sound judgment perceive how
exceedingly dangerous it would be if so much power were once granted to
any man. For they see how wide a door is opened to the scoffs and cavils
of the impious, if we assert that the decisions of men are to be
received by Christians as articles of faith. It is also to be remarked,
that Christ spoke according to the established order of his own time,
and gave this name to the Sanhedrim, that his disciples might learn
afterwards to reverence the solemn assemblies of the Church. And thus,
on the principle of our adversaries, every city and village would have
an equal liberty to frame new articles of faith.

XVI. The examples which they allege are nothing to the purpose. They say
that the baptism of infants arose, not so much from any express command
of Scripture, as from the decree of the Church. It would be a most
miserable asylum, if, in defence of infant baptism, we were compelled to
have recourse to the mere authority of the Church; but it will be shown
in another place, that the fact is very different. So when they object,
that the Scriptures nowhere affirm what was pronounced in the Council of
Nice, that the Son is of the same substance with the Father, they do
great injury to the fathers of that council, as if they had
presumptuously condemned Arius for having refused to subscribe to their
language, while he professed all the doctrine which is contained in the
writings of the prophets and apostles. The word _consubstantial_,
(ὁμοουσιος,) I confess, is not to be found in the Scripture; but while,
on the one hand, it is so often affirmed that there is but one God, and,
on the other, Christ is so frequently called the true and eternal God,
one with the Father, what have the Nicene fathers done, but simply
expressed the natural sense of the Scripture, in declaring the Father
and the Son to be of one and the same substance? And Theodoret the
historian states, that Constantine the emperor opened that council with
the following preliminary address: “In disputes on Divine subjects, we
are to adhere to the doctrine of the Holy Spirit; the books of the
evangelists and apostles, with the oracles of the prophets, fully reveal
to us the will of God. Wherefore, laying aside all discord, let us take
the decision of all questions in debate from the words of the Spirit.”
There was no one at that time who opposed these holy admonitions. No one
objected, that the Church might add something of its own, that the
Spirit had not revealed every thing to the apostles, or, at least, that
they had not transmitted the whole to posterity in writing, or any thing
of the like nature. If what our adversaries contend for be true, in the
first place, Constantine acted unjustly in depriving the Church of its
power; and in the next place, when none of the bishops rose to vindicate
that power, their silence was not to be excused from treachery, for on
that occasion they must have betrayed the rights of the Church. But from
the statement of Theodoret, that they readily received what was said by
the emperor, it is evident that this novel dogma of our adversaries was
at that time altogether unknown.

Footnote 899:

2 Cor. x. 8; xiii. 10.

Footnote 900:

Phil. i. 1.

Footnote 901:

2 Cor. iv. 5.

Footnote 902:

Matt. xxiii. 8.

Footnote 903:

Matt. xvii. 5.

Footnote 904:

Exod. xiv. 31.

Footnote 905:

Deut. xvii. 8-12.

Footnote 906:

Mal. ii. 4-7.

Footnote 907:

Deut. xvii. 11.

Footnote 908:

Ezek. iii. 17.

Footnote 909:

Jer. xxiii. 28.

Footnote 910:

Isaiah vi. 5.

Footnote 911:

Jer. i. 6.

Footnote 912:

Jer. i. 9, 10.

Footnote 913:

Matt. v. 13, 14.

Footnote 914:

Luke x. 16.

Footnote 915:

Matt. xviii. 18.

Footnote 916:

Matt. xxviii. 19, 20.

Footnote 917:

John vii. 16.

Footnote 918:

Matt. xi. 27.

Footnote 919:

Mal. iv. 4.

Footnote 920:

Heb. i. 1, 2.

Footnote 921:

Matt. xvii. 5.

Footnote 922:

Col. i. 19; ii. 3.

Footnote 923:

John iv. 25.

Footnote 924:

Matt. xxviii. 19, 20.

Footnote 925:

Matt. xxiii. 8, 10.

Footnote 926:

John xiv. 26; xvi. 13.

Footnote 927:

1 Peter iv. 11.

Footnote 928:

2 Cor. x. 4, 5.

Footnote 929:

2 Cor. i. 24.

Footnote 930:

1 Cor. xiv. 29, 30.

Footnote 931:

Rom. x. 17.

Footnote 932:

John xvi. 13.

Footnote 933:

Matt. xxviii. 20.

Footnote 934:

John xiv. 16, 17.

Footnote 935:

Ephes. i. 17, 18. John xiv. 17. 1 Cor. ii. 12.

Footnote 936:

Phil. iii. 12-14.

Footnote 937:

Ephes. v. 26, 27.

Footnote 938:

1 Tim. iii. 15.

Footnote 939:

1 Tim. iii. 14, 15.

Footnote 940:

Ephes. iv. 11, 13, 14.

Footnote 941:

John xiv. 26; xv. 26; xvi. 13.

Footnote 942:

John xvi. 12.

Footnote 943:

Matt. xviii. 17.

CHAPTER IX.
COUNCILS; THEIR AUTHORITY.

Though I should concede to our adversaries all the claims which they set
up on behalf of the Church, yet this would effect but little towards the
attainment of their object. For whatever is said respecting the Church,
they immediately transfer to the councils, which they consider as
representing the Church; and it may further be affirmed, that their
violent contentions for the power of the Church, are with no other view
than to ascribe all that they can extort, to the Roman pontiff and his
satellites. Before I enter on the discussion of this question, it is
necessary for me to premise two brief observations. First, if in this
chapter I am rather severe on our opponents, it is not that I would show
the ancient councils less honour than they deserve. I venerate them from
my heart, and wish them to receive from all men the honour to which they
are entitled; but here some limits must be observed, that we may
derogate nothing from Christ. Now, it is the prerogative of Christ to
preside over all councils, and to have no mortal man associated with him
in that dignity. But I maintain, that he really presides only where he
governs the whole assembly by his word and Spirit. Secondly, when I
attribute to the councils less than our adversaries require, I am not
induced to do this from any fear that the councils would favour their
cause and oppose ours. For as we are sufficiently armed by the word of
the Lord, and need not seek any further assistance for the complete
establishment of our doctrine, and the total subversion of Popery, so,
on the other hand, if it were necessary, the ancient councils would
furnish us in a great measure with sufficient arguments for both these
objects.

II. Let us now come to the subject itself. If it be inquired what is the
authority of councils according to the Scriptures, there is no promise
more ample or explicit than this declaration of Christ: “Where two or
three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of
them.”[944] But this belongs no less to every particular congregation
than to a general council. The main stress of the question, however,
does not lie in this, but in the annexed condition,—that Christ will be
in the midst of a council, then, and then only, when it is assembled in
his name. Wherefore, though our adversaries mention councils of bishops
a thousand times, they will gain but little ground; nor will they
prevail upon us to believe what they pretend,—that such councils are
directed by the Holy Spirit,—till it shall have been proved, that they
are assembled in the name of Christ. For it is equally as possible for
impious and unfaithful bishops to conspire against Christ, as for pious
and upright bishops to assemble together in his name. Of this we have
ample proof in numerous decrees which have been issued by such councils;
as will be seen in the course of this discussion. At present I only
reply in one word, that the promise of Christ is exclusively restricted
to those who “are gathered together in his name.” Let us, therefore,
define wherein this consists. I deny that they are assembled in the name
of Christ, who, rejecting the command of God, which prohibits any
diminution of his word, or the smallest addition to it,[945] determine
every thing according to their own pleasure; who, not content with the
oracles of the Scripture, which constitute the only rule of perfect
wisdom, invent something new out of their own heads. Since Christ has
not promised to be present in all councils, but has added a particular
mark to discriminate true and legitimate councils from others, it
certainly behoves us by no means to neglect this distinction. This was
the covenant which God anciently made with the Levitical priests, that
they should teach their people from his mouth;[946] he always required
the same of the prophets; and we see that a similar law was imposed upon
the apostles. Those who violate this covenant, God neither dignifies
with the honour of the priesthood, nor invests with any authority. Let
our adversaries solve this difficulty, if they wish me to submit my
faith to the decrees of men, independently of the word of God.

III. For their supposition, that no truth remains in the Church, unless
it be found among the pastors, and that the Church itself stands, no
longer than it appears in general councils, is very far from having been
always correct, if the prophets have left us any authentic records of
their times. In the days of Isaiah, there was a Church at Jerusalem,
which God had not yet forsaken: nevertheless he speaks of the priests in
the following manner: “His watchmen are blind; they are all ignorant;
they are all dumb dogs, they cannot bark; sleeping, lying down, loving
to slumber: they are shepherds that cannot understand: they all look to
their own way, every one for his gain, from his quarter.”[947]—Hosea
speaks in a similar manner: “The watchman of Ephraim was with my God;
but the prophet is a snare of a fowler in all his ways, and hatred in
the house of his God.”[948] By thus ironically connecting them with God,
he shows that their priesthood was a vain pretence. The Church continued
also to the time of Jeremiah. Let us hear what he says of the pastors.
“From the prophet even unto the priest, every one dealeth falsely.”[949]
Again: “the prophets prophesy lies in my name; I sent them not, neither
have I commanded them.”[950] And to avoid too much prolixity in reciting
his words, I would recommend my readers to peruse the whole of the
twenty-third and fortieth chapters. Nor were the same persons treated
with less severity by Ezekiel: “There is a conspiracy of her prophets in
the midst thereof, like a roaring lion ravening the prey; they have
devoured souls; they have taken the treasure and precious things; they
have made her many widows in the midst thereof. Her priests have
violated my law, and have profaned mine holy things; they have put no
difference between the holy and profane. Her prophets have daubed them
with untempered mortar, seeing vanity, and divining lies unto them,
saying, Thus saith the Lord God, when the Lord hath not spoken.”[951]
Similar complaints abound in all the prophets, so that there is nothing
of more frequent recurrence.

IV. But it will be said, though such may have been the case among the
Jews, our age is exempt from so great a calamity. I sincerely wish that
it were so; but the Holy Spirit has denounced that the event would be
very different. The language of Peter is clear: “There were false
prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers
among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies.”[952] Observe
how he declares that danger will arise, not from the common people, but
from those who will assume to themselves the name of pastors and
teachers. Besides, how often is it predicted by Christ and his apostles,
that the greatest dangers would be brought upon the Church by its
pastors![953] Paul expressly denounces that Antichrist will “sit in the
temple of God;”[954] by which he signifies, that the dreadful calamity
of which he speaks, will arise from the very persons who will sit as
pastors in the Church. And in another place, he shows that the
commencement of the mischief was then near at hand. For addressing the
bishops of the Church of Ephesus, he says, “I know this, that after my
departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the
flock; also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse
things, to draw away disciples after them.”[955] If the pastors could so
degenerate in a very short space of time, what enormous corruption might
be introduced among them in a long series of years! And not to occupy
much room with an enumeration, we are taught by the examples of almost
all ages, that neither is the truth always maintained in the bosom of
the pastors, nor the safety of the Church dependent on their stability.
They ought, indeed, to be the guardians and defenders of the peace and
safety of the Church, for the preservation of which they are appointed;
but it is one thing to perform a duty which we owe, and another, to owe
a duty which we do not perform.

V. Let no person conclude from what I have said, that I am inclined on
all occasions, and without any discrimination, to weaken the authority
of pastors, and bring it into contempt. I only mean to suggest the
necessity of discriminating between some pastors and others, that we may
not immediately consider persons as pastors because they bear that
title. But the pope and all his bishops, for no other reason but because
they are called pastors, casting off all obedience to the word of God,
disturb and confound every thing at their own pleasure; while they
labour to persuade us that it is impossible for them to be destitute of
the light of truth, that the Spirit of God perpetually resides in them,
and that with them the Church lives and dies. As though the Lord had now
no judgments, to inflict upon the world, in the present day, the same
kind of punishment, with which he once visited the ingratitude of his
ancient people;[956] namely, to smite the pastors with astonishment,
madness, and blindness. And such is their extreme stupidity, they are
not aware that they are acting the same part which was acted by those
who resisted the word of the Lord in ancient times. For thus the enemies
of Jeremiah fortified themselves in opposition to the truth: “Come, and
let us devise devices against Jeremiah; for the law shall not perish
from the priest, nor counsel from the wise, nor the word from the
prophet.”[957]

VI. Hence it is easy to reply to another plea in behalf of general
councils. That a true Church existed among the Jews in the time of the
prophets, cannot be denied. But if a general council of the priests had
been convened, what appearance of a Church would such a council have
displayed? We hear what God denounces, not against two or three of them,
but against the whole body: “The priests shall be astonished, and the
prophets shall wonder.”[958] Again: “The law shall perish from the
priest, and counsel from the ancients.”[959] Again: “Night shall be unto
you, that ye shall not have a vision; and it shall be dark unto you,
that ye shall not divine; and the sun shall go down over the prophets,
and the day shall be dark over them.”[960] Now, if these priests and
prophets had all been collected together, what spirit would have
presided in their assembly? This is remarkably exemplified in the
council convoked by Ahab. Four hundred prophets were present. But
because they were assembled with no other intention than to flatter that
impious monarch, Satan was sent by the Lord to be a lying spirit in all
their mouths.[961] There the truth was rejected with one consent;
Micaiah was condemned as a heretic, beaten, and cast into prison.
Jeremiah received the same treatment, and other prophets experienced
similar injustice.

VII. But one example, which is more memorable than the rest, may suffice
as a specimen of all. In the council which the chief priests and
Pharisees convened at Jerusalem against Christ, what was there wanting
in point of external form? For if there had then been no Church at
Jerusalem, Christ would never have united in their sacrifices and other
ceremonies. A solemn summons was issued; the high priest presided; all
the priests attended; yet there Christ was condemned, and his doctrine
rejected. This act proves that the Church was not contained in that
council. But, it will be said, there is no danger of such a circumstance
happening to us. Who has assured us of this? For to be too confident in
a matter of such great importance, is culpable stupidity. But while the
Spirit has expressly predicted, by the mouth of Paul, that there shall
come an apostasy, which cannot take place without the pastors being the
first to revolt from God,[962] why do we wilfully shut our eyes to our
own ruin? Wherefore it is by no means to be conceded, that the Church
consists in the assembly of the pastors, respecting whom God has nowhere
promised that they should always be good, but, on the contrary, has
denounced that they would sometimes be wicked. Now, when he warns us of
a danger, his design is to make us more cautious.

VIII. What, then, it will be said, shall the decisions of councils have
no authority? Yes, certainly; for I am not contending that all councils
ought to be condemned, or that all their acts ought to be rescinded and
cancelled at once. Still I shall be told, that I degrade their
authority, so as to leave it to the option of every individual to
receive or reject whatever a council shall have determined. By no means;
but whenever a decree of any council is brought forward, I would wish,
first, that a diligent inquiry should be made, at what time, for what
cause, and with what design it was held, and what kind of persons were
present; secondly, that the subject discussed in it should be examined
by the standard of the Scripture; and this in such a manner that the
determination should have its weight, and be considered as a precedent
or case formerly decided, but that it should not preclude the
examination which I have mentioned. I sincerely wish that every person
would observe the method recommended by Augustine in his third book
against Maximinus. For, with a view to silence the contentions of that
heretic respecting the decrees of councils, he says, “I ought not to
object to you the Council of Nice, nor ought you to object to me the
Council of Ariminum, to preclude each other’s judgment by a previous
decision. I am not bound by the authority of the latter, nor you by that
of the former. Let cause contend with cause, and argument with argument,
on the ground of scriptural authorities, which exclusively belong to
neither party, but are common to both.” The consequence of such a mode
of proceeding would be, that councils would retain all the majesty which
is due to them, while at the same time the Scripture would hold the
preëminence, so that every thing would be subject to its standard. Upon
this principle, those ancient councils, such as the Council of Nice, of
Constantinople, the first of Ephesus, that of Chalcedon, and others like
them, which were held for the condemnation of errors, we cheerfully
receive and reverence as sacred, as far as respects the articles of
faith which they have defended; for they contain nothing but the pure
and natural interpretation of the Scripture, which the holy fathers,
with spiritual prudence, applied to the discomfiture of the enemies of
religion who arose in those days. In some of the succeeding councils,
likewise, we discover a true zeal for piety, and evident proofs of
sense, learning, and prudence. But as the progress of the world is
generally from worse to worse, it is easy to see, from the more recent
councils, how much the Church has gradually degenerated from the purity
of that golden age. Even in these more corrupt ages, I doubt not, the
councils have been partly composed of some bishops of a better
character; but the same observation may be applied to their acts, which
was formerly made in a way of complaint against the decrees of the Roman
senate, by the senators themselves. Where opinions prevail according to
their number, and not according to the weight of argument by which they
are supported, the better part of the assembly must of necessity be
frequently overcome by the majority. And councils have certainly issued
many impious decrees. It is unnecessary here to produce particular
examples, as well because this would carry us to too great a length, as
because it has already been done by others with a diligence which
scarcely admits of any addition.

IX. Now, what need is there to enumerate the repugnances between
councils and councils, and how decrees passed by one have been rescinded
by another? Here it must not be alleged, that where there is such
variance between two councils, one or the other is not legitimate. For
how shall we determine this? The only way I know, is to ascertain from
the Scriptures that its decrees are not orthodox; for there is no other
certain rule of decision. It is now about nine hundred years ago, that
the Council of Constantinople, assembled under the emperor Leo, decreed
that all images placed in churches should be thrown down and broken in
pieces. Soon after, the Council of Nice, which the empress Irene
convened in opposition to the former, decreed that they should be
restored. Which of these two shall we acknowledge as a legitimate
council? This character has generally been attributed to the latter,
which gave images a place in the Churches. But Augustine declares that
this cannot be done without imminent danger of idolatry. Epiphanius, a
more ancient writer, expresses himself in terms of much greater
severity; he says that it is abominable wickedness for images to be seen
in the temples of Christians. Would the fathers who speak in this manner
approve of that council, if they were now living? But if the accounts of
historians be true, and credit be given to the acts themselves, that
council not only admitted of images, but determined that they were to be
worshipped. Now, it is evident that such a decree must have originated
from Satan. What shall we say to their perversions and mutilations of
the Scripture, which demonstrate that they held it all in contempt, as I
have already proved? We shall never be able to discriminate between the
numerous councils, which dissent from and contradict each other, unless
we examine them all by the word of God, which is the universal standard
for men and angels. On this ground, we reject the second Council of
Ephesus, and receive the Council of Chalcedon, because the latter
council condemned the impiety of Eutyches, which the former had
sanctioned. This judgment of the Council of Chalcedon was formed from
the Scriptures by holy men, whom we imitate in forming our judgment, as
the word of God which enlightened them continues to give light to us.
Now, let the Romanists go and boast, as they are accustomed to do, that
the Holy Spirit is inseparably attached to their councils.

X. Even in the earliest and purest councils, however, there is something
to complain of—either that the bishops who composed them, though men of
learning and prudence, being perplexed with the subjects immediately
before them, did not extend their views to many other things; or that
while they were occupied with more weighty and serious concerns, things
of inferior moment escaped their notice; or merely that, being men, they
were liable to ignorance and error; or that they were sometimes hurried
into precipitancy by the violence of their passions. Of the truth of the
last observation, which seems the severest of all, there is a remarkable
example in the Council of Nice; the dignity of which has been
universally and justly held in the highest veneration. For though the
principal article of our faith was endangered, and they had to contend
with Arius, the enemy of it, who was there in readiness for the
contest,—though it was of the greatest importance that harmony should be
maintained among those who came with a design to confute the error of
Arius,—notwithstanding that, careless of such great dangers, forgetful
of gravity, modesty, and every thing like good manners, dropping the
controversy between them, as if they had assembled with an express view
to the gratification of Arius, they began to counteract themselves with
intestine dissensions, and to direct against each other the pen which
ought to have been employed against Arius. The foulest accusations were
heard, defamatory libels were circulated, and there would have been no
end of the contentions till they had murdered one another, if it had not
been for the interference of the emperor Constantine, who protested that
a scrutiny into their lives was a thing beyond his cognizance, and
repressed this intemperate conduct with praise rather than with censure.
In how many instances is it probable that errors were committed by other
succeeding councils? Nor does this require any long proof; for whoever
peruses their acts, will discover many infirmities, not to mention any
thing worse.

XI. And Leo, the Roman pontiff, hesitates not to bring a charge of
ambition and inconsiderate temerity against the Council of Chalcedon,
which he at the same time acknowledges to have been orthodox in points
of doctrine. He does not deny it to have been a legitimate council, but
he unequivocally asserts that it was possible for it to err. It may be
thought, perhaps, that I betray a want of judgment in taking pains to
point out such errors; since our adversaries confess that councils might
err in things not essential to salvation. This labour, however, is not
unnecessary. For though they find themselves obliged to confess this in
words, yet when they obtrude upon us the decision of every council on
every subject, without any discrimination, as an oracle of the Holy
Spirit, they require of us, in fact, more than they had first assumed.
What is the language of such conduct, but that councils cannot err, or
that, if they do err, it is unlawful for us to discover the truth, or to
refuse assent to errors? And I intend to draw no other conclusion from
these facts, than that the Holy Spirit governed pious and Christian
councils in such a manner, as at the same time to permit them to betray
something of human infirmity, that we might not place too much
confidence in men. This sentiment is far more favourable than that of
Gregory of Nazianzum, “that he never saw a good end of any council.” For
he who affirms that all without exception terminated ill, leaves them
but little authority. It is unnecessary here to take distinct notice of
provincial councils, since it is easy to judge from the general
councils, what authority they ought to possess in framing articles of
faith, and receiving whatever kind of doctrine they pleased.

XII. But our Romanists, when they find all the supports of reason fail
them in the defence of their cause, have recourse to that last and
wretched subterfuge—That although the persons themselves betray the
greatest stupidity in their understandings and pleas, and act from the
most iniquitous motives and designs, still the word of God remains,
which commands us to obey our governors.[963] But what if I deny that
such persons are our governors? For they ought not to arrogate to
themselves more than belonged to Joshua, who was a prophet of the Lord
and an excellent pastor. Now, let us hear with what language he was
inaugurated into his office by the Lord: “This book of the law shall not
depart out of thy mouth; but thou shalt meditate therein day and night:
turn not from it to the right hand or to the left, that thou mayest
prosper whithersoever thou goest.”[964] We shall consider them as our
spiritual governors, therefore, who deviate not from the word of God,
either to the right hand or to the left. If the doctrine of all pastors
ought to be received without any hesitation, why have we such frequent
and earnest admonitions from the mouth of the Lord himself, not to
listen to the speeches of false prophets? “Hearken not,” says he by
Jeremiah, “unto the words of the prophets that prophesy unto you; they
make you vain; they speak a vision of their own hearts, and not out of
the mouth of the Lord.”[965] Again: “Beware of false prophets, which
come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening
wolves.”[966] The exhortation given us by John would also have been
useless: “Try the spirits, whether they are of God;”[967] though from
this examination the very angels are not exempted, much less Satan with
all his falsehoods. How are we to understand this caution of our Lord?
“If the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.”[968] Does
it not sufficiently declare, that it is of the highest importance what
kind of pastors are heard, and that they are not all entitled to the
same attention? Wherefore there is no reason why they should overawe us
with their titles, to make us partakers of their blindness, while we
see, on the contrary, that the Lord has taken peculiar care to deter us
from suffering ourselves to be seduced by the error of other men, under
whatever mask or name it may be concealed. For if the answer of Christ
be true, all blind guides, whether they are denominated priests,
prelates, or pontiffs, can do nothing but precipitate their followers
into the same ruin with themselves. Impressed, therefore, by these
warnings, both of precepts and of examples, no names of pastors,
bishops, or councils, which are as capable of being falsely claimed as
rightly assumed, ought ever to prevent us from examining all the spirits
by the rule of the Divine word, in order to “try whether they are of
God.”

XIII. Having proved that the Church has received no power to frame any
new doctrine, let us now speak of the power which our opponents
attribute to it in the interpretation of the Scripture. We have not the
least objection to admit, that if a controversy arise respecting any
doctrine, there is no better or more certain remedy than to assemble a
council of true bishops, in which the controverted doctrine may be
discussed. For such a decision, formed by the common consent of the
pastors of the Churches, after an invocation of the Spirit of Christ,
will have far greater weight, than if every one of them separately were
to maintain it in preaching to his people, or if it were the result of a
private conference between a few individuals. Besides, when bishops are
collected in one assembly, they deliberate together with greater
advantage on what they ought to teach, and the manner in which their
instructions should be conveyed, so as to guard against offence arising
from diversity. In the third place, Paul prescribes this method of
determining respecting doctrines. For while he attributes to every
distinct Church a power “to judge,”[969] he shows what ought to be the
order of proceeding in more important cases; namely, that the Churches
should undertake the common cognizance of them. And so the dictate of
piety itself teaches us, that if any one disturb the Church with a new
doctrine, and the matter be carried so far as to cause danger of a more
grievous dissension, the Churches should first assemble, should examine
the question proposed to them, and after a sufficient discussion of it,
should announce a decision taken from the Scriptures, which would put an
end to all doubt among the people, and shut the mouths of refractory and
ambitious persons, so as to check their further presumption. Thus, when
Arius arose, the Council of Nice was assembled, and by its authority
defeated the pernicious attempts of that impious man, restored peace to
the Churches which he had disturbed, and asserted the eternal deity of
Christ in opposition to his sacrilegious dogma. Some time after, when
Eunomius and Macedonius raised new contentions, their frenzy was opposed
with a similar remedy by the Council of Constantinople. The impiety of
Nestorius was condemned in the first Council of Ephesus. In short, this
has been the ordinary method of the Church from the beginning, for the
preservation of unity, whenever Satan has begun to make any attempt
against it. But let it be remembered, that neither every age, nor every
place, can produce an Athanasius, a Basil, a Cyril, and other such
champions of the true doctrine, as the Lord raised up at those periods.
Let it also be recollected what happened at the second Council of
Ephesus, in which the heresy of Eutyches prevailed. Flavianus, a bishop
of irreproachable memory, was banished, together with other pious men,
and many similar enormities were committed, because it was Dioscorus, a
factious and ill-disposed man, and not the Spirit of the Lord, that
presided in that council. But that council, it will be said, was not the
Church. I admit it: for I am firmly persuaded of this, that the truth is
not extinct in the Church, though it may be oppressed by one council,
but that it is wonderfully preserved by the Lord, to arise and triumph
again in his own time. But I deny it to be an invariable rule, that
every interpretation which may have been approved by a council is the
true and certain sense of the Scripture.

XIV. But the Romanists have a further design in maintaining that
councils possess the power of interpreting the Scripture, and that
without appeal. For it is a false pretence, when every thing that has
been determined in councils is called an interpretation of the
Scripture. Of purgatory, the intercession of saints, auricular
confession, and similar fooleries, the Scriptures contain not a single
syllable. But, because all these things have been sanctioned by the
authority of councils, or, to speak more correctly, have been admitted
into the general belief and practice, therefore every one of them is to
be taken for an interpretation of Scripture. And not only so; but if a
council determine in direct opposition to the Scripture, it will still
be called an interpretation of it. Christ commands all to drink of the
cup which he presents to them in the sacred supper.[970] The Council of
Constance prohibited it to be given to the laity, and determined that
none but the priest should drink of it. Yet this, which is so
diametrically repugnant to the institution of Christ, they wish us to
receive as an interpretation of it. Paul calls “forbidding to marry” a
“doctrine of devils;”[971] and the Holy Spirit, in another place,
pronounces that “marriage is honourable in all, and the bed
undefiled.”[972] The prohibition, which they have since denounced, of
the marriage of priests, they wish us to consider as the true and
natural interpretation of the Scriptures, though nothing can be imagined
more repugnant to it. If any one dare to open his mouth to the contrary,
he is condemned as a heretic, because the determination of the Church is
without appeal, and the truth of its interpretation cannot be doubted
without impiety. What further requires to be urged against such
consummate effrontery? The mere exhibition of it is a sufficient
refutation. Their pretensions to confirm the Scripture by the authority
of the Church, I purposely pass over. To subject the oracles of God to
the authority of men, so as to make their validity dependent on human
approbation, is a blasphemy unworthy of being mentioned; beside which, I
have touched on this subject already. I will only ask them one question:
If the authority of the Scripture be founded on the approbation of the
Church, what decree of any council can they allege to this point? I
believe, none at all. Why, then, did Arius suffer himself to be
vanquished at Nice by testimonies adduced from the Gospel of John?
According to the argument of our opponents, he was at liberty to reject
them, as not having yet received the approbation of any general council.
They allege an ancient catalogue, which is called the Canon of
Scripture, and which they say proceeded from the decision of the Church.
I ask them again, in what council that canon was composed. To this they
can make no reply. Yet I would wish to be further informed, what kind of
a canon they suppose it to be. For I see that the ancient writers were
not fully agreed respecting it. And if any weight be attached to the
testimony of Jerome, the two books of the Maccabees, the history of
Tobit, Ecclesiasticus, and other books, will be considered as
apocryphal; to which our opponents will by no means consent.

Footnote 944:

Matt. xviii. 20.

Footnote 945:

Deut. iv. 2. Rev. xxii. 18, 19.

Footnote 946:

Mal. ii. 5-7.

Footnote 947:

Isaiah lvi. 10, 11.

Footnote 948:

Hosea ix. 8.

Footnote 949:

Jer. vi. 13.

Footnote 950:

Jer. xiv. 14.

Footnote 951:

Ezek. xxii. 25, 26, 28.

Footnote 952:

2 Peter ii. 1.

Footnote 953:

Matt. xxiv. 11, 24.

Footnote 954:

2 Thess. ii. 4.

Footnote 955:

Acts xx. 29, 30.

Footnote 956:

Zech. xii. 4.

Footnote 957:

Jer. xviii. 18.

Footnote 958:

Jer. iv. 9.

Footnote 959:

Ezek. vii. 26.

Footnote 960:

Micah iii. 6.

Footnote 961:

1 Kings xxii. 6, 22, 24, 27.

Footnote 962:

2 Thess. ii. 3. 1 Tim. iv. 1.

Footnote 963:

Heb. xiii. 17.

Footnote 964:

Joshua i. 7, 8.

Footnote 965:

Jer. xxiii. 16.

Footnote 966:

Matt. vii. 15.

Footnote 967:

1 John iv. 1.

Footnote 968:

Matt. xv. 14.

Footnote 969:

1 Cor. xiv. 29.

Footnote 970:

Matt. xxvi. 27.

Footnote 971:

1 Tim. iv. 1, 3.

Footnote 972:

Heb. xiii. 4.

CHAPTER X.
THE POWER OF LEGISLATION, IN WHICH THE POPE AND HIS ADHERENTS HAVE MOST
CRUELLY TYRANNIZED OVER THE MINDS, AND TORTURED THE BODIES, OF MEN.

We now proceed to the second branch of the power of the Church, which
the Romanists represent as consisting in legislation—a source from which
have issued innumerable human traditions, the most pestilent and fatal
to wretched souls. For they have made no more scruple than the scribes
and Pharisees to “lay on other men’s shoulders burdens which they
themselves would not touch with one of their fingers.”[973] I have shown
in another place the extreme cruelty of their injunctions concerning
auricular confession. None of their other laws discover such enormous
violence; but those which appear the most tolerable of them all, are
tyrannically oppressive to the conscience. I forbear to remark how they
adulterate the worship of God, and despoil God himself, who is the sole
Legislator, of the right which belongs to him. This power is now to be
examined—whether the Church has authority to make laws which shall bind
the consciences of men. This question has nothing to do with political
order; the only objects of our present attention are, that God may be
rightly worshipped according to the rule he has prescribed, and that our
spiritual liberty which relates to God may be preserved entire. Whatever
edicts have been issued by men respecting the worship of God,
independently of his word, it has been customary to call _human
traditions_. Against such laws we contend, and not against the holy and
useful constitutions of the Church, which contribute to the preservation
of discipline, or integrity, or peace. The object for which we contend,
is, to restrain that overgrown and barbarous empire, which is usurped
over men’s souls by those who wish to be accounted the pastors of the
Church, but who in reality are its most savage butchers. For they say
that the laws which they make are spiritual, pertaining to the soul, and
they affirm them to be necessary to eternal life. Thus, as I have lately
hinted, the kingdom of Christ is invaded; thus the liberty given by him
to the consciences of believers is altogether subverted and destroyed. I
forbear to remark at present with what great impiety they enforce the
observance of their laws, while they teach men to seek the pardon of
their sins and righteousness and salvation from it, and while they make
the whole of religion and piety to consist in it. I only contend for
this one point, that no necessity ought to be imposed upon consciences
in things in which they have been set at liberty by Christ; and without
this liberty, as I have before observed, they can have no peace with
God. They must acknowledge Christ their Deliverer as their only King,
and must be governed by one law of liberty, even the sacred word of the
gospel, if they wish to retain the grace which they have once obtained
in Christ; they must submit to no slavery; they must be fettered by no
bonds.

II. These sapient legislators, indeed, pretend that their constitutions
are laws of liberty, an easy yoke, a light burden. But who does not see
that these are gross falsehoods? The hardship of their laws is not at
all felt by themselves, who have rejected the fear of God, and securely
and boldly disregard all laws, human and divine. But persons who are
impressed with any concern for their salvation, are far from considering
themselves at liberty as long as they are entangled in these snares. We
see what great caution Paul used in this respect, to avoid “casting a
snare upon” men in a single instance;[974] and that not without cause;
for he saw what a deep wound would be made in their consciences, by the
imposition of any necessity upon them in those things in which the Lord
had left them at liberty. On the contrary, it is scarcely possible to
enumerate the constitutions, which these men have most rigorously
enforced with the denunciation of eternal death, and which they require
to be most minutely observed as necessary to salvation. Among these,
there are many exceedingly difficult to be fulfilled; but when they are
all collected together in one body, so immense is the accumulation, the
observance of the whole is utterly impracticable. How, then, can it be
possible for those who are loaded with such a vast weight of difficulty,
not to be perplexed and tortured with extreme anxiety and terror? My
design at present, then, is, to oppose constitutions of this kind, which
tend to bind souls internally before God, and to fill them with
scruples, as if they enjoined things necessary to salvation.

III. The generality of men, therefore, are embarrassed with this
question, for want of distinguishing with sufficient exactness between
the outward judgment of men and the court of conscience. The difficulty
is increased by the injunction of Paul, that the magistrate is to be
obeyed, “not only for wrath, but also for conscience’ sake;”[975] whence
it follows, that consciences are bound by political laws. If this were
the case, all that we said in the last chapter, and are about to say in
this, on the subject of spiritual government, would fall to the ground.
To solve this difficulty, it is first of all necessary to understand
what is conscience. The definition may be derived from the etymology of
the word. _Science_, or _knowledge_, is the apprehension which men have
of things in their mind and understanding. So, when they have an
apprehension of the judgment of God, as a witness that suffers them not
to conceal their sins, but forces them as criminals before the tribunal
of the judge, this apprehension is called _conscience_. For it is
something between God and man, which permits not a man to suppress what
he knows within himself, but pursues him till it brings him to a sense
of his guilt. This is what Paul means, when he speaks of men’s
“conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while
accusing, or else excusing, one another”[976] before God. A simple
knowledge might remain in man, as it were, in a state of concealment.
Therefore this sentiment, which places men before the tribunal of God,
is like a keeper appointed over man to watch and observe all his
secrets, that nothing may remain buried in darkness. Hence that old
proverb, that conscience is equal to a thousand witnesses. For the same
reason, Peter speaks of “the answer of a good conscience towards
God,”[977] to denote our tranquillity of mind, when, persuaded of the
grace of Christ, we present ourselves before God without fear. And the
author of the Epistle to the Hebrews speaks of persons “having no more
conscience of sins,”[978] to signify their being liberated, or absolved,
so as to feel no more remorse or compunction for sin.

IV. Therefore, as works have respect to man, so the conscience is
referred to God. A good conscience is no other than an internal purity
of heart. In this sense Paul says that “the end of the commandment is
charity, out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith
unfeigned.”[979] In a subsequent part of the same chapter, he shows how
widely it differs from simple knowledge, when he says, that “some having
put away a good conscience, concerning faith have made shipwreck.”[980]
For in these words he implies that it is a lively zeal for the worship
of God, and a sincere desire and endeavour to live a pious and holy
life. Sometimes, indeed, it is likewise extended to men, as when Luke
states Paul to have made this declaration—“I exercise myself, to have
always a conscience void of offence toward God and toward men.”[981] The
apostle expressed himself in this manner, because the benefits
proceeding from a good conscience do reach even to man. But strictly
speaking, the conscience has respect to God alone, as I have already
observed. Hence it is, that a law is said to bind the conscience, which
simply binds a man without any observation or consideration of other
men. For example, God not only commands the heart to be preserved chaste
and pure from every libidinous desire, but prohibits all obscenity of
language and external lasciviousness. My conscience is bound to observe
this law, even though not another man existed in the world. The person,
therefore, who commits any breach of chastity, not only sins by setting
a bad example to his brethren, but brings his conscience into a state of
guilt before God. The case of things, in themselves indifferent, stands
not on the same ground; for we ought to abstain from whatever is likely
to give offence, but with a free conscience. Thus Paul speaks of meat
consecrated to idols: “If any man say unto you, This is offered in
sacrifice to idols, eat not for his sake, and for conscience’ sake.
Conscience, I say, not thine own, but of the other.”[982] A faithful
man, who, after previous admonition, should eat such meat, would be
guilty of sin. But though such abstinence is enjoined on him by God as
necessary on account of his brother, he still retains his liberty of
conscience. We see how this law, while it binds the external act, leaves
the conscience free.

V. Let us now return to human laws. If they are designed to introduce
any scruple into our minds, as though the observance of them were
essentially necessary, we assert, that they are unreasonable impositions
on the conscience. For our consciences have to do, not with men, but
with God alone. And this is the meaning of the well known distinction,
maintained in the schools, between a human tribunal and the court of
conscience. When the whole world was enveloped in the thickest shades of
ignorance, this little spark of light still remained unextinguished, so
that they acknowledged the conscience of man to be superior to all human
judgments. It is true that what they confessed in one word, they
afterwards overturned in fact; yet it was the will of God that even at
that time there should remain some testimony in favour of Christian
liberty, to rescue the conscience from the tyranny of men. But we have
not yet solved the difficulty which arises from the language of Paul.
For if princes are to be obeyed, “not only for wrath, but also for
conscience’ sake,”[983] it seems to follow, that the laws of princes
have dominion over the conscience. If this be true, the same must be
affirmed of the laws of the Church. I reply, In the first place, it is
necessary to distinguish between the _genus_ and the _species_. For the
conscience is not affected by every particular law; yet we are bound by
the general command of God, which establishes the authority of
magistrates. And this is the hinge upon which Paul’s argument turns,
that magistrates are to be honoured because they are “ordained of
God.”[984] At the same time he is far from insinuating that the laws
enacted by them have any thing to do with the internal government of the
soul; for he every where extols the service of God and the spiritual
rule of a holy life, above all the statutes and decrees of men. A second
consideration worthy of notice, which is a consequence of the first, is,
that human laws,—I mean such as are good and just, whether enacted by
magistrates or by the Church,—though they are necessary to be observed,
are not on this account binding on the conscience; because all the
necessity of observing them has reference to the general object of laws,
but does not consist in the particular things which are commanded. There
is an immense distance between laws of this description, and those which
prescribe any new form for the worship of God, and impose a necessity in
things that were left free and indifferent.

VI. Such are the _Ecclesiastical Constitutions_, as they are now called,
in the Papacy, which are obtruded as necessary to the true worship of
God; and as they are innumerable, they are so many bonds to entrap and
insnare souls. Though we have touched on them a little in the exposition
of the law, yet as this is a more suitable place to discuss them at
large, I shall now endeavour to collect a summary of the whole, in the
best order I can. And as we have already said what appeared sufficient
respecting the tyrannical power, which the false bishops arrogate to
themselves, of teaching whatever doctrines they please, I shall at
present pass over all that subject, and confine myself to a discussion
of the power which they say they have, to make laws. Our false bishops,
therefore, burden men’s consciences with new laws under this
pretext—that the Lord has constituted them spiritual legislators, by
committing to them the government of the Church. Wherefore they contend,
that all the commands and ordinances ought of necessity to be observed
by all Christian people, and that whoever violates them is guilty of
double disobedience, because he is a rebel both against God and the
Church. Certainly, if they were true bishops, I would allow them some
authority of this kind; not all that they demand, but all that is
requisite to the maintenance of good order in the Church. But as they
bear no resemblance of the character to which they pretend, the least
they can possibly assume is more than their right. Yet as this has been
already proved, let us admit the supposition at present, that whatever
power true bishops are entitled to, belongs to them. Still I deny that
they are therefore appointed as legislators over believers, with power
to prescribe a rule of life according to their own pleasure, or to
constrain the people committed to them to submit to their decrees. By
this observation I mean, that they have no authority to enjoin upon the
observance of the Church any thing that they may have invented
themselves, independently of the word of God. As this power was unknown
to the apostles, and was so frequently interdicted to the ministers of
the Church by the mouth of the Lord, I wonder how they have dared to
usurp it, and still dare to maintain it contrary to the example of the
apostles, and in defiance of the express prohibition of God.

VII. Every thing pertaining to the perfect rule of a holy life, the Lord
has comprehended in his law, so that there remains nothing for men to
add to that summary. And he has done this, first, that, since all
rectitude of life consists in the conformity of all our actions to his
will, as their standard, we might consider him as the sole Master and
Director of our conduct; and secondly, to show that he requires of us
nothing more than obedience. For this reason, James says, “He that
judgeth his brother, judgeth the law; but if thou judge the law, thou
art not a doer of the law, but a judge. There is one lawgiver, who is
able to save and to destroy.”[985] We hear that God asserts this as his
peculiar and exclusive prerogative; to govern us by the empire and laws
of his word. And the same sentiment had before been expressed by Isaiah,
though in terms not quite so explicit: “The Lord is our Judge, the Lord
is our Lawgiver, the Lord is our King, he will save us.”[986] Both
passages imply, that he who has authority over the soul, is the Arbiter
of life and death; and James even clearly expresses it. No man can
assume this to himself. It follows therefore, that God ought to be
acknowledged as the only King of souls, who alone has power to save and
to destroy, or, in the language of Isaiah, as the King, Judge,
Legislator, and Saviour. Wherefore Peter, when he admonishes pastors of
their duty, exhorts them “to feed the flock, not as being lords over
God’s heritage,”[987] or the company of believers. If we duly consider
this point, that it is not lawful to transfer to man that which God
appropriates solely to himself, we shall understand that this cuts off
all the power which is claimed by those who wish to exalt themselves to
command any thing in the Church, unsanctioned by the word of God.

VIII. Now, as the whole argument rests here, that, if God is the sole
legislator, it is not lawful for men to assume this honour to
themselves,—we ought also to bear in mind the two reasons which we have
stated, why God asserts this exclusively to himself. The first is, that
his will may be received as the perfect rule of all righteousness and
holiness, and so that an acquaintance with it may be all the knowledge
necessary to a good life. The second is, that with respect to the mode
of worshipping him aright, he may exercise the sole empire over our
souls, to whom we are under the strongest obligation to obey his
authority and await his commands. When these two reasons are kept in
view, it will be easy to judge what constitutions of men are contrary to
the word of God. Now, of this description are all those which are
pretended to belong to the true worship of God, and to be obligatory on
men’s consciences as necessary to be observed. Let us remember,
therefore, that all human laws are to be weighed in this balance, if we
would have a certain and infallible test. The first of these reasons is
urged by Paul in his Epistle to the Colossians, in opposition to the
false apostles, who endeavoured to oppress the Churches with fresh
burdens. In a similar argument, in the Epistle to the Galatians, he
insists more on the second reason. In the Epistle to the Colossians, he
contends that the doctrine of the true worship of God is not to be
sought from men, because the Lord has faithfully and fully instructed us
how we ought to worship him. To prove this, in the first chapter he
states that all the wisdom by which the man of God is made perfect in
Christ is contained in the gospel. In the beginning of the second
chapter, he declares that “in Christ are hid all the treasures of wisdom
and knowledge;” from which he concludes that believers should “beware
lest any man spoil them through philosophy and vain deceit, after the
tradition of men.” At the end of the chapter, he still more confidently
condemns all “will worship;”[988] this includes all those fictitious
services which men either invent for themselves or receive from others,
together with all the precepts by which they presume to regulate the
worship of God. Thus we have ascertained the impiety of all those
constitutions, in the observance of which the worship of God is
pretended to consist. The passages in the Epistle to the Galatians, in
which he argues that snares ought not to be imposed on consciences,
which are subject to the government of God alone, are too plain to be
mistaken; especially in the fifth chapter.[989] It will therefore be
sufficient to have mentioned them.

IX. But as the whole of this subject will be better elucidated by
examples, before I proceed any further, it will be useful to apply this
doctrine to our own times. We affirm that the Ecclesiastical
Constitutions, with which the pope and his satellites oppress the
Church, are pernicious and impious; our adversaries assert them to be
holy and useful. Now, they are of two classes: some regard rites and
ceremonies, others have more relation to discipline. Is there just
cause, then, to induce us to reject both? There certainly is juster
cause than we would desire. In the first place, do not the authors of
them explicitly declare that the very essence of the worship of God
consists in them? To what end do they refer their ceremonies, but that
God may be worshipped through them? And this arises not from the mere
error of the uninformed multitude, but from the approbation of those who
sustain the office of teachers. I am not yet referring to the gross
abominations by which they have attempted to overturn all piety; but
they would never pretend a failure in any one of the most insignificant
traditions to be such an atrocious crime, unless they made the worship
of God subject to their inventions. Wherein are we guilty of any
offence, then, if we cannot bear in our day what was declared to be
intolerable by Paul: namely, that the legitimate mode of worshipping God
should be regulated by the will of men; especially when they enjoin a
worship “after the rudiments of the world,” which Paul asserts to be
“not after Christ.”[990] It is well known also, with what rigorous
necessity they bind men’s consciences to observe every thing that they
command. In our opposition to this, we unite in a common cause with
Paul, who would by no means allow the consciences of believers to be
subjected to the bondage of men.[991]

X. Moreover, this worst of consequences ensues; that when men have begun
to place religion in such vain figments, that perversion is immediately
followed by another execrable corruption, with which Christ reproached
the Pharisees. “Ye have made the commandment of God of none effect by
your tradition.”[992] I will not combat our modern legislators with my
own words; I will grant them the victory, if they can vindicate
themselves from this accusation of Christ. But how can they vindicate
themselves, while they esteem it infinitely more criminal, to have
omitted auricular confession at a stated time of the year, than to have
lived a most iniquitous life for a whole year together; to have infected
the tongue with the least taste of animal food on a Friday, than to have
polluted the whole body by committing fornication every day; to have put
a hand to any honest labour on a day consecrated to any pretended saint,
than to have continually employed all the members in the most flagitious
actions; for a priest to be connected in one lawful marriage, than to be
defiled with a thousand adulteries; to have failed of performing one vow
of pilgrimage, than to violate every other promise; not to have lavished
any thing on the enormous, superfluous, and useless magnificence of
Churches, than to have failed of relieving the most pressing necessities
of the poor; to have passed by an idol without some token of honour,
than to have insulted all the men in the world; not to have muttered
over, at certain seasons, a multitude of words without any meaning, than
to have never offered a genuine prayer from the heart? What is it for
men to make the commandment of God of none effect by their traditions,
if this be not? When coldly and carelessly recommending the observance
of the commandments of God, they insist on an exact obedience to their
own, with as much zeal and anxiety as if the whole essence of piety
consisted in them; when avenging the violation of the Divine law with
slight penalties of satisfactions, they punish the smallest
transgression of one of their decrees with nothing less than
imprisonment, banishment, fire, or sword; when less severe and
inexorable against the despisers of God, they persecute the despisers of
themselves with implacable hatred even to death; and when they instruct
all those whom they hold in the chains of ignorance in such a manner,
that they would feel less concern at seeing the subversion of the whole
law of God, than the violation of the smallest tittle of the commands of
the Church? In the first place, here is a grievous error, that on
account of things of no importance in themselves, and left free by God,
one man despises, condemns, and rejects another. Now, as if this were
not bad enough, “the beggarly elements of the world,”[993] as Paul calls
them, are esteemed of more force than the celestial oracles of God. He
who is absolved in adultery, is condemned in meat; he who is allowed a
harlot, is interdicted from a wife. This is the fruit of that
prevaricating obedience, which recedes from God in proportion as it
inclines to men.

XI. There are also two other faults, far from small ones, which we
charge on these Constitutions. The first is, that they prescribe for the
most part useless, and sometimes even foolish observances. The second
is, that pious consciences are oppressed with the immense number of
them, and being carried back to a species of Judaism, are so occupied
with shadows as to be prevented from coming to Christ. When I call these
observances useless and foolish, I know this will not be admitted by the
wisdom of the flesh, which is so pleased with them, as to consider the
Church altogether deformed where they are abolished. But these are the
things which Paul describes as “having a show of wisdom in will-worship,
and humility, and neglecting of the body; not in any honour to the
satisfying of the flesh.”[994] This is certainly a most salutary
admonition, which ought never to be forgotten by us. Human traditions,
he says, deceive under a show of wisdom. Is it inquired whence they have
this appearance? I reply, that being contrived by man, the human mind
recognizes them as its own, and recognizing them, embraces them with
greater pleasure than it would any thing of the greatest excellence, but
less agreeable to its vanity. A further recommendation of them is, that
as they keep the minds of men depressed to the ground under their yoke,
they appear well adapted to promote humility. Lastly, they are regarded
as the expedients of prudence, from their supposed tendency to restrain
corporeal indulgence, and to subdue sensuality by the rigour of
abstinence. But what does Paul say to these things? Does he strip off
such disguises, that the simple may not be deluded by false pretences?
Satisfied that he had said enough to refute them, when he had called
them “the commandments and doctrines of men,”[995] he passes over all
these things as undeserving of any particular refutation. And knowing
that all services of human invention are condemned in the Church, and
ought to excite the suspicion of believers in proportion to the pleasure
they afford to the minds of men; knowing that false appearance of
external humility to be at such an immense distance from true humility,
that it might be easily distinguished from it; knowing that discipline
to be entitled to no other consideration than as a mere exercise of the
body,—he intended these very things, by which the traditions of men are
recommended to the ignorant, to serve as their refutation with
believers.

XII. So, at the present day, not only the unlearned vulgar, but those
who are most inflated with worldly wisdom, are universally and
wonderfully captivated with the pomp of ceremonies. Hypocrites and silly
women think it impossible to imagine any thing more beautiful or
excellent. But those who examine more minutely, and judge with more
accuracy, according to the rule of piety, respecting the real value of
those numerous ceremonies, perceive, in the first place, that they are
frivolous, because they have no utility; and in the next place, that
they are delusive, because they deceive the eyes of the spectators with
empty pomp. I speak of those ceremonies under which, the Roman doctors
contend, are concealed great mysteries, but which, on examination, we
find to be mere mockeries. And it is not to be wondered at, that the
authors and advocates of them have fallen into such folly as to delude
both themselves and others with contemptible absurdities; because they
have taken their model in some things from the reveries of the heathen,
and in others, without any judgment, have imitated the ancient rites of
the Mosaic law, which were no more applicable to us than the sacrifices
of animals and other similar ceremonies. Indeed, if there were no
argument besides, yet no man in his senses would expect any thing good
from such a heterogeneous compound. And the fact itself plainly
demonstrates, that numerous ceremonies have no other use than to stupefy
the people, instead of instructing them. So hypocrites attach great
importance to those novel canons, which overturn discipline rather than
preserve it; for on a more accurate investigation, they will be found a
mere shadow of discipline, without any reality.

XIII. Now, to proceed to the other fault which I have mentioned, who
does not see that traditions, by the continual accumulation of one upon
another, have grown to such an immense number, that they are altogether
intolerable to the Christian Church? Hence it is, that the ceremonies
discover a kind of Judaism, and other observances inflict grievous
tortures on pious souls. Augustine complained that, in his time, the
commands of God were neglected, and every thing was so full of
presumption, that a person was more severely censured for having touched
the ground with his bare feet within eight days of his baptism, than for
having drowned his senses in intoxication. He complained that the
Church, which the mercy of God intended to place in a state of liberty,
was so grievously oppressed, that the condition of the Jews was more
tolerable. If that holy man had lived in our day, with what lamentations
would he have deplored the present state of bondage? For the number of
ordinances is ten times greater, and every tittle is enforced with a
hundred times more rigour, than in his time. Such is the general
consequence, when these corrupt legislators have seized the dominion,
they make no end of commands and prohibitions, till they arrive at such
an extreme that obedience is scarcely if at all practicable. This is
finely expressed by Paul, when he says, “If ye be dead from the
rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye
subject to ordinances? Eat not, taste not, handle not.”[996] The word
ἁψη, signifying both to _eat_ and to _handle_, requires here to be
understood in the former sense, to avoid an unnecessary repetition.
Here, then, he most beautifully describes the progress of the false
apostles. They begin with superstition, forbidding to eat not only a
large quantity, but even a little; when they have carried this point,
they next forbid to taste; and after this is submitted to them, they
pronounce it unlawful even to touch with a finger.

XIV. In the present age, we justly censure this tyranny in human
constitutions, which astonishingly torments miserable consciences with
innumerable edicts, and the extreme rigour with which they are enforced.
The canons relating to discipline have been already considered. What
shall I say of the ceremonies, which have half buried Christ, and caused
us to return to Jewish figures? “Christ our Lord,” says Augustine, “has
connected together the society of the new people with sacraments, very
few in number, most excellent in signification, and very easy to
observe.” The immense distance of this simplicity from the multitude and
variety of rites in which we see the Church now involved, can hardly be
stated in terms sufficiently strong. I know with what artifice some
ingenious men apologize for this corruption. They say, that there are
great numbers among us as ignorant as there were among the Israelites;
that for their sakes such discipline was instituted, which those who are
stronger, though they do not find it necessary, ought not to neglect,
when they perceive it to be useful to their weak brethren. I reply, that
we are not ignorant of what is due from every Christian to the infirmity
of his brethren; but, on the other hand, we reply, that this is not the
way to benefit the weak, by oppressing them with heavy loads of
ceremonies. It was not without cause that the Lord has made this
difference between his ancient people and us; that he chose to instruct
them, like children, with emblems and figures, but has been pleased to
teach us in a more simple manner, without such a large external
apparatus. As “a child,” says Paul, “is under tutors and governors until
the time appointed of the father,”[997] so the Jews were under the
instruction and government of the law. But we resemble adults, who,
having left a state of tuition and guardianship, have no need of puerile
discipline. Surely the Lord foresaw what sort of common people there
would be in his Church, and in what manner they would require to be
governed. Yet he made the difference we have mentioned between us and
the Jews. It is a foolish way, therefore, to pretend to benefit the
ignorant by reviving Judaism, which has been abrogated by Christ. This
diversity, between the people under the old dispensation and the new,
was signified by Christ, when he said to the woman of Samaria, “The hour
cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father
in spirit and in truth.”[998] This, indeed, had always been the case;
but the new worshippers differ from the ancient in this respect, that
under Moses the spiritual adoration of God was concealed, and in some
degree embarrassed with many ceremonies, which being now abolished, he
is worshipped with greater simplicity. Wherefore those who confound this
difference, subvert the order instituted and established by Christ.
Shall no ceremonies, then, it will be asked, be given to the ignorant,
to assist their weakness? I say no such thing; for I think some
assistance of this kind very useful to them. I only contend that such
means should be employed as would tend to make known Christ, not to
conceal him. God has, therefore, given us few ceremonies, and those by
no means laborious, to exhibit Christ to us as present; the Jews had a
greater number, to represent him as absent. He was then absent, I say,
not as to his power, but with respect to the manner of representing him.
Therefore, to observe proper bounds, it is necessary to retain that
paucity in number, that facility in observance, that dignity in
signification, which consists in simplicity. That this has not been
done, it is scarcely necessary to mention. The fact is visible to all.

XV. Here I forbear to remark the pernicious opinions with which the
minds of men are impressed, that these ceremonies of human invention are
sacrifices by which God is justly appeased, by which sins are expiated,
by which righteousness and salvation are procured. It will be denied
that things intrinsically good are corrupted by such adventitious
errors, since equal guilt of this kind may be incurred in the
performance of works commanded by God. But it is more intolerable to
attribute so much honour to works presumptuously devised by the will of
men, as to believe them to be meritorious of eternal life. For works
commanded by God obtain a reward, because the Legislator himself accepts
them as acts of obedience. They derive their value, therefore, not from
their own dignity or intrinsic merit, but from God’s estimation of our
obedience to him. I speak here of that perfection of works which God
commands, but which men never attain. For the works of the law which we
perform, are only accepted through the gratuitous goodness of God, our
obedience in them being weak and imperfect. But as we are not here
discussing the value of works independent of Christ, let us drop this
question. With regard to the present argument, I again repeat, that
whatever value is attributed to works, they derive from the
consideration of the obedience, which is alone regarded by God, as he
declares by the prophet: “I commanded not concerning burnt-offerings or
sacrifices, but this thing I commanded, saying, Obey my voice.”[999] Of
works of human device, he speaks in another place. “Wherefore do ye
spend money for that which is not bread?”[1000] Again: “In vain do they
worship me by the precepts of men.”[1001] Our adversaries, therefore,
can never excuse themselves for suffering the unhappy people to seek in
those external fooleries a righteousness to present before God, and to
support them at the heavenly tribunal. Besides, is it not a fault
deserving of severe reprehension, that they exhibit ceremonies not
understood, like the scenery of a stage or a magical incantation? For it
is certain that all ceremonies are corrupt and pernicious, unless they
direct men to Christ. Now, the ceremonies practised in the Papacy have
no connection with doctrine: they confine men to mere signs, destitute
of all signification. Lastly, so ingenious is cupidity, it is evident
that many of them have been invented by avaricious priests, merely as
contrivances for the extortion of money. But whatever be their origin,
they are all so prostituted to the acquisition of gain, that it is
necessary to abolish the principal part of them, if we wish to prevent a
profane and sacrilegious traffic from being carried on in the Church.

XVI. Though I may be considered as not delivering a doctrine of
perpetual application respecting human constitutions, because the
preceding observations have been wholly directed to the present age, yet
nothing has been advanced which would not be useful in all ages. For
wherever this superstition intrudes, that men are determined to worship
God with their own inventions, all the laws made for this purpose
presently degenerate into such gross abuses as we have described. It is
a curse which God denounces, not against any particular age, but against
all ages, that he will strike with blindness and stupidity all those who
worship him with the doctrines of men.[1002] The invariable effect of
this blindness is, that no absurdity is too great to be embraced by
persons who, in contempt of so many warnings from God, wilfully entangle
themselves in such fatal snares. But if, irrespective of peculiar
circumstances, any one wish to have a simple statement, what are the
human traditions of all ages, which ought to be rejected and reprobated
by the Church and all pious persons, the direction we have already given
is clear and certain—that they are all laws made by men without the word
of God, for the purpose, either of prescribing any method for the
worship of God, or of laying the conscience under a religious
obligation, as if they enjoined things necessary to salvation. If either
or both of these be accompanied with other faults, such as, that the
ceremonies, by their multitude, obscure the simplicity of the gospel;
that they tend to no edification, but are useless and ridiculous
occupations rather than real exercises of piety; that they are employed
for the sordid purposes of dishonest gain; that they are too difficult
to be observed; that they are polluted with impious superstitions;—these
things will further assist us in discovering the vast evil which they
contain.

XVII. I hear the answer which they make—that their traditions are not
from themselves, but from God; for that the Church is directed by the
Holy Spirit, so that it cannot err; and that they are in possession of
his authority. When this point is gained, it immediately follows, that
their traditions are the revelations of the Holy Spirit, which cannot be
despised without impiety and contempt of God. That they may not appear
to attempt any thing without high authorities, they wish it to be
believed that the greatest part of their observances have descended from
the apostles; and they contend that one example sufficiently shows what
was the conduct of the apostles in other cases; when, being assembled
together in a council, they determined and announced to all Gentiles,
that they should “abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood,
and from things strangled.”[1003] We have already exposed the falsehood
of their pretensions in arrogating to themselves the title of the
Church. With regard to the present argument, if, stripping off all false
disguises, we confine our attention to what ought to be our chief
concern, and involves our highest interests, namely, what kind of a
Church Christ requires, in order that we may conform ourselves to its
standard,—it will be sufficiently evident to us, that the name of the
Church does not belong to those who overleap all the limits of the word
of God, and exercise an unbounded license of enacting new laws. For does
not that law, which was once given to the Church, remain forever in
force? “What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt
not add thereto, nor diminish from it.”[1004] And again: “Add not thou
unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.”[1005]
Since they cannot deny these things to have been spoken to the Church,
do they not declare the rebellion of the Church, when they pretend that,
notwithstanding such prohibitions, it has dared to mingle additions of
its own with the doctrine of God? Far be it from us, however, to
countenance their falsehoods, by which they do so great an injury to the
Church; let us know that the assumption of the name of the Church is a
false pretence in all who are so carried away by the violence of human
presumption, as to disregard all the restraints of the word of God, and
to introduce a torrent of their own inventions. There is nothing
involved, nothing intricate, nothing ambiguous in these words, by which
the whole Church is forbidden to add any thing to the word, or to
diminish any thing from it, in any question relating to the worship of
God and his salutary precepts. But it will be alleged, that this was
spoken exclusively of the law, which has been succeeded by the
prophecies and the whole dispensation of the gospel. This I certainly
admit, and at the same time assert, that these were accomplishments of
the law, rather than additions to it, or retrenchments of it. But if the
Lord suffered no enlargement or diminution of the ministry of Moses,
notwithstanding it was enveloped in such great obscurity, till he
dispensed a clearer doctrine by his servants the prophets, and finally
by his beloved Son,—why do not we consider ourselves far more severely
prohibited from making any addition to the law, the prophets, the
psalms, and the gospel? No change has taken place in the Lord, who long
ago declared that nothing was so highly offensive to him, as to attempt
to worship him with the inventions of men. Hence those striking
declarations in the prophets, which ought to be continually sounding in
our ears: “I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day
that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt-offerings
or sacrifices; but this thing commanded I them, saying, Obey my voice,
and I will be your God, and ye shall be my people: and walk ye in all
the ways that I have commanded you.”[1006] Again: “I earnestly protested
unto your fathers, saying, Obey my voice.”[1007] There are many other
similar passages, but the most remarkable of all is the following: “Hath
the Lord,” says Samuel, “as great delight in burnt-offerings and
sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey is
better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams. For
rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity
and idolatry.”[1008] Therefore, whatever human inventions relating to
the worship of God, may be defended by the authority of the Church,
since it is impossible to vindicate them from impiety, it is easy to
infer that the imputation of them to the Church has no foundation in
truth.

XVIII. For this reason we freely censure that tyranny of human
traditions, which is imposed upon the world under the name of the
Church. Nor do we hold the Church in contempt, as our adversaries, in
order to render us obnoxious, falsely assert. We allow it the praise of
obedience, than which no higher praise can be given. On the contrary,
they are themselves the most outrageous violators of the Church, which
they represent as guilty of rebellion against the Lord, when they
pretend that it has gone beyond what was permitted by the word of God;
to say nothing of the combination of impudence and wickedness discovered
in their incessant vociferations respecting the authority of the Church,
while they take no notice of the command of the Lord, or of the
obedience due from the Church to that command. But if we desire, as we
ought, to agree with the Church, it will be best for us to observe and
remember what commands are given by the Lord, equally to us and to the
whole Church, that we may all obey him with one consent. For there is no
doubt that we shall fully agree with the Church, if we show ourselves in
all things obedient to the Lord. Now, to attribute to the apostles the
origin of the traditions which have hitherto oppressed the Church, is a
mere imposture; for the whole tendency of the doctrine of the apostles
was, that men’s consciences should not be burdened with new observances,
or the worship of God contaminated with human inventions. Besides, if
there be any credit due to ancient histories and records, the apostles
not only never knew, but never even heard of that which is ascribed to
them. Nor let it be pretended, that the greatest part of their
Constitutions were received in use and commonly practised, which were
never committed to writing; namely, those things which, during the life
of Christ, they were not able to understand, but which after his
ascension, they learned from the revelation of the Holy Spirit. The
meaning of that passage we have already examined. With respect to the
present subject, we may observe, they make themselves truly ridiculous
by maintaining that those great mysteries, which were so long unknown to
the apostles, consisted partly of Jewish or heathen ceremonies, of which
the former had long before been promulgated among the Jews, and the
latter among the heathen, and partly of foolish gesticulations and
unmeaning rites, which stupid priests, who scarcely know how to walk or
speak, perform with the greatest exactness, and which even infants and
fools counterfeit so well, that it might be thought there were no more
suitable ministers of such solemnities. If there were no histories, yet
men of sound judgment would conclude from the thing itself, that such a
vast multitude of rites and observances did not break into the Church
all on a sudden, but that they must have been introduced by degrees. For
when those holy bishops, who were the immediate successors of the
apostles, had made some appointments relating to order and discipline,
they were followed by a series of others, who had too little
consideration, and too much curiosity and cupidity, of whom every one in
succession vied with his predecessors, from a foolish emulation to excel
them in the invention of new observances. And because there was danger
that their inventions, by which they desired to obtain the praises of
posterity, might in a short time be disused, they were the more rigid in
enforcing the observance of them. This foolish and perverse imitation
has been the source of most of those rites which the Romanists urge upon
us as apostolic. And this is also attested by various histories.

XIX. To avoid too much prolixity in composing a catalogue of them all,
we shall content ourselves with one example. In the administration of
the Lord’s supper, the apostles used great simplicity. Their immediate
successors, to adorn the dignity of the mystery, added some forms which
were not to be altogether condemned. Afterwards followed those foolish
imitators, who, by adding various fragments from time to time, at length
formed those vestments of the priests, those ornaments of the altar,
those gesticulations, and all that apparatus of useless things, which we
see in the mass. But they object that it was an ancient opinion, that
whatever was done with the common consent of the universal Church, had
originated from the apostles. In proof of this, they cite the testimony
of Augustine. I shall give them no other answer than in the words of
Augustine himself. “Those things which are observed throughout the
world,” says he, “we may understand to have been ordained, either by the
apostles themselves, or by general councils, whose authority is very
useful in the Church; as that the sufferings, resurrection, and
ascension of our Lord, and the descent of the Holy Spirit, are
celebrated by solemn anniversaries; and if there be any thing else of a
similar kind observed by the universal Church wherever it has extended
itself.” When he enumerates so few examples, who does not see that he
intended to attribute to authors worthy of credit and reverence the
observances which were then in use, and none but those simple, rare, and
sober ones, which are useful in preserving the order of the Church? But
how distant is this passage from the conclusion the Roman doctors would
extort from it, that there is not the most insignificant ceremony among
them which ought not to be considered as resting on the authority of the
apostles!

XX. Not to be too tedious, I will produce only one example. If any one
inquire whence they have their holy water, they immediately answer, From
the apostles. As if the histories did not attribute this invention to a
bishop of Rome, who, if he had taken counsel of the apostles, would
certainly never have contaminated baptism by a strange and unseasonable
symbol. Though it does not appear to me probable that the origin of that
consecration was so ancient as those histories state. For the
observation of Augustine, that some Churches in his time rejected the
custom of washing the feet as a solemn imitation of Christ, lest that
ceremony might be supposed to have any reference to baptism, implies
that there was no other kind of washing then practised which bore any
resemblance to baptism. Be this as it may, I shall never admit it to
have been a dictate of the spirit of the apostles, that baptism should
be recalled to the memory by a daily ablution, which would be little
else than a repetition of it. It is of no consequence that Augustine
elsewhere ascribes other things also to the apostles; for as he has
nothing but conjectures, no conclusion ought to be drawn from them on
such an important subject. Lastly, though we should even grant, that
those things which he mentions had been transmitted from the time of the
apostles, yet there is a wide difference between instituting some pious
exercise which believers may use with a free conscience, or if they find
not profitable, may abstain from the use of it, and making laws to
entangle their consciences with bondage. But whoever was their author,
since we see that they have fallen into so great an abuse, nothing
prevents our abolishing them without any disrespect to him; because they
were never instituted in order to be perpetual and unalterable.

XXI. Nor does the cause of our adversaries derive much advantage from
their attempt to excuse their own tyranny, by alleging the example of
the apostles. The apostles, they say, and elders of the primitive
Church, passed a decree without the command of Christ, enjoining all the
Gentiles to “abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and
from things strangled.”[1009] If this was lawful for them, why may it
not be lawful for their successors, whenever circumstances require, to
imitate their conduct? I sincerely wish they would imitate them in other
things as well as in this. For I deny that the apostles, on that
occasion, instituted or decreed any thing new, as it is easy to prove by
a sufficient reason. For when Peter had declared in that assembly, that
to “put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples” would be to “tempt
God,”[1010] he would have contradicted his own opinion, if he had
afterwards consented to the imposition of any yoke. Yet there was a yoke
imposed, if the apostles decreed, from their own authority, that the
Gentiles should be prohibited “from meats offered to idols, and from
blood, and from things strangled.” There still remains some difficulty,
that nevertheless they seem to prohibit them. But this will be easily
solved, if we more closely examine the meaning of the decree itself; of
which the first point in order and principal in importance is, that the
Gentiles were to be left in possession of their liberty, and not to be
disturbed or troubled about the observance of the law. So far it is
completely in our favour. The exception which immediately follows is not
a new law made by the apostles, but the Divine and eternal command for
the preservation of charity inviolate; nor does it diminish a tittle of
that liberty: it only admonishes the Gentiles how they ought to
accommodate themselves to their brethren, to avoid offending them by an
abuse of their liberty. The second point, therefore, is, that the
Gentiles were to use a harmless liberty, and without offence to their
brethren. If it be still objected, that they prescribe a certain
direction, I reply, that as far as was expedient for that period, they
point out and specify the things in which the Gentiles were liable to
give offence to their brethren, that they might refrain from them; yet
they add nothing new of their own to the eternal law of God, by which
offences against our brethren are prohibited.

XXII. As if any faithful pastors, who preside over churches not yet well
regulated, were to recommend all their people not to eat meat openly on
Fridays, or to labour publicly on festivals, or the like, till their
weaker neighbours should be more established. For though, setting aside
superstition, these things are in themselves indifferent, yet when they
are attended with offences to brethren, they cannot be performed without
sin; and the times are such that believers could not do these things in
the presence of their weak brethren, without most grievously wounding
their consciences. Who but a caviller would say that in this instance
they made a new law, whereas it would evidently appear that their sole
object was to guard against offences which are most expressly forbidden
by the Lord? No more can it be said of the apostles, who had no other
design in removing the occasion of offences, than to urge the Divine law
respecting the avoidance of offence: as though they had said, It is the
command of the Lord that you hurt not your weak brother; you cannot eat
meats offered to idols, or blood, or things strangled, without your weak
brethren being offended; therefore, we command you by the word of the
Lord not to eat with offence. And that such was the intention of the
apostles, Paul himself is an unexceptionable witness, who, certainly in
consistence with their sentence, writes in the following manner: “As
concerning the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto
idols, we know that an idol is nothing. Howbeit, there is not in every
man that knowledge; for some with conscience of the idol, eat it as a
thing offered unto an idol; and their conscience, being weak, is
defiled. Take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a
stumbling-block to them that are weak.”[1011] He who shall have duly
considered these things, will not afterwards be deceived by the fallacy
of those who attempt to justify their tyranny by the example of the
apostles, as if they had begun to infringe the liberty of the Church by
their decree. But that they may not be able to avoid confirming this
solution by their own confession, let them tell me by what right they
have dared to abrogate that decree. They can only reply, Because there
was no more danger from those offences and dissensions which the
apostles intended to guard against, and they knew that a law was to be
judged of by the end for which it was made. As this law, therefore, is
admitted to have been made from a consideration of charity, there is
nothing prescribed in it any further than charity is concerned. When
they confess that the transgression of this law is no other than a
violation of charity, do they not thereby acknowledge that it is not a
novel addition to the law of God, but a genuine and simple application
of it to the times and manners for which it was designed?

XXIII. But it is contended, that though the ecclesiastical laws should
in a hundred instances be unjust and injurious to us, yet they ought all
to be obeyed without any exception; for that the point here is not that
we should consent to errors, but that we, who are subjects, should
fulfil even the severe commands of our governors, which we are not at
liberty to reject. But here likewise the Lord most happily interposes
with the truth of his word, delivers us from such bondage, and
establishes us in the liberty which he has procured for us by his sacred
blood, the benefit of which he has repeatedly confirmed by his word. For
the question here is not, as they fallaciously pretend, merely whether
we shall endure some grievous oppression in our bodies; but whether our
consciences shall be deprived of their liberty, that is, of the benefit
of the blood of Christ, and shall be tormented with a wretched bondage.
Let us, however, pass over this also, as if it were matter of little
importance. But do we think it a matter of little importance to deprive
the Lord of his kingdom, which he claims to himself, in such a
peremptory manner? And it is taken away from him whenever he is
worshipped with laws of human invention, whereas he requires himself to
be honored as the sole legislator of his own worship. And that no one
may suppose it to be a thing of trivial importance, let us hear in what
estimation it is held by the Lord. “Forasmuch,” he says, “as this people
draw near me with their mouth, but their fear toward me is taught by the
precept of men; therefore, behold, I will proceed to do a marvellous
work among this people, even a marvellous work and a wonder; for the
wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the understanding of their
prudent men shall be hid.”[1012] Again: “In vain do they worship me,
teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.”[1013] When the children
of Israel polluted themselves by various idolatries, the cause of all
the evil is attributed to the impure mixture which they made by devising
new modes of worship in violation of the commands of God. Therefore, the
sacred history relates that the strangers who had been transplanted by
the king of Assyria from Babylon to inhabit Samaria, were torn in pieces
and devoured by wild beasts, “because they knew not the statutes or
ordinances of the God of the land.” Though they had committed no fault
in the ceremonies, yet vain pomp would not have been approved by God;
but he did not fail to punish the violation of his worship, when men
introduced new inventions inconsistent with his word. Hence it is
afterwards stated, that being terrified with that punishment, they
adopted rites prescribed in the law; yet because they did not yet
worship the true God aright, it is twice repeated that “they feared the
Lord,” and, at the same time, that “they feared not the Lord.”[1014]
Whence we conclude, that part of the reverence which is paid to him
consists in our worshipping him in a simple adherence to his commands,
without the admixture of any inventions of our own. Hence the frequent
commendations of pious kings, that they “walked in all his commandments,
and turned not aside to the right hand or to the left.”[1015] I go still
further: though in some services of human invention there appears no
manifest impiety, yet as soon as ever men have departed from the command
of God, it is severely condemned by the Holy Spirit. The altar of Ahaz,
the model of which was brought from Damascus, might seem to be an
addition to the ornaments of the temple, because his design was to offer
sacrifices upon it to God alone, with a view to perform these services
in a more splendid manner than upon the ancient and original altar; yet
we see how the Holy Spirit detests such audacity, for no other reason
than because all the inventions of men in the worship of God are impure
corruptions.[1016] And the more clearly the will of God is revealed to
us, the more inexcusable is our presumption in making any such attempt.
Wherefore the guilt of Manasseh is justly aggravated by the circumstance
of his having “built” new “altars in the house of the Lord, of which the
Lord said, In Jerusalem will I put my name;”[1017] because such conduct
was like an avowed rejection of the authority of God.

XXIV. Many persons wonder why the Lord so severely threatens that he
would “do a marvellous work among the people,” whose “fear toward him”
was “taught by the precepts of men,” and pronounces that he is
“worshipped in vain” by “the commandments of men.” But if such persons
would consider what it is to follow the word of God alone in matters of
religion, that is, of heavenly wisdom, they would immediately perceive
it to be for no trivial reason that the Lord abominates such corrupt
services, which are rendered to him according to the caprice of the
human mind. For, though persons who obey such laws for the worship of
God, have a certain appearance of humility in this their obedience, yet
they are very far from being humble before God, to whom they prescribe
the same laws which they observe themselves. This is the reason why Paul
requires us to be so particularly cautious against being deceived by the
traditions of men, and will-worship, that is, voluntary worship,
invented by men, without the word of God.[1018] And so indeed it is,
that our own wisdom, and that of all other men, must become folly in our
esteem, that we may allow God alone to be truly wise. This is very far
from being the case with those who study to render themselves acceptable
to him by petty observances of human contrivance, and obtrude upon him,
in opposition to his commands, a hypocritical obedience, which in
reality is rendered to men. This was the conduct of men in former ages;
the same has happened within our own remembrance, and still happens in
those places where the authority of the creature is more regarded than
that of the Creator; where religion, if religion it deserves to be
called, is polluted with more numerous and senseless superstitions than
ever disgraced the worship of paganism. For what could proceed from the
minds of men but things carnal, foolish, and truly expressive of their
authors?

XXV. When the advocates of superstition allege, that Samuel sacrificed
in Ramah, that there this was done without the direction of the law, yet
it was acceptable to God,[1019] the answer is easy—that this was not the
erection of a second altar, in opposition to one already erected, and
appointed by the Divine command to supersede every other; but as there
had yet been no fixed place assigned for the ark of the covenant, he
appointed the town which he inhabited for the oblation of sacrifices, as
the most convenient place. It certainly was not the intention of the
holy prophet to make any innovation in religious worship, in which God
had so strictly forbidden any thing to be added or diminished. The
example of Manoah I consider as an extraordinary and singular case.
Though a private man, he offered a sacrifice to God, yet not without the
Divine approbation; because he did it not from the hasty impulse of his
own mind, but in consequence of the secret inspiration of Heaven.[1020]
But of the Lord’s utter abomination of all the contrivances of mortals
in his worship, we have a memorable example in another person, not
inferior to Manoah—I mean Gideon, whose ephod produced fatal
consequences, not only to himself and his family, but to all the
people.[1021] In short, every additional invention by which men pretend
to serve God is nothing but a pollution of true holiness.

XXVI. Why, then, it is inquired, was it the will of Christ that men
should submit to those intolerable burdens which were imposed upon them
by the scribes and Pharisees?[1022] I ask, on the other hand, Why did
Christ, in another place, direct men to “beware of the leaven of the
Pharisees and of the Sadducees?”[1023] by _leaven_, according to the
interpretation given us by the evangelist, intending every doctrine of
their own that they mixed with the pure word of God. What can we wish
for plainer, than when he commands us to avoid and beware of all their
doctrine? Hence it is very evident to us, that in the other passage our
Lord did not intend that the consciences of his disciples should be
harassed with the traditions of the Pharisees; and the words themselves,
if they are not perverted, convey no such meaning. For, being about to
deliver a severe invective against the conduct of the Pharisees, our
Lord only prefaced it by instructing his hearers, that though they would
see nothing in their lives worthy of imitation, yet they should continue
to practise those things which were taught by them in their discourses,
when they were sitting in the chair of Moses, that is to say, when they
were expounding the law. His only design, therefore, was to guard the
people against being induced to despise the doctrine by the bad examples
of those who taught it. But, as some persons are never affected by
arguments, but always require authority, I will subjoin the words of
Augustine, who gives exactly the same interpretation: “The Lord’s fold
has pastors, some faithful, some hirelings. Those who are faithful are
true shepherds; yet hear how the hirelings also are necessary. For many
in the Church, pursuing worldly advantages, preach Christ, and the voice
of Christ is heard through them; and the sheep follow not the hireling,
but the Shepherd by means of the hireling. Hear how the hirelings are
pointed out by the Lord himself. He says, The scribes and Pharisees sit
in Moses’ chair; what they say, do; but what they do, imitate not. Is
not this equivalent to saying, Hear the voice of the Shepherd through
the hirelings; for, sitting in the chair of Moses, they teach the law of
God; therefore, God teaches by them; but if they choose to teach any
thing of their own, neither attend to it, nor practise it?”

XXVII. But, as many ignorant persons, when they hear that the
consciences of men ought not to be bound by human traditions, and that
it is in vain to worship God by such services, immediately conclude the
same rule to be applicable to all the laws which regulate the order of
the Church, we must also refute their error. It is easy, indeed, to be
deceived in this point, because it does not immediately appear, at the
first glance, what a difference there is between the one and the other;
but I will place the whole subject in such a clear light, in a few
words, that no one may be misled by the resemblance. In the first place,
let us consider that if, in every society of men, we see the necessity
of some polity in order to preserve the common peace, and to maintain
concord; if in the transaction of business there is always some order,
which the interest of public virtue, and even of humanity itself,
forbids to be rejected; the same ought particularly to be observed in
Churches, which are best supported by a well-ordered regulation of all
their affairs and which without concord are no Churches at all.
Wherefore, if we would make a proper provision for the safety of the
Church, we ought to pay the strictest attention to the injunction of
Paul, that “all things be done decently and in order.”[1024] But as
there is such great diversity in the manners of men, so great a variety
in their minds, and so much contrariety in their judgments and
inclinations, no polity will be sufficiently steady unless it be
established by certain laws; nor can any order be preserved without some
settled form. The laws, therefore, which promote this end, we are so far
from condemning, that, we contend, their abolition would be followed by
a disruption of the bands of union, and the total disorganization and
dispersion of the Churches. For it is impossible to attain what Paul
requires, that “all things be done decently and in order,” unless order
and decorum be supported by additional regulations. But in regard to
such regulations, care must always be taken, that they be not considered
necessary to salvation, and so imposing a religious obligation on the
conscience, or applied to the worship of God, and so represented as
essential to piety.

XXVIII. We have an excellent and most certain mark, therefore, which
distinguishes those impious constitutions, by which it has been stated
that true religion is obscured and men’s consciences subverted, and the
legitimate regulations of the Church, which are always directed to one
of these two ends, or to both together; that, in the holy assembly of
believers, all things may be conducted with suitable decorum and
dignity, that the community may be kept in order by the firm bonds of
courtesy and moderation. For when it is once understood that a law is
made for the sake of public order, this removes the superstition
embraced by them who place the worship of God in human inventions.
Moreover, when it is known that it only refers to matters of common
practice, this overturns all that false notion of obligation and
necessity, which filled men’s consciences with great terror, when
traditions were thought necessary to salvation. For here nothing is
required but the maintenance of charity among us by the common
intercourse of friendly offices. But it is proper to describe more fully
what is comprehended under the decorum and the order which Paul
recommends. The end of _decorum_ is, partly, that while ceremonies are
employed to conciliate veneration to sacred things, we may be excited to
piety by such aids; partly that the modesty and gravity, which ought to
be discovered in all virtuous actions, may be most of all conspicuous in
the Church. In _order_, the first point is, that those who preside
should be acquainted with the rule and law of good government, and that
the people who are governed should be accustomed to an obedience to God
and to just discipline; the second is, that when the Church is in a well
regulated state, care should be taken to preserve its peace and
tranquillity.

XXIX. We shall not call that _decorum_, therefore, which is merely a
frivolous spectacle, yielding an unprofitable gratification; such as we
see exemplified in the theatrical apparatus employed by the Papists in
their services, where nothing is to be seen but a useless appearance of
elegance and splendour, without any advantage. But we shall esteem that
as _decorum_, which shall be so adapted to inspire a reverence of holy
mysteries as to be calculated for an exercise of piety; or which at
least shall contribute an ornament corresponding to the act; and that
not without some beneficial tendency, but that believers may be
admonished with what modesty, fear, and reverence, they ought to engage
in sacred services. Now, that ceremonies may be exercises of piety, it
is necessary that they should lead us directly to Christ. In like
manner, we do not place _order_ in those nugatory pomps which have
nothing but a vain appearance of splendour, but in that well regulated
polity, which excludes all confusion, incivility, obstinacy, clamours,
and dissensions. Of the first kind, examples are furnished by Paul; as
that profane banquets should not be connected with the sacred supper of
the Lord; that women should not appear in public without being
veiled;[1025] and many others in common use among us; such as, that we
pray with bended knees and with our heads uncovered; that we administer
the sacraments of the Lord, not in a slovenly manner, but with due
decorum; that we observe some decent order in the burial of the dead;
and other things of a similar nature. Of the second sort are the hours
appointed for public prayers, sermons, and sacraments; quietness and
silence under sermons; the singing of hymns; the places appointed for
these services, and the days fixed for the celebration of the Lord’s
supper;[1026] the prohibition of Paul, that women should not teach in
the Church, and the like; but especially the regulations for the
preservation of discipline, as catechizing, ecclesiastical censures,
excommunication, fastings, and every thing else that can be referred to
the same class. Thus all the constitutions of the Church which we
receive as holy and useful, may be classed under two heads; some refer
to rites and ceremonies, others to discipline and peace.

XXX. But, because there is danger here, on the one hand, that the false
bishops may seize a pretext to excuse their impious and tyrannical laws,
and, on the other, that there may be some persons who, from an excessive
fear of falling into the evils we have mentioned, will reject all
ecclesiastical laws, however holy and useful they may be,—it is
necessary to protest, that I approve of no human constitutions, except
such as are founded on the authority of God, and deduced from the
Scripture, so that they may be considered as altogether Divine. Let us
take, as an example, the kneeling practised during solemn prayers. The
question is, whether it be a human tradition, which every one is at
liberty to reject or neglect. I answer that it is at once both human and
Divine. It is of God, as it forms a branch of that decorum which is
recommended to our attention and observance by the apostle; it is of
men, as it particularly designates that which had in general been rather
hinted than clearly expressed. From this single example, it is easy to
judge what opinion ought to be entertained of all the rest. Because the
Lord, in his holy oracles, has faithfully comprehended and plainly
declared to us the whole nature of true righteousness, and all the parts
of Divine worship, with whatever is necessary to salvation,—in these
things he is to be regarded as our only Master. Because, in external
discipline and ceremonies, he has not been pleased to give us minute
directions what we ought to do in every particular case, foreseeing that
this would depend on the different circumstances of different periods,
and knowing that one form would not be adapted to all ages,—here we must
have recourse to the general rules which he has given, that to them may
be conformed all the regulations which shall be necessary to the decorum
and order of the Church. Lastly, as he has delivered no express
injunctions on this subject, because these things are not necessary to
salvation, and ought to be applied to the edification of the Church,
with a variety suitable to the manners of each age and nation,
therefore, as the benefit of the Church shall require, it will be right
to change and abolish former regulations, and to institute new ones. I
grant, indeed, that we ought not to resort to innovation rashly or
frequently, or for trivial causes. But charity will best decide what
will injure or edify, and if we submit to the dictates of charity, all
will be well.

XXXI. Now, such regulations as have been made upon this principle and
for this end, it is the duty of Christian people to observe, with a free
conscience, indeed, and without any superstition, yet with a pious and
ready inclination; they must not treat them with contempt or
carelessness, much less violate them, in an open manner, through pride
and obstinacy. It will be asked, What kind of liberty of conscience can
be retained amidst so much attention and caution? I reply, It will very
well be supported, when we consider, that these are not fixed and
perpetual laws by which we are bound, but external aids for human
infirmity, which though we do not need, yet we all use, because we are
under obligations to each other to cherish mutual charity between us.
This may be observed in the examples already mentioned. What! does
religion consist in a woman’s veil, so that it would be criminal for her
to walk out with her face uncovered? Is the solemn decree respecting her
silence such as cannot be violated without a capital offence? Is there
any mystery in kneeling, or in the interment of a dead body, which
cannot be omitted without sin? Certainly not; for if a woman, in the
assistance of a neighbour, finds a necessity for such haste as allows
her no time to cover her head, she commits no offence in running to the
place with her head uncovered. And it is sometimes as proper for her to
speak, as at other times to be silent. And he who from disease is unable
to kneel, is quite at liberty to pray standing. Lastly, it is better to
bury a dead body in proper season, even without a shroud, than, for want
of persons to carry it to burial, to suffer it to putrefy without
interment. Nevertheless, in these things, the customs and laws of the
country we inhabit, the dictates of modesty, and even humanity itself,
will direct us what to do, and what to avoid; and if an error be
incurred through inadvertence or forgetfulness, no crime is committed;
but if through contempt, such perverseness deserves to be reprobated. So
it is of little importance what days and hours are appointed, what is
the form of the places, what psalms are sung on the respective days. But
it is proper that there should be certain days and stated hours, and a
place capable of receiving all the people, if any regard be paid to the
preservation of peace. For what a source of contentions would be
produced by the confusion of these things, if every man were permitted
to change, at his pleasure, what relates to the general order, for it
would never happen that the same thing would be agreeable to all, if
things were undetermined and left to the choice of every individual. If
any one object, and resolve to be wiser on this subject than is
necessary, let him examine by what reason he can justify his obstinacy
to the Lord. We ought, however, to be satisfied with the declaration of
Paul, “If any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor
the Churches of God.”[1027]

XXXII. Now, it is necessary to exert the greatest diligence to prevent
the intrusion of any error which may corrupt or obscure this pure use of
ecclesiastical regulations. This end will be secured, if all the forms,
whatever they may be, carry the appearance of manifest utility, if very
few are admitted, and principally if they are accompanied with the
instructions of a faithful pastor, to shut the door against all corrupt
opinions. The consequence of this knowledge is, that every person will
retain his liberty in all these things, and yet will voluntarily impose
some restraint upon his liberty, so far as the decorum we have
mentioned, or the dictates of charity, shall require. In the next place,
it will be necessary, that, without any superstition, we should attend
to the observance of these things ourselves, and not too rigidly exact
it from others; that we should not esteem the worship of God to be
improved by the multitude of ceremonies; and that one Church should not
despise another on account of a variety of external discipline. Lastly,
establishing no perpetual law of this kind for ourselves, we ought to
refer the use and end of all such observances to the edification of the
Church, according to the exigence of which we should be content not only
with the change of some particular observance, but with the abolition of
any that have hitherto been in use among us. For that the abrogation of
some ceremonies, not otherwise inconsistent with piety or decorum, may
become expedient from the circumstances of particular periods, the
present age exhibits an actual proof. For such has been the blindness
and ignorance of former times, Churches have heretofore adhered to
ceremonies with such corrupt sentiments and such obstinate zeal, that it
is scarcely possible for them to be sufficiently purified from monstrous
superstitions without the abolition of many ceremonies, for the original
institution of which, perhaps, there was some cause, and which are not
in themselves remarkable for any impiety.

Footnote 973:

Matt. xxiii. 4. Luke xi. 46.

Footnote 974:

1 Cor. vii. 35.

Footnote 975:

Rom. xiii. 5.

Footnote 976:

Rom. ii. 15.

Footnote 977:

1 Peter iii. 21.

Footnote 978:

Heb. x. 2.

Footnote 979:

1 Tim. i. 5.

Footnote 980:

1 Tim. i. 19.

Footnote 981:

Acts xxiv. 16.

Footnote 982:

1 Cor. x. 28, 29.

Footnote 983:

Rom. xiii. 5.

Footnote 984:

Rom. xiii. 1.

Footnote 985:

James iv. 11, 12.

Footnote 986:

Isaiah xxxiii. 22.

Footnote 987:

1 Peter v. 2, 3.

Footnote 988:

Col. i. 27, 28; ii. 3, 8, 23.

Footnote 989:

Gal. v. 1-18.

Footnote 990:

Col. ii. 8.

Footnote 991:

Gal. v. 1.

Footnote 992:

Matt. xv. 6.

Footnote 993:

Gal. iv. 9. Col. ii. 8.

Footnote 994:

Col. ii. 23.

Footnote 995:

Col. ii. 22.

Footnote 996:

Col. ii. 20, 21.

Footnote 997:

Gal. iv. 1, 2.

Footnote 998:

John iv. 23.

Footnote 999:

Jer. vii. 22, 23.

Footnote 1000:

Isaiah lv. 2.

Footnote 1001:

Isaiah xxix. 13. Matt. xv. 7-9.

Footnote 1002:

Isaiah xxix. 13, 14.

Footnote 1003:

Acts xv. 28, 29.

Footnote 1004:

Deut. xii. 32.

Footnote 1005:

Prov. xxx.

Footnote 1006:

Jer. vii. 22, 23.

Footnote 1007:

Jer. xi. 7.

Footnote 1008:

1 Sam. xv. 22, 23.

Footnote 1009:

Acts xv. 29.

Footnote 1010:

Acts xv. 10.

Footnote 1011:

1 Cor. viii. 4, 7, 9.

Footnote 1012:

Isaiah xxix. 13, 14.

Footnote 1013:

Matt. xv. 9.

Footnote 1014:

2 Kings xvii. 24-34.

Footnote 1015:

2 Kings xxii. 2. 2 Chron. xvii. 4, et alibi.

Footnote 1016:

2 Kings xvi. 10, &c.

Footnote 1017:

2 Kings xxi. 4.

Footnote 1018:

Col. ii. 4, 8, 18, 23.

Footnote 1019:

1 Sam. vii. 17.

Footnote 1020:

Judges xiii. 19.

Footnote 1021:

Judges viii. 27.

Footnote 1022:

Matt. xxiii. 3.

Footnote 1023:

Matt. xvi. 6.

Footnote 1024:

1 Cor. xiv. 40.

Footnote 1025:

1 Cor. xi. 5; xiv. 34.

Footnote 1026:

1 Cor. xi. 20-22.

Footnote 1027:

1 Cor. xi. 16.

CHAPTER XI.
THE JURISDICTION OF THE CHURCH, AND ITS ABUSE UNDER THE PAPACY.

We come now to the third branch of the power of the Church, and that
which is the principal one in a well regulated state, which we have said
consists in jurisdiction. The whole jurisdiction of the Church relates
to the discipline of manners, of which we are about to treat. For as no
city or town can exist without a magistracy and civil polity, so the
Church of God, as I have already stated, but am now obliged to repeat,
stands in need of a certain spiritual polity; which, however, is
entirely distinct from civil polity, and is so far from obstructing or
weakening it, that, on the contrary, it highly conduces to its
assistance and advancement. This power of jurisdiction, therefore, will,
in short, be no other than an order instituted for the preservation of
the spiritual polity. For this end, there were from the beginning
judiciaries appointed in the Churches, to take cognizance of manners, to
pass censures on vices, and to preside over the use of the keys in
excommunication. This order Paul designates in his First Epistle to the
Corinthians, when he mentions “governments;”[1028] and to the Romans,
when he says, “He that ruleth,” let him do it “with diligence.”[1029] He
is not speaking of magistrates or civil governors, for there were at
this time no Christian magistrates, but of those who were associated
with the pastor in the spiritual government of the Church. In the First
Epistle to Timothy, also, he mentions two kinds of presbyters or elders,
some “who labour in the word and doctrine,” others who have nothing to
do with preaching the word, and yet “rule well.”[1030] By the latter
class, there can be no doubt that he intends those who were appointed to
the cognizance of manners, and to the whole exercise of the keys. For
this power, of which we now speak, entirely depends on the keys, which
Christ has conferred upon the Church in the eighteenth chapter of
Matthew, where he commands that those who shall have despised private
admonitions shall be severely admonished in the name of the whole
Church; and that if they persist in their obstinacy, they are to be
excluded from the society of believers.[1031] Now, these admonitions and
corrections cannot take place without an examination of the cause; hence
the necessity of some judicature and order. Wherefore, unless we would
nullify the promise of the keys, and entirely abolish excommunication,
solemn admonitions, and every thing of a similar kind, it is necessary
to allow the Church some jurisdiction. Let it be observed, that the
passage to which we have referred, relates not to the general authority
of the doctrine to be preached by the apostles, as in the sixteenth
chapter of Mathew and the twentieth chapter of John; but that the power
of the sanhedrim is for the future transferred to the Church of Christ.
Till that time, the Jews had their own method of government, which, as
far as regards the pure institution, Jesus Christ established in his
Church, and that with a severe sanction. For this was absolutely
necessary, because the judgment of an ignoble and despised Church might
otherwise be treated with contempt by presumptuous and proud men. And
that the readers may not be embarrassed by the circumstance of Christ
having used the same words to express different things, it will be
useful to solve this difficulty. There are two places which speak of
_binding_ and _loosing_. One is in the sixteenth chapter of Matthew,
where Christ, after having promised Peter that he would “give” him “the
keys of the kingdom of heaven,”[1032] immediately adds, “Whatsoever thou
shalt bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt
loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven.” In these words he means
precisely the same as he intends in other language recorded by John,
when, being about to send forth his disciples to preach, after having
“breathed on them,” he said, “Whose soever sins ye remit, they are
remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are
retained.”[1033] I shall offer an interpretation of this passage,
without any subtlety, violence, or perversion, but natural, suitable,
and obvious. This command respecting the remission and retention of
sins, and the promise made to Peter respecting binding and loosing,
ought to be wholly referred to the ministry of the word, which when our
Lord committed to the apostles, he at the same time invested them with
the power of binding and loosing. For what is the sum of the gospel, but
that, being all slaves of sin and death, we are loosed and delivered by
the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, and that those who never
receive or acknowledge Christ as their Deliverer and Redeemer, are
condemned and sentenced to eternal chains? When the Lord delivered this
embassy to his apostles, to be conveyed to all nations, in order to
evince it to be his, and to have proceeded from him, he honoured it with
this remarkable testimony, and that for the particular confirmation both
of the apostles themselves, and of all those to whom it was to be
announced. It was of importance, that the apostles should have a strong
and constant assurance of their preaching; which they were not only to
undertake and execute amidst immense labours, cares, troubles, and
dangers, but were at length to seal with their blood. That they might
know this ministry not to be vain or ineffectual, but full of power and
energy, it was of importance for them, in circumstances of such great
anxiety, difficulty, and danger, to be persuaded that they were employed
in the work of God; amidst all the hostility and opposition of the whole
world, to know that God was on their side; and though Christ, the Author
of their doctrine, was not present to their view on earth, to be certain
that he was in heaven to confirm the truth of the doctrine which he had
delivered to them. On the other hand, also, it was necessary that the
most unequivocal testimony should be given to their hearers, that the
doctrine of the gospel was not the word of the apostles, but of God
himself; not a voice issuing from the earth, but descended from heaven.
For these things, the remission of sins, the promise of eternal life,
and the message of salvation, cannot be in the power of man. Therefore
Christ has testified that, in the preaching of the gospel, nothing
belonged to the apostles, except the ministration of it; that it was he
himself who spoke and promised every thing by the instrumentality of
their mouths; and, consequently, that the remission of sins which they
preached was the true promise of God, and that the condemnation which
they denounced was the certain judgment of God. Now, this testification
has been given to all ages, and remains unaltered, to certify and assure
us all, that the word of the gospel, by whomsoever it may happen to be
preached, is the very sentence of God himself, promulgated from his
heavenly tribunal, recorded in the book of life, ratified, confirmed,
and fixed in heaven. Thus we see, that the power of the keys, in these
passages, is no other than the preaching of the gospel, and that,
considered with regard to men, it is not so much authoritative as
ministerial; for, strictly speaking, Christ has not given this power to
men, but to his word, of which he has appointed men to be the ministers.

II. The other passage, which we have mentioned, relative to the power of
binding and loosing, is in the eighteenth chapter of Matthew, where
Christ says, “If any brother neglect to hear the Church, let him be unto
thee as a 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.”[1034] This passage is
not altogether similar to the first, but is to be understood in a manner
somewhat different; though I do not conceive the difference to be so
great, but that there is a considerable affinity between them. In the
first place, they are both alike in this respect, that each contains a
general declaration, the same power of always binding and loosing,—that
is, by the word of God,—the same command, the same promise. But they
differ in this, that the former passage peculiarly relates to the
preaching of the gospel, which is performed by the ministers of the
word; the latter relates to the discipline, which is committed to the
Church. The Church binds him whom it excommunicates; not that it
consigns him to perpetual ruin and despair, but because it condemns his
life and manners, and already warns him of his final condemnation,
unless he repent. The Church looses him whom it receives into its
communion; because it makes him, as it were, a partaker of the unity
which it has in Christ Jesus. That no man, therefore, may contemn the
judgment of the Church, or consider it as of little consequence that he
is condemned by the voice of believers, the Lord testifies that such
judgment of believers is no other than the promulgation of his sentence,
and that what they do on earth shall be ratified in heaven. For they
have the word of God, by which they condemn the perverse; they have the
same word, by which they receive penitents into favour; and they cannot
err or dissent from the judgment of God, because they judge only by the
Divine law, which is not an uncertain or earthly opinion, but the holy
will and heavenly oracle of God. From these two passages, which I think
I have familiarly and correctly, as well as concisely, explained, these
unreasonable men, without any judgment, under the influence of misguided
zeal, endeavour to establish, sometimes auricular confession, sometimes
excommunication, sometimes jurisdiction, sometimes the right of
legislation, and sometimes indulgences. The former passage they allege
to support the primacy of the Roman see. They are so expert in fitting
their keys to any locks and doors they please, that it should seem as if
they had followed the business of locksmiths all their lifetime.

III. The opinion entertained by some persons, that these things were
only temporary, while all civil magistrates were strangers to the
profession of Christianity, is a mistake for want of considering the
great distinction, and the nature of the difference, between the
ecclesiastical and civil power. For the Church has no power of the sword
to punish or to coerce, no authority to compel, no prisons, fines, or
other punishments, like those inflicted by the civil magistrate.
Besides, the object of this power is, not that he who has transgressed
may be punished against his will but that he may profess his repentance
by a voluntary submission to chastisement. The difference therefore is
very great; because the Church does not assume to itself what belongs to
the magistrate, nor can the magistrate execute that which is executed by
the Church. This will be better understood by an example. Is any man
intoxicated? In a well regulated city he will be punished by
imprisonment. Has he committed fornication? He will receive the same or
a severer punishment. With this, the laws, the magistrate, and the civil
judgment, will all be satisfied; though it may happen that he will give
no sign of repentance, but will rather murmur and repine against his
punishment. Will the Church stop here? Such persons cannot be admitted
to the sacred supper without doing an injury to Christ and to his holy
institution. And reason requires, that he who has offended the Church
with an evil example, should remove, by a solemn declaration of
repentance, the offence which he has excited. The argument adduced by
those who espouse a contrary opinion, is of no force. They say, that
Christ assigned this office to the Church, when there was no magistrate
to execute it. But it frequently happens that the magistrate is too
negligent, and sometimes that he even deserves to be chastised himself;
which was the case with the emperor Theodosius. Besides, the same
argument might be extended to the whole ministry of the word. Now, then,
according to them, pastors must no longer censure notorious crimes; they
must cease to chide, to reprove, to rebuke; for there are Christian
magistrates, whose duty it is to correct such offences by the civil
sword. But as it is the duty of the magistrate, by punishment and
corporeal coercion, to purge the Church from offences, so it behoves the
minister of the word, on his part, to relieve the magistrate by
preventing the multiplication of offenders. Their respective operations
ought to be so connected as to be an assistance, and not an obstruction
to each other.

IV. And, indeed, whoever will closely examine the words of Christ, will
easily perceive that they describe the stated and perpetual order, and
not any temporary regulation, of the Church. For it is unreasonable for
us to bring an accusation before a magistrate, against those who refuse
to submit to our admonitions; yet this would be necessary if the
magistrate succeeded to this office of the Church. What shall we say of
this promise, “Verily I say unto thee, whatsoever ye shall bind on
earth, shall be bound in heaven?” Was it only for one, or for a few
years? Besides, Christ here instituted nothing new, but followed the
custom always observed in the ancient Church of his own nation; thereby
signifying, that the spiritual jurisdiction, which had been exercised
from the beginning, was indispensable to the Church. And this has been
confirmed by the consent of all ages. For when emperors and magistrates
began to assume the profession of Christianity, the spiritual
jurisdiction was not in consequence abolished, but only regulated in
such a manner as neither to derogate from the civil power, nor to be
confounded with it. And that justly; for a pious magistrate will not
wish to exempt himself from the common subjection of the children of
God, which in no small degree consists in submitting to the Church, when
it judges by the word of God: so very far is it from being his duty to
abolish such a judicature. “For what is more honourable,” says Ambrose,
“than for the emperor to be called the son of the Church? For a good
emperor is within the Church, not above the Church.” Wherefore those
who, to exalt the magistrate, despoil the Church of this power, not only
pervert the language of Christ by a false interpretation, but pass a
most severe censure on all the holy bishops who have lived since the
time of the apostles, for having usurped to themselves, under a false
pretext, the honour and dignity which belonged to the magistrate.

V. But, on the other hand, it is also worth while to examine what was
the true and ancient use of the jurisdiction of the Church, and what a
great abuse of it has been introduced; that we may know what ought to be
abrogated, and what ought to be restored from antiquity, if we would
overturn the reign of Antichrist, and reëstablish the true kingdom of
Christ. In the first place, the object to be secured is the prevention
of offences, or the abolition of any that may have arisen. In the use of
it, two things require to be considered; first, that this spiritual
power be entirely separated from the power of the sword; secondly, that
it be administered, not at the pleasure of one man, but by a legitimate
assembly. Both these things were observed in the purer ages of the
Church. For the holy bishops never exercised their authority by fines,
imprisonments, or other civil punishments; but, as became them, employed
nothing but the word of the Lord. For the severest vengeance, the
ultimate punishment of the Church, is excommunication, which is never
resorted to without absolute necessity. Now, excommunication requires no
external force, but is content with the power of the word of God. In
short, the jurisdiction of the primitive Church was no other than a
practical exposition of the description which Paul gives of the
spiritual authority of pastors. This power he represents as conferred
for the purpose of “casting down imaginations, and every high thing that
exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into
captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ; and having in
readiness to revenge all disobedience.”[1035] As this is accomplished by
the preaching of the doctrine of Christ, so to preserve that doctrine
from falling into contempt, they who profess themselves of the household
of faith ought to be judged by what that doctrine contains. That cannot
be done, except the ministry be accompanied with the power to take
cognizance of those who are to be privately admonished, or more severely
censured, and also to exclude from the communion of the Supper those who
cannot be admitted without a profanation of such a solemn sacrament.
Wherefore when he denies, in another place, that we have any right “to
judge them that are without,”[1036] he makes the children of the church
subject to the censures by which their faults are chastised, and implies
the existence at that time of judicatures from which none of the
believers were exempt.

VI. This power, as we have stated, was not in the hands of one man, for
him to act according to his own pleasure, but resided in the assembly of
the elders, which was in the Church what a senate is in a city. Cyprian,
when he mentions by whom it was exercised in his time, generally unites
all the clergy with the bishop; but in other passages he also shows,
that the clergy presided in such a manner, that the people were not
excluded from this cognizance. For he expresses himself in these words:
“From the commencement of my episcopate, I have determined to do nothing
without the counsel of the clergy and the consent of the people.” But
the common and usual custom was for the jurisdiction of the Church to be
exercised by the council of the presbyters; of whom, as I have observed,
there were two classes; for some were ordained to the office of
teaching, others were only censors of manners. This institution
gradually degenerated from its original establishment; so that, in the
time of Ambrose, the judicial administration of the Church was wholly in
the hands of the clergy; of which he complains in the following
language: “The ancient synagogue, and afterwards the Church, had elders,
without whose advice nothing was done. I know not by what negligence
this practice has been discontinued, except from the indolence of the
doctors, or rather from their pride, while they wish none but
themselves, to be seen.” We perceive how indignant was that holy man,
that there had been some declension from a better state of things,
though they still retained an order that was at least tolerable. What
would he say now, if he were to see the present deformed ruins, which
exhibit scarcely a vestige of the ancient edifice! What a complaint
would he make! First, in opposition to law and justice, that which had
been given to the Church, the bishop usurped entirely to himself. This
resembles the conduct of a consul or president, expelling the senate,
and seizing the sole administration of a government. But as the bishop
is superior to other persons in honour, so the assembly or congregation
possesses more authority than one individual. It was a gross outrage,
therefore, for one man to transfer to himself all the power of the
community, and thereby to open a door to licentious tyranny, to deprive
the Church of its rights, and to suppress and abolish an assembly
appointed by the Spirit of Christ.

VII. But as one evil always produces another, bishops, disdaining this
charge as unworthy of their attention, have delegated it to others.
Hence the creation of officials, to discharge that duty. I say nothing,
at present, of the characters of the persons; I only assert, that they
differ in no respect from civil judges; yet they still call it a
spiritual jurisdiction, where all the contention is about secular
affairs. Though there were no other evil, what effrontery must they
have, to call a court full of litigation the judicature of the Church!
But, it is alleged, it employs admonitions, and pronounces
excommunication. Is it thus that they trifle with God? Does a poor man
owe a sum of money? He is cited. If he appear, he is condemned; after
the condemnation, if he do not pay, he is admonished: after the second
admonition, they proceed to excommunication. If he do not appear to the
citation, he is admonished to be forthcoming: if he delay, he is
admonished a second time, and soon after is excommunicated. I ask, What
is there in this that bears any resemblance to the institution of
Christ, the ancient usage, or the order of the Church? It is further
alleged, that this court also corrects vices. I reply, that acts of
fornication, lasciviousness, and drunkenness, and similar enormities,
they not only tolerate, but sanction and encourage, by a kind of tacit
approbation, and that not only in the people, but even in the clergy
themselves. Among multitudes of offenders, they only summon a few,
either to avoid too flagrant an appearance of connivance, or for the
purpose of extorting money. I say nothing of the robbery, the rapine,
the peculation, the sacrilege, connected with this office. I say nothing
of the characters of most of the persons selected to discharge it. It is
more than sufficient for us, that while the Romanists boast of their
spiritual jurisdiction, it is easy to show that nothing is more contrary
to the order appointed by Christ, and that it has no more resemblance to
the ancient practice, than darkness has to light.

VIII. Though we have not said all that might be adduced for this
purpose, and what we have said has been condensed within a small
compass, yet I trust we have so refuted our adversaries, as to leave no
room for any one to doubt that the spiritual power arrogated by the pope
and all his hierarchy, is a tyrannical usurpation, chargeable with
impious opposition to the word of God, and injustice to his people.
Under the term _spiritual power_, I include their audacity in
fabricating new doctrines, by which they have seduced the unhappy people
from the native purity of the word of God, the iniquitous traditions by
which they have insnared them, and the pretended ecclesiastical
jurisdiction which they exercise by their suffragans, vicars,
penitentiaries, and officials. For if we allow Christ any kingdom among
us, all this kind of domination must immediately fall to the ground. The
power of the sword, which they also claim, as that is not exercised over
consciences, but operates on property, is irrelevant to our present
subject; though in this also it is worth while to remark, that they are
always consistent with themselves, and are at the greatest possible
distance from the character they would be thought to sustain, as pastors
of the Church. Here I am not censuring the particular vices of
individuals, but the general wickedness and common pest of the whole
order, which they would consider as degraded, if it were not
distinguished by wealth and lofty titles. If we consult the authority of
Christ on this subject, there is no doubt that he intended to exclude
the ministers of his word from civil dominion and secular sovereignty,
when he said, “The kings of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them;
but it shall not be so among you.”[1037] For by these words he
signifies, not only that the office of a pastor is distinct from the
office of a prince, but that they are so different, that they can never
be properly united in one man. For though Moses held both these offices
at once, it may be observed, first, that this was the result of a
special miracle; secondly, that it was only a temporary arrangement,
till things should be better regulated. But, as soon as God prescribed a
certain form of government, Moses was left in possession of the civil
administration, and was commanded to resign the priesthood to his
brother; and that for a very sufficient reason; for it is beyond the
ability of nature for one man to be capable of sustaining the burden of
both. And this has been carefully observed in the Church in all ages.
For as long as any real appearance of a Church remained, not one of the
bishops ever thought of usurping the power of the sword; so that it was
a common proverb in the time of Ambrose, “That emperors rather coveted
the priesthood, than priests the empire;” for as he afterwards observes,
it was the firm and universal opinion, “That palaces belonged to
emperors, and churches to priests.”

IX. But since a method has been contrived for bishops to retain the
title, honour, and emoluments of their office without any burden or
solicitude, that they might not be left entirely without occupation, the
power of the sword has been given to them, or rather they have usurped
it to themselves. With what plea will they defend such impudence? Was it
for bishops to perplex themselves with judicial proceedings, to assume
the government of cities and provinces, and to undertake various other
occupations so incompatible with their office, which alone would furnish
them so much labour and employment, that even if they were entirely and
assiduously devoted to it, without the least distraction of other
avocations, they would scarcely be able to discharge its functions? But
they have the hardihood to boast, that this causes the Church of Christ
to flourish with a glory suitable to its dignity, and at the same time
that they are not too much distracted from the duties of their vocation.
With respect to the first point, if it be a becoming ornament of the
sacred office, for those who sustain it to be elevated to a degree of
power formidable to the greatest monarchs, they have reason to
expostulate with Christ, by whom their honour has been so grievously
wounded. For in their opinion, at least, what could have been said more
disgraceful than the following language? “The kings of the Gentiles
exercise dominion over them; but it shall not be so among you.”[1038]
Nor has he prescribed a severer law to his servants than he first
imposed upon himself. “Man,” says he, “who made me a judge or a divider
over you?”[1039] We see he plainly refuses to act the part of a judge,
which he would not have done, had it been a thing consistent with his
office. Will not his servants allow themselves to be reduced to that
rank, to which their Lord voluntarily submitted himself? With respect to
the second point, I wish they could as easily prove it by experience as
make the assertion. But since the apostles thought it not right for them
“to leave the word of God, and serve tables,”[1040] this must confound
those who are reluctant to admit, that it is not in the power of the
same man to be at the same time a good bishop and a good prince. For if
they, who by the extent of the gifts with which they were endued, were
enabled to sustain far more numerous and weighty cares than any men who
have lived since their time, after all confessed themselves incapable of
attending to the word of God and the service of tables without fainting
under the burden, how should it be possible for these men, who are by no
means to be compared to the apostles, so vastly to surpass them in
industry? The very attempt has betrayed the most consummate effrontery
and presumptuous confidence. Yet we see it has been done; with what
success, is obvious; the unavoidable consequence has been the desertion
of their own functions, and intrusion into those which belonged to
others.

X. It has, without doubt, been from small beginnings, that they have
gradually risen to such eminence. For it was not possible for them to
make so great an advance at one step. But sometimes by fraudulent and
secret artifices, they exalted themselves in a clandestine manner, so
that no one perceived the encroachment till it had been effected:
sometimes, when opportunity offered, by terrifying and menacing princes,
they extorted from them some augmentation of their power; sometimes,
when they saw princes inclined to favour them, they abused their foolish
and inconsiderate pliability. In early times, if any controversy arose,
the believers, in order to avoid the necessity of litigation, used to
refer it to the decision of their bishop, of whose integrity they were
fully satisfied. The ancient bishops were frequently embarrassed with
such arbitrations, which exceedingly displeased them, as Augustine
somewhere declares; but to save the parties from lawsuits, they
reluctantly undertook this troublesome business. From voluntary
arbitrations, which were entirely different from the processes of civil
courts, their successors have erected an ordinary jurisdiction. In a
subsequent period, when cities and countries were oppressed with various
distresses, they had recourse to the patronage of their bishops, that
they might be protected by their influence; succeeding bishops, by
wonderful artifice, of protectors have made themselves lords. Nor can it
be denied, that the principal acquisitions they have made, have been
effected by faction and violence. The princes, who voluntarily invested
the bishops with jurisdiction, were actuated to this by various motives.
But though their indulgence may have exhibited some appearance of piety,
yet their preposterous liberality was by no means adapted to promote the
benefit of the Church, the ancient and genuine discipline of which they
thereby corrupted, or rather, to say the truth, utterly annihilated. But
those bishops who have abused such kindness of princes to their own
profit, have sufficiently evinced, by this one specimen, that they were
in reality no bishops at all. For if they had possessed a particle of
the apostolic spirit, they would unquestionably have answered, in the
language of Paul, that “the weapons of our warfare are not carnal,
but”[1041] spiritual. Instead of this, hurried away with a blind
cupidity, they have ruined themselves, and their successors, and the
Church.

XI. At length the Roman pontiff, not content with small provinces, first
laid his hand upon kingdoms, and then seized upon the empire. And to
assign some plausible pretext for retaining a possession acquired by
mere robbery, he sometimes boasts that he holds it by Divine right,
sometimes pretends the donation from Constantine, and sometimes pleads
some other title. In the first place, I answer with Bernard, that
supposing he could vindicate his claim by any other reason, yet he
cannot establish it by any apostolic right. “For Peter could not give
what he never possessed; but he left his successors, what he did
possess, the care of the churches. But as the Lord and Master said of
himself, that he was not constituted a judge between two persons, the
servant and disciple ought not to think it any disgrace not to be judge
of all men.” Bernard is speaking here of civil judgments, for he adds,
addressing the pope, “Therefore your power is over sins, and not over
possessions, since it is for the former, and not for the latter, that
you have received the keys of the kingdom of heaven. For which appears
to you the superior dignity, to remit sins, or to divide lands? There is
no comparison. These low and earthly things are subject to the judgment
of kings and princes of the earth. Why do you invade the province of
others?” Again; “You are made a superior. For what purpose? Not to
exercise dominion, I apprehend. However highly we think of ourselves,
therefore, let us remember that we are appointed to a ministry not
invested with a sovereignty. Learn that you want no sceptre, but a
pruning-knife, to cultivate the Lord’s vineyard.” Again: “It is plain
that sovereignty is forbidden to the apostles. Go then, if you dare, and
sustaining the office of a temporal sovereign, usurp the name of an
apostle, or filling an apostolical office, usurp a temporal
sovereignty.” And immediately after: “This is the apostolic form: they
are forbidden to exercise any dominion; they are commanded to minister
and serve.” Though all these observations of Bernard are evidently
consistent with the truth, and even though the true state of the case
must be obvious to all without any thing being said, yet the Roman
pontiff was not ashamed, at the Council of Arles, to decree, that the
supreme power of both swords belonged to him by Divine right.

XII. With respect to the donation of Constantine, persons who have only
a moderate acquaintance with the histories of those times, need no
information how fabulous, and even ridiculous, this is. But to leave the
histories, Gregory, who lived above four hundred years after, is alone a
competent and very sufficient witness of this fact. For, wherever he
speaks of the emperor, he gives him the title of Most Serene Lord, and
calls himself his unworthy servant. In one place he says, “Let not our
lord, from his earthly power, be too ready to treat priests with
disdain; but with excellent consideration, for the sake of him whose
servants they are, let him rule over them in such a manner, as at the
same time to pay them due reverence.” We see how, in the common
subjection, he wished to be considered as one of the people; for he is
there pleading, not another person’s cause, but his own. In another
place he says, “I trust in Almighty God, that he will grant a long life
to our pious lords, and will govern us under your hand according to his
mercy.” I have not quoted these passages with any design to discuss at
large this question of the donation of Constantine, but merely to show
my readers, by the way, what a puerile falsehood it is of the Romanists,
to attempt to claim a temporal sovereignty for their pontiff. And so
much the more contemptible is the impudence of Augustine Steuchus, the
pope’s librarian, who has had the effrontery to prostitute his labours
to serve his master in such a desperate cause. Laurentius Valla had
amply refuted that fable, which was no difficulty to a man of learning
and an acute reasoner; yet, like a man little conversant in
ecclesiastical affairs, he had not said all that would have corroborated
the argument. Steuchus sallies forth, and scatters the most disgusting
trash to obscure the clear light. But, in fact, he pleads the cause of
his master with no more force than if some facetious wit, ironically
professing the same object, were in reality supporting the opposite side
of the question. But this cause is well worthy of such advocates as the
pope hires to defend it; and equally worthy are those mercenary
scribblers of being disappointed in their hopes of gain, as was the case
with Eugubinus.

XIII. But if any one inquire the time when this fictitious empire began
to arise, there have not yet elapsed five hundred years since the
pontiffs were still in subjection to the emperors, and no pontiff was
created without the authority of the emperor. The first occasion of
innovation in this order was given to Gregory VII. by the emperor Henry,
the fourth of that name, a man of rash and unsteady disposition, of no
judgment, great audacity, and dissolute life. For when he had all the
bishoprics of Germany in his court, either exposed to sale, or to be
distributed as a booty, Hildebrand, who had been offended with him,
seized a plausible pretext to avenge himself. Because he appeared to
advocate a good and pious cause, he was assisted by the favour of many;
and Henry, on the other hand, had rendered himself odious to the
generality of princes, by the insolence of his government. At length
Hildebrand, who assumed the name of Gregory VII., being a man of no
piety or integrity, betrayed the wickedness of his heart; in consequence
of which many, who had concurred with him, afterwards deserted him. He
so far succeeded, however, as to enable his successors not only to cast
off the imperial yoke with impunity, but even to oblige the emperors to
submit to them. After that time there were many emperors, more like
Henry than like Julius Cæsar, whom there was no difficulty in overcoming
while they were sitting at home in indolence and unconcern, when there
was the greatest necessity for every vigorous and legitimate exertion to
repress the cupidity of the pontiffs. Thus we see with what plausibility
they have represented this admirable donation of Constantine, by which
the pope pretends himself to have been invested with the sovereignty of
the Western empire.

XIV. From that period the pontiffs have never ceased encroaching on the
jurisdictions, and seizing on the territories, of others, sometimes
employing fraud, sometimes treachery, and sometimes open war; even the
city of Rome itself, which till then was free, about a hundred and
thirty years ago was compelled to submit to their dominion; in short,
they proceeded to make continual advances, till they attained the power
which they at present possess, and for the retention or augmentation of
which, they have now, for the space of two hundred years, (for they had
begun before they usurped the government of the city,) so disturbed and
distracted the Christian world, that they have brought it to the brink
of ruin. In the time of Gregory the First, when the guardians of the
ecclesiastical property seized for themselves the lands which belonged
to the Church, and, according to the custom of princes, set up their
titles and armorial bearings on them in token of their claim, Gregory
assembled a provincial council of bishops, in which he severely
inveighed against that profane custom, and asked whether they would not
excommunicate any ecclesiastic who should attempt the seizure of
property by the inscription of a title, or even any bishop who should
direct such a thing to be done, or if done without his direction, should
not punish it. They all pronounced that every such offender should be
excommunicated. But if claiming a field by the inscription of a title,
be a crime deserving of excommunication in a priest,—when for two whole
centuries the pontiffs have been meditating nothing but wars, effusion
of blood, slaughter of armies, storming and pillaging cities, the
destruction of nations, the devastation of kingdoms, for the sole
purpose of seizing the dominions of others,—what excommunications can be
sufficient for the punishment of such examples? It is clear beyond all
doubt, that the glory of Christ is the object furthest from their
pursuit. For if they voluntarily resign all the secular power which they
possess, no danger will result to the glory of God, to sound doctrine,
or to the safety of the Church; but they are infatuated, and stimulated
by the mere lust of dominion; and consider nothing as safe, unless, as
the prophet says, “they rule with force and with cruelty.”[1042]

XV. With jurisdiction is connected the immunity which the Roman
ecclesiastics arrogate to themselves. For they consider it a degradation
for them to appear before a civil judge in personal causes, and they
imagine the liberty and dignity of the Church to consist in their
exemption from the common judicature and laws. But the ancient bishops,
who in other respects were the most rigid assertors of the rights of the
Church, esteemed it no injury to themselves, or to their order, to be
subject to lay judges in civil causes. The pious emperors also, without
any opposition, always summoned the clergy before their tribunals,
whenever necessity required it. For this is the language of Constantine,
in his epistle to the bishops of Nicomedia: “If any bishop excite any
disturbance by his indiscretion, his presumption shall be restrained by
the authority of the minister of God, that is, by mine.” And Valentinian
says, “Good bishops never traduce the power of the emperor, but
sincerely observe the commands of God, the sovereign King, and obey our
laws.” At that time this principle was universally admitted, without any
controversy. Ecclesiastical causes were referred to the judgment of the
bishop. As for example, if any ecclesiastic had committed no crime
against the laws, but was only charged with offending against the
canons, he was not summoned to the common tribunal, but was judged by
the bishop. In like manner, if a question was agitated respecting an
article of faith, or any other subject properly belonging to the Church,
to the Church the cognizance of it was committed. In this sense is to be
understood what Ambrose writes to the emperor Valentinian: “Your father,
of august memory, not only answered verbally, but also ordained by
edicts, that, in a cause relating to faith, he ought to judge, who is
not disqualified by office or dignity.” Again: “If we regard the
Scriptures or ancient examples, who will deny that in a cause of
faith,—I say, in a cause of faith,—it is customary for bishops to judge
of Christian emperors, and not emperors of bishops?” Again: “I would
have come to your consistory, sire, if either the bishops or the people
would have suffered me to go; but they say, that a cause of faith ought
to be discussed in the Church, in the presence of the people.” He
contended that a spiritual cause—that is, a cause affecting
religion—ought not to be carried into a civil court, where secular
controversies are agitated; and his constancy in this respect has been
universally and justly applauded. Yet, notwithstanding the goodness of
his cause, he went no further than to declare, that if the emperor
proceeded to employ force, he would submit. He says, “I will not
voluntarily desert the station committed to me: in case of compulsion, I
know not how to resist, for our arms are prayers and tears.” Let us
observe the singular combination of moderation and prudence with
magnanimity and confidence in this holy man. Justina, the mother of the
emperor, because she could not induce him to join the Arians,
endeavoured to deprive him of his bishopric. And she would have
succeeded in her attempts, if, in compliance with the summons, he had
gone to the palace of the emperor to plead his cause. Therefore he
denied the emperor to be a competent judge of so important a
controversy; and this was necessary both from the circumstances of that
time, and from the invariable nature of the subject itself. For he was
of opinion, that it was his duty to suffer death rather than, by his
consent, to permit such an example to be transmitted to posterity; and
yet in case of violence being employed, he cherished not a thought of
resistance. For he denied it to be compatible with the character of a
bishop to defend the faith and privileges of the Church by arms; but in
other cases he showed himself ready to do whatever the emperor would
command. “If he demands tribute,” says he, “we do not refuse it; the
lands of the Church pay tribute. If he demands the lands, he has power
to take them; none of us will oppose him.” Gregory also speaks in a
similar manner. “I am not ignorant,” he says, “of the mind of our most
serene lord, that he is not in the habit of interfering in sacerdotal
causes, lest he should in any respect be burdened with our sins.” He
does not entirely exclude the emperor from judging priests, but observes
that there are certain causes which he ought to leave to the decision of
the Church.

XVI. And even in this exception, the sole object of these holy men was
to prevent the tyrannical violence and caprice of princes less
favourable to religion from obstructing the Church in the discharge of
its duty. For they did not disapprove of the occasional interposition of
princes in ecclesiastical affairs, provided they would exert their
authority for the preservation of the order of the Church, and not for
the disturbance of it; for the establishment of discipline, and not for
its relaxation. For as the Church neither possesses, nor ought to
desire, the power to constrain,—I speak of civil coercion,—it is the
part of pious kings and princes to support religion by laws, edicts, and
judicial sentences. For this reason, when the emperor Mauritius
commanded certain bishops to receive their neighbouring colleagues, who
had been expelled from their sees by the barbarians, Gregory confirmed
this command, and exhorted them to obey it. And when he himself was
admonished by the same emperor to be reconciled to John, the bishop of
Constantinople, he did, indeed, assign a reason why he ought not to be
blamed, yet he boasted no immunity exempting him from the imperial
authority, but on the contrary promised compliance as far as should be
consistent with a good conscience; and at the same time acknowledged
that Mauritius acted in a manner becoming a religious prince in giving
such commands to the bishops.

Footnote 1028:

1 Cor. xii. 28.

Footnote 1029:

Rom. xii. 8.

Footnote 1030:

1 Tim. v. 17.

Footnote 1031:

Matt. xviii. 15-18.

Footnote 1032:

Matt. xvi. 19.

Footnote 1033:

John xx. 22, 23.

Footnote 1034:

Matt. xviii. 17, 18.

Footnote 1035:

2 Cor. x. 5, 6.

Footnote 1036:

1 Cor. v. 12.

Footnote 1037:

Matt. xx. 25, 26. Luke xxii. 25, 26.

Footnote 1038:

Matt. xx. 25, 26. Luke xxii. 25, 26.

Footnote 1039:

Luke xii. 14.

Footnote 1040:

Acts vi. 2.

Footnote 1041:

2 Cor. x. 4.

Footnote 1042:

Ezek. xxxiv. 4.

CHAPTER XII.
THE DISCIPLINE OF THE CHURCH; ITS PRINCIPAL USE IN CENSURES AND
EXCOMMUNICATION.

The discipline of the Church, the discussion of which I have deferred to
this place, must be despatched in a few words, that we may proceed to
the remaining subjects. Now, the discipline depends chiefly on the power
of the keys, and the spiritual jurisdiction. To make this more easily
understood, let us divide the Church into two principal orders—the
clergy and the people. I use the word _clergy_ as the common, though
improper, appellation of those who execute the public ministry in the
Church. We shall, first, speak of the common discipline to which all
ought to be subject; and in the next place we shall proceed to the
clergy, who, beside this common discipline, have a discipline peculiar
to themselves. But as some have such a hatred of discipline, as to abhor
the very name, they should attend to the following consideration: That
if no society, and even no house, though containing only a small family,
can be preserved in a proper state without discipline, this is far more
necessary in the Church, the state of which ought to be the most orderly
of all. As the saving doctrine of Christ is the soul of the Church, so
discipline forms the ligaments which connect the members together, and
keep each in its proper place. Whoever, therefore, either desire the
abolition of all discipline, or obstruct its restoration, whether they
act from design or inadvertency, they certainly promote the entire
dissolution of the Church. For what will be the consequence, if every
man be at liberty to follow his own inclinations? But such would be the
case, unless the preaching of the doctrine were accompanied with private
admonitions, reproofs, and other means to enforce the doctrine, and
prevent it from being altogether ineffectual. Discipline, therefore,
serves as a bridle to curb and restrain the refractory, who resist the
doctrine of Christ; or as a spur to stimulate the inactive; and
sometimes as a father’s rod, with which those who have grievously fallen
may be chastised in mercy, and with the gentleness of the Spirit of
Christ. Now, when we see the approach of certain beginnings of a
dreadful desolation in the Church, since there is no solicitude or means
to keep the people in obedience to our Lord, necessity itself proclaims
the want of a remedy; and this is the only remedy which has been
commanded by Christ, or which has ever been adopted among believers.

II. The first foundation of discipline consists in the use of private
admonitions; that is to say, that if any one be guilty of a voluntary
omission of duty, or conduct himself in an insolent manner, or discover
a want of virtue in his life, or commit any act deserving of
reprehension, he should suffer himself to be admonished; and that every
one should study to admonish his brother, whenever occasion shall
require; but that pastors and presbyters, beyond all others, should be
vigilant in the discharge of this duty, being called by their office,
not only to preach to the congregation, but also to admonish and exhort
in private houses, if in any instances their public instructions may not
have been sufficiently efficacious; as Paul inculcates, when he says,
that he “taught publicly and from house to house,” and protests himself
to be “pure from the blood of all men,” having “ceased not to warn every
one night and day with tears.”[1043] For the doctrine then obtains its
full authority, and produces its due effect, when the minister not only
declares to all the people together what is their duty to Christ, but
has the right and means of enforcing it upon them whom he observes to be
inattentive, or not obedient to the doctrine. If any one either
obstinately reject such admonitions, or manifest his contempt of them by
persisting in his misconduct; after he shall have been admonished a
second time in the presence of witnesses, Christ directs him to be
summoned before the tribunal of the Church, that is, the assembly of the
elders, and there to be more severely admonished by the public
authority, that if he reverence the Church, he may submit and obey; but
if this do not overcome him, and he still persevere in his iniquity, our
Lord then commands him, as a despiser of the Church, to be excluded from
the society of believers.[1044]

III. But as Jesus Christ in this passage is speaking only of private
faults, it is necessary to make this distinction—that some sins are
private, and others public or notorious. With respect to the former,
Christ says to every private individual, “Tell him his fault between
thee and him alone.”[1045] With respect to those which are notorious,
Paul says to Timothy, “Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also
may fear.”[1046] For Christ has before said, “If thy brother shall
trespass against thee;” which no person who is not contentious can
understand in any other sense, than if our Lord had said, “If any one
sin against thee, and thou alone know it, without any other persons
being acquainted with it.” But the direction given by the apostle to
Timothy, to rebuke publicly those whose transgressions were public, he
himself exemplified in his conduct to Peter. For when Peter committed a
public offence, he did not admonish him in private, but brought him
forward before all the Church.[1047] The legitimate course, then, will
be,—in correcting secret faults, to adopt the different steps directed
by Christ; and in the case of those which are notorious, to proceed at
once to the solemn correction of the Church, especially if they be
attended with public offence.

IV. It is also necessary to make another distinction between different
sins; some are smaller delinquencies, others are flagitious or enormous
crimes. For the correction of atrocious crimes, it is not sufficient to
employ admonition or reproof; recourse must be had to a severer remedy;
as Paul shows, when he does not content himself with censuring the
incestuous Corinthian, but pronounces sentence of excommunication
immediately on being certified of his crime. Now, then, we begin to have
a clearer perception how the spiritual jurisdiction of the Church, which
corrects sins according to the word of the Lord, is a most excellent
preservative of health, foundation of order, and bond of unity.
Therefore when the Church excludes from its society all who are known to
be guilty of adultery, fornication, theft, robbery, sedition, perjury,
false witness, and other similar crimes, together with obstinate
persons, who, after having been admonished even of smaller faults,
contemn God and his judgment,—it usurps no unreasonable authority, but
only exercises the jurisdiction which God has given it. And that no one
may despise this judgment of the Church, or consider it as of little
importance that he is condemned by the voice of the faithful, God has
testified that it is no other than a declaration of his sentence, and
that what they do on earth shall be ratified in heaven. For they have
the word of the Lord, to condemn the perverse; they have the word, to
receive the penitent into favour. Persons who believe that the Church
could not subsist without this bond of discipline, are mistaken in their
opinion, unless we could safely dispense with that remedy which the Lord
foresaw would be necessary for us; and how very necessary it is, will be
better discovered from its various use.

V. Now, there are three ends proposed by the Church in those
corrections, and in excommunication. The first is, that those who lead
scandalous and flagitious lives, may not, to the dishonour of God, be
numbered among Christians; as if his holy Church were a conspiracy of
wicked and abandoned men. For as the Church is the body of Christ, it
cannot be contaminated with such foul and putrid members without some
ignominy being reflected upon the Head. That nothing may exist in the
Church, therefore, from which any disgrace may be thrown upon his
venerable name, it is necessary to expel from his family all those from
whose turpitude infamy would redound to the profession of Christianity.
Here it is also necessary to have particular regard to the Lord’s
supper, that it may not be profaned by a promiscuous administration. For
it is certain that he who is intrusted with the dispensation of it, if
he knowingly and intentionally admit an unworthy person, whom he might
justly reject, is as guilty of sacrilege as if he were to give the
Lord’s body to dogs. Wherefore, Chrysostom severely inveighs against
priests, who, from a fear of the great and the powerful, did not dare to
reject any persons who presented themselves. “Blood,” says he, “shall be
required at your hands. If you fear man, he will deride you; if you fear
God, you will also be honoured among men. Let us not be afraid of
sceptres, or diadems, or imperial robes; we have here a great power. As
for myself, I will rather give up my body to death, and suffer my blood
to be shed, than I will be partaker of this pollution.” To guard this
most sacred mystery, therefore, from being reproached, there is need of
great discretion in the administration of it, and this requires the
jurisdiction of the Church. The second end is, that the good may not be
corrupted, as is often the case, by constant association with the
wicked. For, such is our propensity to error, nothing is more easy than
for evil examples to seduce us from rectitude of conduct. This use of
discipline was remarked by the apostle, when he directed the Corinthians
to expel from their society a person who had been guilty of incest. “A
little leaven,” says he, “leaveneth the whole lump.”[1048] And the
apostle perceived such great danger from this quarter, that he even
interdicted believers from all social intercourse with the wicked. “I
have written unto you, not to keep company, if any man that is called a
brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a
drunkard, or an extortioner; with such a one, no, not to eat.”[1049] The
third end is, that those who are censured or excommunicated, confounded
with the shame of their turpitude, may be led to repentance. Thus it is
even conducive to their own benefit for their iniquity to be punished,
that the stroke of the rod may arouse to a confession of their guilt,
those who would only be rendered more obstinate by indulgence. The
apostle intends the same when he says, “If any man obey not our word,
note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be
ashamed.”[1050] Again, when he says of the incestuous Corinthian, “I
have judged to deliver such a one unto Satan, that the spirit may be
saved in the day of the Lord;”[1051] that is, as I understand it, that
he had consigned him to a temporal condemnation, that the spirit might
be eternally saved. He therefore calls it _delivering to Satan_, because
the devil is _without_ the Church, as Christ is in the Church. For the
opinion of some persons, that it relates to a certain torment of the
body in the present life, inflicted by the agency of Satan, appears to
me extremely doubtful.

VI. Having stated these ends, it remains for us to examine how the
Church exercises this branch of discipline, which consists in
jurisdiction. In the first place, let us keep in view the distinction
before mentioned, that some sins are public, and others private, or more
concealed. Public sins are those which are not only known to one or two
witnesses, but are committed openly, and to the scandal of the whole
Church. By private sins, I mean, not such as are entirely unknown to
men, like those of hypocrites,—for these never come under the cognizance
of the Church,—but those of an intermediate class, which are not without
the knowledge of some witnesses, and yet are not public. The first sort
requires not the adoption of the gradual measures enumerated by Christ;
but it is the duty of the Church, on the occurrence of any notorious
scandal, immediately to summon the offender, and to punish him in
proportion to his crime. Sins of the second class, according to the rule
of Christ, are not to be brought before the Church, unless they are
attended with contumacy, in rejecting private admonition. When they are
submitted to the cognizance of the Church, then attention is to be paid
to the other distinction, between smaller delinquencies and more
atrocious crimes. For slighter offences require not the exertion of
extreme severity; it is sufficient to administer verbal castigation, and
that with paternal gentleness, not calculated to exasperate or confound
the offender, but to bring him to himself, that his correction may be an
occasion of joy rather than of sorrow. But it is proper that flagitious
crimes should receive severer punishment; for it is not enough for him
who has grievously offended the Church by the bad example of an
atrocious crime, merely to receive verbal castigation; he ought to be
deprived of the communion of the Lord’s supper for a time, till he shall
have given satisfactory evidence of repentance. For Paul not only
employs verbal reproof against the Corinthian transgressor, but excludes
him from the Church, and blames the Corinthians for having tolerated him
so long. This order was retained in the ancient and purer Church, while
any legitimate government continued. For if any one had perpetrated a
crime which was productive of offence, he was commanded, in the first
place, to abstain from the Lord’s supper, and, in the next place, to
humble himself before God, and to testify his repentance before the
Church. There were, likewise, certain solemn rites which it was
customary to enjoin upon those who had fallen, as signs of their
repentance. When the sinner had performed these for the satisfaction of
the Church, he was then, by imposition of hands, readmitted to the
communion. This readmission is frequently called _peace_ by Cyprian, who
briefly describes the ceremony. “They do penance,” he says, “for a
sufficient time; then they come to confession, and by the imposition of
the hands of the bishop and clergy, are restored to the privilege of
communion.” But though the bishop and clergy presided in the
reconciliation of offenders, yet they required the consent of the
people; as Cyprian elsewhere states.

VII. From this discipline none were exempted; so that princes and
plebeians yielded the same submission to it; and that with the greatest
propriety, since it is evidently the discipline of Christ, to whom it is
reasonable that all the sceptres and diadems of kings should be subject.
Thus Theodosius, when Ambrose excluded him from the privilege of
communion, on account of a massacre perpetrated at Thessalonica, laid
aside the ensigns of royalty with which he was invested, publicly in the
Church bewailed his sin, which the deceitful suggestions of others had
tempted him to commit, and implored pardon with groans and tears. For
great kings ought not to think it any dishonour to prostrate themselves
as suppliants before Christ the King of kings, nor ought they to be
displeased at being judged by the Church. As they hear scarcely any
thing in their courts but mere flatteries, it is the more highly
necessary for them to receive correction from the Lord by the mouth of
his _ministers_; they ought even to wish not to be spared by the
_pastors_, that they may be spared by the Lord. I forbear to mention
here by whom this jurisdiction is to be exercised, having spoken of this
in another place. I will only add, that the legitimate process in
excommunicating an offender, which is pointed out by Paul, requires it
to be done, not by the elders alone, but with the knowledge and
approbation of the Church: in such a manner, however, that the multitude
of the people may not direct the proceeding, but may watch over it as
witnesses and guardians, that nothing may be done by a few persons from
any improper motive. Beside the invocation of the name of God, the whole
of the proceeding ought to be conducted with a gravity declarative of
the presence of Christ, that there may be no doubt of his presiding over
the sentence.

VIII. But it ought not to be forgotten, that the severity becoming the
Church must be tempered with a spirit of gentleness. For there is
constant need of the greatest caution, according to the injunction of
Paul respecting a person who may have been censured, “lest perhaps such
a one should be swallowed up with overmuch sorrow;”[1052] for thus a
remedy would become a poison. But the rule of moderation may be better
deduced from the end intended to be accomplished; for as the design of
excommunication is, that the sinner may be brought to repentance, and
evil examples taken away, to prevent the name of Christ from being
blasphemed and other persons being tempted to imitation,—if we keep
these things in view, it will be easy to judge how far severity ought to
proceed, and where it ought to stop. Therefore, when the sinner gives
the Church a testimony of his repentance, and by this testimony, as far
as in him lies, obliterates the offence, he is by no means to be pressed
any further; and if he be pressed any further, the rigour is carried
beyond its proper limits. In this respect, it is impossible to excuse
the excessive austerity of the ancients, which was utterly at variance
with the directions of the Lord, and led to the most dangerous
consequences. For when they sentenced an offender to solemn repentance,
and exclusion from the holy communion, sometimes for three, sometimes
for four, sometimes for seven years, and sometimes for the remainder of
life,—what other consequence could result from it, but either great
hypocrisy or extreme despair? In like manner, when any one had fallen a
second time, the refusal to admit him to a second repentance, and his
exclusion from the Church to the end of his life, was neither useful nor
reasonable. Whoever considers the subject with sound judgment,
therefore, will discover their want of prudence in this instance. But I
would rather reprobate the general custom, than accuse all those who
practised it; among whom it is certain that some were not satisfied, but
they complied with it because it was not in their power to effect a
reformation. Cyprian declares that it was not from his own choice that
he was so rigorous. “Our patience,” he says, “and kindness and
tenderness, is ready for all who come. I wish all to return into the
Church: I wish all our fellow-soldiers to be assembled in the camp of
Christ, and all our brethren to be received into the house of God our
Father. I forgive every thing; I conceal much; from a zealous wish to
collect all the brotherhood together, even the sins committed against
God I examine not with rigid severity; and am scarcely free from fault
myself, in forgiving faults more easily than I ought. With ready and
entire affection I embrace those who return with penitence, confessing
their sin with humble and sincere satisfaction.” Chrysostom is rather
more severe; yet he expresses himself thus: “If God is so kind, why is
his priest determined to be so austere?” We know, likewise, what
kindness Augustine exercised towards the Donatists, so that he hesitated
not to receive into the bishoprics those who renounced their error; and
that immediately after their repentance. But because a contrary system
had prevailed, they were obliged to relinquish their own judgment, in
order to follow the established custom.

IX. Now, as it is required of the whole body of the Church, in
chastising any one who has fallen, to manifest such gentleness and
clemency as not to proceed to the extremity of rigour, but rather,
according to the injunction of Paul, to “confirm their love toward
him,”[1053] so it is the duty of every individual to moderate himself to
the like tenderness and clemency. Such as are expelled from the Church,
therefore, it is not for us to expunge from the number of the elect, or
to despair of them as already lost. It is proper to consider them as
strangers to the Church, and consequently from Christ, but this only as
long as they remain in a state of exclusion. And even then, if they
exhibit more appearance of obstinacy than of humility, still let us
leave them to the judgment of God, hoping better things of them for the
future than we discover at present, and not ceasing to pray to God on
their behalf. And to comprehend all in a word, let us not condemn to
eternal death the person himself, who is in the hand and power of God
alone, but let us content ourselves with judging of the nature of his
works according to the law of the Lord. While we follow this rule, we
rather adhere to the judgment of God than pronounce our own. Let us not
arrogate to ourselves any greater latitude of judging, unless we would
limit the power and prescribe laws to the mercy of God; for, whenever it
seems good to him, the worst of men are changed into the best, strangers
are introduced, and foreigners are admitted into the Church. And this
the Lord does, to frustrate the opinion and repress the presumption of
men, which would usurp the most unwarrantable liberty of judging, if it
were left without any restraint.

X. When Christ promises that what his ministers bind on earth shall be
bound in heaven, he limits the power of binding to the censure of the
Church; by which those who are excommunicated are not cast into eternal
ruin and condemnation, but, by hearing their life and conduct condemned,
are also certified of their final condemnation, unless they repent. For
excommunication differs from anathema; the latter, which ought to be
very rarely or never resorted to, precluding all pardon, execrates a
person, and devotes him to eternal perdition; whereas excommunication
rather censures and punishes his conduct. And though it does, at the
same time, punish the person, yet it is in such a manner, that, by
warning him of his future condemnation, it recalls him to salvation. If
he obey, the Church is ready to re-admit him to its friendship, and to
restore him to its communion. Therefore, though the discipline of the
Church admits not of our friendly association and familiar intercourse
with excommunicated persons, yet we ought to exert all the means in our
power to promote their reformation, and their return to the society and
communion of the Church; as we are taught by the apostle, who says, “Yet
count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.”[1054] Unless
this tenderness be observed by the individual members, as well as by the
Church collectively, our discipline will be in danger of speedily
degenerating into cruelty.

XI. It is also particularly requisite to the moderation of discipline,
as Augustine observes in disputing with the Donatists, that private
persons, if they see faults corrected with too little diligence by the
council of elders, should not on that account immediately withdraw from
the Church; and that the pastors themselves, if they cannot succeed
according to the wishes of their hearts in reforming every thing that
needs correction, should not, in consequence of this, desert the
ministry, or disturb the whole Church with unaccustomed asperity. For
there is much truth in his observation, that “whoever either corrects
what he can by reproof; or what he cannot correct, excludes, without
breaking the bond of peace; or what he cannot exclude, without breaking
the bond of peace, censures with moderation and bears with firmness; he
is free from the curse, and chargeable with no blame.” In another
passage he assigns the reason; because “all the pious order and method
of ecclesiastical discipline ought constantly to regard the unity of the
Spirit in the bond of peace; which the apostle commands to be kept by
mutual forbearance; and without the preservation of which, the medicine
of chastisement is not only superfluous, but even becomes pernicious,
and consequently is no longer a medicine.” Again: “He who attentively
considers these things neither neglects severity of discipline for the
preservation of unity, nor breaks the bond of fellowship by an
intemperance of correction.” He acknowledges indeed that it is not only
the duty of the pastors to endeavour to purify the Church from every
fault, but that it is likewise incumbent on every individual to exert
all his influence for the same purpose; and he fully admits, that a
person who neglects to admonish, reprove, and correct the wicked, though
he neither favours them nor unites in their sins, is nevertheless
culpable in the sight of the Lord; but that he who sustains such an
office as to have power to exclude them from a participation of the
sacraments, and does it not, is chargeable, in that case, not with the
guilt of another, but with a sin of his own; he only recommends it to be
done with the prudence required by our Lord, “lest while” they “gather
up the tares,” they “root up also the wheat with them.”[1055] Hence he
concludes with Cyprian, “Let a man, therefore, in mercy correct what he
can; what he cannot, let him patiently bear and affectionately lament.”

XII. These remarks of Augustine were made in consequence of the rigour
of the Donatists, who, seeing vices in the Church, which the bishops
condemned by verbal reproofs, but did not punish with excommunication,
which they thought not adapted to produce any good effects, inveighed in
a most outrageous manner against the bishops, as betrayers of
discipline, and by an impious schism separated themselves from the flock
of Christ. The same conduct is pursued in the present day by the
Anabaptists, who, acknowledging no congregation to belong to Christ,
unless it be, in all respects, conspicuous for angelic perfection, under
the pretext of zeal, destroy all edification. “Such persons,” says
Augustine, “not actuated by hatred against the iniquity of others, but
stimulated by fondness for their own disputes, desire either wholly to
pervert, or at least to divide the weak multitude by insnaring them with
their boastful pretensions; inflated with pride, infuriated with
obstinacy, insidious with calumnies, turbulent with seditions, that
their destitution of the light of truth may not be detected, they
conceal themselves under the covert of a rigorous severity; and those
things which the Scripture commands to be done for the correction of the
faults of our brethren, without violating the sincerity of love, or
disturbing the unity of peace, but with the moderation of a remedial
process, they abuse, to an occasion of dissension and to the sacrilege
of schism. Thus Satan transforms himself into an angel of light, when
from just severity he takes occasion to persuade men to inhuman cruelty,
with no other object than to corrupt and break the bond of peace and
unity; by the preservation of which among Christians, all his power to
injure them is weakened, his insidious snares are broken, and his
schemes for their ruin come to nothing.”

XIII. There is one thing which this father particularly recommends—that
if the contagion of any sin has infected a whole people, there is a
necessity for the severity and mercy which are combined in strict
discipline. “For schemes of separation,” he says, “are pernicious and
sacrilegious, because they proceed from pride and impiety, and disturb
the good who are weak, more than they correct the wicked who are bold.”
And what he here prescribes to others, he faithfully followed himself.
For writing to Aurelius, bishop of Carthage, he complained that
drunkenness, which is so severely condemned in the Scripture, prevailed
with impunity in Africa, and persuaded him to endeavour to remedy it by
calling a provincial council. He immediately adds, “I believe these
things are suppressed not by harshness, severity, or imperiousness, but
by teaching rather than commanding, by admonitions rather than by
menaces. For this is the conduct to be pursued with a multitude of
offenders; but severity is to be exercised against the sins of a few.”
Yet he does not mean that bishops should connive or be silent, because
they cannot inflict severe punishments for public crimes, as he
afterwards explains; but he means that the correction should be tempered
with such moderation, as to be salutary rather than injurious to the
body. And therefore he at length concludes in the following manner:
“Wherefore, also, that command of the apostle, to put away the
wicked,[1056] ought by no means to be neglected, when it can be done
without danger of disturbing the peace; for in this case alone did he
intend that it should be enforced; and we are also to observe his other
injunction, to forbear one another in love, endeavouring to keep the
unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.”[1057]

XIV. The remaining part of discipline, which is not strictly included in
the power of the keys, consists in this—that the pastors, according to
the necessity of the times, should exhort the people either to fastings
or solemn supplications, or to other exercises of humility, repentance,
and faith, of which the word of God prescribes neither the time, the
extent, nor the form, but leaves all this to the judgment of the Church.
The observation of these things, also, which are highly useful, was
always practised by the ancient Church from the days of the apostles;
though the apostles themselves were not the first authors of them, but
derived the example from the law and the prophets. For there we find,
that whenever any important business occurred, the people were
assembled, supplications commanded, and fasting enjoined. The apostles,
therefore, followed what was not new to the people of God, and what they
foresaw would be useful. The same reasoning is applicable to other
exercises by which the people may be excited to duty, or preserved in
obedience. Examples abound in the sacred history, which it is
unnecessary to enumerate. The conclusion to be deduced from the whole
is, that whenever a controversy arises respecting religion, which
requires to be decided by a council or ecclesiastical judgment; whenever
a minister is to be chosen; in short, whenever any thing of difficulty
or great importance is transacting; and also when any tokens of the
Divine wrath are discovered, such as famine, pestilence, or war;—it is a
pious custom, and beneficial in all ages, for the pastors to exhort the
people to public fasts and extraordinary prayers. If the testimonies
which may be adduced from the Old Testament be rejected, as inapplicable
to the Christian church, it is evident that the apostles practised the
same. Respecting prayers, however, I suppose scarcely a person will be
found disposed to raise any dispute. Therefore let us say something of
fasting; because many, for want of knowing its usefulness, undervalue
its necessity, and some reject it as altogether superfluous; while, on
the other hand, where the use of it is not well understood, it easily
degenerates into superstition.

XV. Holy and legitimate fasting is directed to three ends. For we
practise it, either as a restraint on the flesh, to preserve it from
licentiousness, or as a preparation for prayers and pious meditations,
or as a testimony of our humiliation in the presence of God, when we are
desirous of confessing our guilt before him. The first is not often
contemplated in public fasting, because all men have not the same
constitution or health of body; therefore it is rather more applicable
to private fasting. The second end is common to both, such preparation
for prayer being necessary to the whole Church, as well as to every one
of the faithful in particular. The same may be said of the third. For it
will sometimes happen that God will afflict a whole nation with war,
pestilence, or some other calamity; under such a common scourge, it
behoves all the people to make a confession of their guilt. When the
hand of the Lord chastises an individual, he ought to make a similar
confession, either alone or with his family. It is true that this
acknowledgment lies principally in the disposition of the heart; but
when the heart is affected as it ought to be, it can scarcely avoid
breaking out into the external expression, and most especially when it
promotes the general edification; in order that all, by a public
confession of their sin, may unitedly acknowledge the justice of God,
and may mutually animate each other by the influence of example.

XVI. Wherefore fasting, as it is a sign of humiliation, is of more
frequent use in public, than among individuals in private; though it is
common to both, as we have already observed. With regard to the
discipline, therefore, of which we are now treating, whenever
supplications are to be presented to God on any important occasion, it
would be right to enjoin the union of fasting with prayer. Thus when the
believers at Antioch “laid their hands on Paul and Barnabas,” the better
to recommend their very important ministry to God, they “fasted” as well
as “prayed.”[1058] So also when Paul and Barnabas afterwards “ordained
elders in every Church,” they used to “pray with fasting.”[1059] In this
kind of fasting, their only object was, that they might be more lively
and unembarrassed in prayer. And we find by experience, that after a
full meal, the mind does not aspire towards God so as to be able to
enter on prayer, and to continue in it with seriousness and ardour of
affection. So we are to understand what Luke says of Anna, that she
“served God with fastings and prayers.”[1060] For he does not place the
worship of God in fasting, but signifies that by such means that holy
woman habituated herself to a constancy in prayer. Such was the fasting
of Nehemiah, when he prayed to God with more than common fervour for the
deliverance of his people.[1061] For this cause Paul declares it to be
expedient for believers to practise a temporary abstinence from lawful
enjoyments, that they may be more at liberty to “give themselves to
fasting and prayer.”[1062] For by connecting fasting with prayer as an
assistance to it, he signifies that fasting is of no importance in
itself, any further than as it is directed to this end. Besides, from
the direction which he gives in that place to husbands and wives, to
“render to” each other “due benevolence,” it is clear that he is not
speaking of daily prayers, but of such as require peculiar earnestness
of attention.

XVII. In like manner, when war, pestilence, or famine begins to rage, or
when any other calamity appears to threaten a country and people, then
also it is the duty of pastors to exhort the Church to fasting, that
with humble supplications they may deprecate the wrath of the Lord; for
when he causes danger to appear, he announces himself as prepared and
armed for vengeance. Therefore, as it was anciently the custom for
criminals to appear with long beards, dishevelled hair, and mourning
apparel, in order to excite the pity of the judge; so when we stand as
criminals before the tribunal of God, it is conducive to his glory and
the general edification, as well as expedient and salutary for
ourselves, to deprecate his severity by external demonstrations of
sorrow. That this was customary among the people of Israel, it is easy
to infer from the language of Joel; for when he commands to “blow the
trumpet, sanctify a fast, and call a solemn assembly,”[1063] and
proceeds to give other directions, he speaks as of things commonly
practised. He had just before said that inquisition was made respecting
the crimes of the people, had announced that the day of the Lord was at
hand, and had cited them, as criminals, to appear and answer for
themselves; afterwards, he warns them to have recourse to sackcloth and
ashes, to weeping and fasting, that is, to prostrate themselves before
the Lord with external demonstrations of humility. Sackcloth and ashes,
perhaps, were more suitable to those times; but there is no doubt that
assembling, and weeping, and fastings, and similar acts, are equally
proper for us in the present age, whenever the state of our affairs
requires them. For as it is a holy exercise, adapted both to humble men
and to confess their humility, why should it be less used by us than by
the ancients in similar necessities? We read that fasting in token of
sorrow was not only practised by the Israelitish Church, which was
formed and regulated by the word of God, but also by the inhabitants of
Nineveh, who had no instruction except the preaching of Jonah.[1064]
What cause, then, is there, why we should not practise the same? But, it
will be said, it is an external ceremony, which, with all the rest,
terminated in Christ. I reply, that even at this day it is, as it always
has been, a most excellent assistance and useful admonition to believers
to stimulate them, and guard them against further provocations of God by
their carelessness and inattention, when they are chastised by his
scourges. Therefore, when Christ excuses his apostles for not fasting,
he does not say that fasting is abolished, but appoints it for seasons
of calamity, and connects it with sorrow. “The days will come,” says he,
“when the bridegroom shall be taken away from them.”[1065]

XVIII. That there may be no mistake respecting the term, let us define
what fasting is. For we do not understand it to denote mere temperance
and abstinence in eating and drinking, but something more. The life of
believers, indeed, ought to be so regulated by frugality and sobriety,
as to exhibit, as far as possible, the appearance of a perpetual fast.
But beside this, there is another temporary fast, when we retrench any
thing from our customary mode of living, either for a day or for any
certain time, and prescribe to ourselves a more than commonly rigid and
severe abstinence in food. This restriction consists in three things,—in
time, in quality, and in quantity of food. By time, I mean that we
should perform, while fasting, those exercises on account of which fasts
are instituted. As, for example, if any one fast for solemn prayer, he
should not break his fast till he has attended to it. The quality
consists in an entire abstinence from dainties, and contentment with
simpler and humbler fare, that our appetite may not be stimulated by
delicacies. The rule of quantity is, that we eat more sparingly and
slightly than usual, only for necessity, and not for pleasure.

XIX. But it is necessary for us, above all things, to be particularly on
our guard against the approaches of superstition, which has heretofore
been a source of great injury to the Church. For it were far better that
fasting should be entirely disused, than that the practice should be
diligently observed, and at the same time corrupted with false and
pernicious opinions, into which the world is continually falling, unless
it be prevented by the greatest fidelity and prudence of the pastors.
The first caution necessary, and which they should be constantly urging,
is that suggested by Joel: “Rend your heart, and not your
garments;”[1066] that is, they should admonish the people, that God sets
no value on fasting, unless it be accompanied with a correspondent
disposition of heart, a real displeasure against sin, sincere
self-abhorrence, true humiliation, and unfeigned grief arising from a
fear of God; and that fasting is of no use on any other account than as
an additional and subordinate assistance to these things. For nothing is
more abominable to God, than when men attempt to impose upon him by the
presentation of signs and external appearances instead of purity of
heart. Therefore he severely reprobates this hypocrisy in the Jews, who
imagined they had satisfied God merely by having fasted, while they
cherished impious and impure thoughts in their hearts. “Is it such a
fast, saith the Lord, that I have chosen?”[1067] The fasting of
hypocrites, therefore, is not only superfluous and useless fatigue, but
the greatest abomination. Allied to this is another evil, which requires
the most vigilant caution, lest it be considered as a meritorious act,
or a species of divine service. For as it is a thing indifferent in
itself, and possesses no other value than it derives from those ends to
which it ought to be directed, it is most pernicious superstition to
confound it with works commanded by God, and necessary in themselves,
without reference to any ulterior object. Such was formerly the folly of
the Manichæans, in the refutation of whom Augustine most clearly shows,
that fasting is to be held in no other estimation than on account of
those ends which I here mention, and that it receives no approbation
from God, unless it be practised for their sake. The third error is not
so impious, indeed, yet it is pregnant with danger, to enforce it with
extreme rigour as one of the principal duties, and to extol it with
extravagant encomiums, so that men imagine themselves to have performed
a work of peculiar excellence when they have fasted. In this respect, I
dare not wholly excuse the ancient fathers from having sown some seeds
of superstition, and given occasion to the tyranny which afterwards
arose. Their writings contain some sound and judicious sentiments on the
subject of fasting; but they also contain extravagant praises, which
elevate it to a rank among the principal virtues.

XX. And the superstitious observance of Lent had at that time generally
prevailed, because the common people considered themselves as performing
an eminent act of obedience to God, and the pastors commended it as a
holy imitation of Christ; whereas it is plain that Christ fasted, not to
set an example to others, but in order that by such an introduction to
the preaching of the gospel, he might prove the doctrine not to be a
human invention, but a revelation from heaven. And it is surprising that
men of acute discernment could ever entertain such a gross error, which
is disproved by such numerous and satisfactory arguments. For Christ did
not fast often, which it was necessary for him to do, if he intended to
establish a law for anniversary fasts, but only once, while he was
preparing to enter on the promulgation of the gospel. Nor did he fast in
the manner of men, as it behoved him to do, if he intended to stimulate
men to an imitation of him: on the contrary, he exhibited an example
calculated to attract the admiration of all, rather than to excite them
to a desire of emulating his example. In short, there was no other
reason for his fasting than for that of Moses, when he received the law
from the hand of the Lord. For as that miracle was exhibited in Moses,
to establish the authority of the law, it was necessary that it should
not be omitted in Christ, lest the gospel should seem to be inferior to
the law. But from that time, it never entered into any man’s mind to
introduce such a form of fasting among the people of Israel, under the
pretext of imitating Moses; nor was it followed by any of the holy
prophets and fathers, notwithstanding their inclination and zeal for all
pious exercises. For the account of Elijah, that he lived forty days
without meat and drink, was only intended to teach the people that he
was raised up to be the restorer of the law, from which almost all
Israel had departed. It was nothing but a vain and superstitious
affectation, therefore, to dignify the fasting of Lent with the title
and pretext of an imitation of Christ. In the manner of fasting,
however, there was at that time a great diversity, as Cassiodorus
relates from Socrates, in the ninth book of his history. “For the
Romans,” he says, “had no more than three weeks; but during these there
was a continual fast, except on the Sunday and Saturday. The Illyrians
and Greeks had six weeks, and others had seven; but they fasted at
intervals. Nor did they differ less as to the nature of their food. Some
made use of nothing but bread and water; others added vegetables to
fish; some did not abstain from fowl; others made no distinction at all
between any kinds of food.” This diversity is also mentioned by
Augustine, in his second epistle to Januarius.

XXI. The times which followed were still worse; to the preposterous zeal
of the multitude was added the ignorance and stupidity of the bishops,
with their lust of dominion and tyrannical rigour. Impious laws were
enacted to bind men’s consciences with fatal chains. The eating of
animal food was interdicted, as though it would contaminate them.
Sacrilegious opinions were added one after another, till they arrived at
an ocean of errors. And that no corruption might be omitted, they have
begun to trifle with God by the most ridiculous pretensions to
abstinence. For in the midst of all the most exquisite delicacies, they
seek the praise of fasting; no dainties are then sufficient; they never
have food in greater plenty, or variety, or deliciousness. Such splendid
provision they call fasting, and imagine it to be the legitimate service
of God. I say nothing of the base gluttony practised at that season,
more than at any other time, by those who wish to pass for the greatest
saints. In short they esteem it the highest worship of God to abstain
from animal food, and with this exception, to indulge themselves in
every kind of dainties. On the other hand, to taste the least morsel of
bacon or salted meat and brown bread, they deem an act of the vilest
impiety, and deserving of worse than death. Jerome relates, that there
were some persons, even in his time, who trifled with God by such
fooleries; who, to avoid making use of oil, procured the most delicate
kinds of food to be brought from every country; and who, to do violence
to nature, abstained from drinking water, but procured delicious and
costly liquors to be made for them, which they drank, not from a cup,
but from a shell. What was then the vice of a few, is now become common
among all wealthy persons; they fast for no other purpose than to feast
with more than common sumptuousness and delicacy. But I have no
inclination to waste many words on a thing so notorious. I only assert,
that neither in their fastings, nor in any other parts of their
discipline, have the Papists any thing so correct, sincere, or well
regulated, as to have the least occasion to pride themselves upon any
thing being left among them worthy of praise.

XXII. There remains the second part of the discipline of the Church,
which particularly relates to the clergy. It is contained in the canons
which the ancient bishops imposed on themselves and their order; such as
these: That no ecclesiastic should employ his time in hunting, gambling,
or feasting; that no one should engage in usury or commerce; that no one
should be present at dissolute dances; and other similar injunctions.
Penalties were likewise annexed, to confirm the authority of the canons,
and to prevent their being violated with impunity. For this end, to
every bishop was committed the government of his clergy, to rule them
according to the canons, and to oblige them to do their duty. For this
purpose were instituted annual visitations and synods, that if any one
were negligent in his duty, he might be admonished, and that any one who
committed a fault might be corrected according to his offence. The
bishops also had their provincial councils, once every year, and
anciently even twice a year, by which they were judged, if they had
committed any breach of their duty. For if a bishop was too severe or
violent against his clergy, there was a right of appeal to the
provincial councils, even though there was only a single complainant.
The severest punishment was the deposition of the offender from his
office, and his exclusion for a time from the communion. And because
this was a perpetual regulation, they never used to dissolve a
provincial council without appointing a time and place for the next.
For, to summon a universal council, was the exclusive prerogative of the
emperor, as all the ancient records testify. As long as this severity
continued, the clergy required nothing more from the people than they
exemplified in their own conduct. Indeed, they were far more severe to
themselves than to the laity; and it is reasonable that the people
should be ruled with a milder and less rigid discipline; and that the
clergy should inflict heavier censures, and exercise far less indulgence
to themselves than to other persons. How all this has become obsolete,
it is unnecessary to relate, when nothing can be imagined more
licentious and dissolute than this order of men in the present day; and
their profligacy has gone to such a length, that the whole world is
exclaiming against them. That all antiquity may not appear to have been
entirely forgotten by them, I confess, they deceive the eyes of the
simple with certain shadows, but these bear no more resemblance to the
ancient usages, than the mimicry of an ape to the rational and
considerate conduct of men. There is a remarkable passage in Xenophon,
where he states how shamefully the Persians had degenerated from the
virtues of their ancestors, and, from an austere course of life, had
sunk into delicacy and effeminacy, but that, to conceal their shame,
they sedulously observed the ancient forms. For whereas, in the time of
Cyrus, sobriety and temperance were carried so far, that it was
unnecessary, and was even considered as a disgrace for any one to blow
his nose, their posterity continued scrupulously to refrain from this
act; but to absorb the mucus, and retain the fetid humours produced by
their gluttony, even till they almost putrefied, was held quite
allowable. So, according to the ancient rule, it was unlawful to bring
cups to the table; but they had no objection to drink wine till they
were obliged to be carried away drunk. It had been an established custom
to eat only one meal a day; these good successors had not abolished this
custom, but they had continued their banquets from noon to midnight.
Because their ancient law enjoined men to finish their day’s journey
fasting, it continued to be a permanent custom among them; but they were
at liberty, and it was the general practice, for the sake of avoiding
fatigue, to contract the journey to two hours. Whenever the Papists
bring forward their degenerate rules, for the purpose of showing their
resemblance to the holy fathers, this example will sufficiently expose
their ridiculous imitation, of which no painter could draw a more
striking likeness.

XXIII. In one instance, they are too rigorous and inflexible, that is,
in not permitting priests to marry. With what impunity fornication rages
among them, it is unnecessary to remark; imboldened by their polluted
celibacy, they have become hardened to every crime. Yet this prohibition
clearly shows how pestilent are all their traditions; since it has not
only deprived the Church of upright and able pastors, but has formed a
horrible gulf of enormities, and precipitated many souls into the abyss
of despair. The interdiction of marriage to priests was certainly an act
of impious tyranny, not only contrary to the word of God, but at
variance with every principle of justice. In the first place, it was on
no account lawful for men to prohibit that which the Lord had left free.
Secondly, that God had expressly provided in his word that this liberty
should not be infringed, is too clear to require much proof. I say
nothing of the direction, repeatedly given by Paul, that a bishop should
be “the husband of one wife;”[1068] but what could be expressed with
greater force, than where he announces a revelation from the Holy
Spirit, “that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith,
forbidding to marry,” and represents these not only as impostors, but as
disseminating “doctrines of devils.”[1069] This, therefore, was a
prophecy, a sacred oracle of the Holy Spirit, by which he intended from
the beginning to forearm the Church against dangers—that the prohibition
of marriage is a doctrine of devils. But our adversaries imagine
themselves to have admirably evaded this charge, when they misapply it
to Montanus, the Tatianists, Encratites, and other ancient heretics. It
refers, say they, to those who have condemned marriage altogether; we by
no means condemn it; we merely prohibit it to the clergy, from an
opinion that it is not proper for them. As if, though this prophecy had
once been accomplished in those ancient heretics, it might not also be
applicable to them; or as if this puerile cavil, that they do not
prohibit marriage, because they do not prohibit it to all, were
deserving of the least attention. This is just as if a tyrant should
contend that there can be no injustice in a law, the injustice of which
only oppresses one part of a nation.

XXIV. They object, that there ought to be some mark to distinguish the
clergy from the laity. As though the Lord did not foresee what are the
true ornaments in which priests ought to excel. By this plea, they
charge the apostle with disturbing the order and violating the decorum
of the Church, who, in delineating the perfect model of a good bishop,
among the other virtues which he required in him, dared to mention
marriage. I know that they interpret this to mean, that no one is chosen
a bishop who shall have had a second wife. And I grant that this
interpretation is not new; but that it is erroneous, is evident from the
context itself; because he immediately after prescribes what characters
the wives of bishops and deacons ought to possess. Paul places marriage
among the virtues of a bishop; these men teach that it is a vice not to
be tolerated in the clergy; and not content with this general censure,
they call it carnal pollution and impurity, which is the language of
Syricius, one of the pontiffs, recited in their canons. Let every man
reflect from what source these things can have proceeded. Christ has
been pleased to put such honour upon marriage, as to make it an image of
his sacred union with the Church. What could be said more, in
commendation of the dignity of marriage? With what face can that be
called impure and polluted, which exhibits a similitude of the spiritual
grace of Christ?

XXV. Now, though their prohibition is so clearly repugnant to the word
of God, yet they find something in the Scriptures to urge in its
defence. The Levitical priests, whenever it came to their turn to
minister at the altar, were required not to cohabit with their wives,
that they might be pure and immaculate to perform the sacrifices; it
would therefore be exceedingly unbecoming for our sacraments, which are
far more excellent and of daily recurrence, to be administered by
married men. As though the evangelical ministry and the Levitical
priesthood were one and the same office. On the contrary, the Levitical
priests were antitypes, representing Christ, who, as the Mediator
between God and man, was to reconcile the Father to us by his perfect
purity. Now, as it was impossible for sinners to exhibit in every
respect a type of his sanctity, yet in order to display some faint
shadows of it, they were commanded to purify themselves in a manner
beyond what is common among men, whenever they approached the sanctuary;
because on those occasions they properly represented Christ, in
appearing at the tabernacle, which was a type of the heavenly tribunal,
as mediators to reconcile the people to God. As the pastors of the
Church now sustain no such office, the comparison is nothing to the
purpose. Wherefore the apostle, without any exception, confidently
pronounces, that “marriage is honourable in all; but whoremongers and
adulterers God will judge.”[1070] And the apostles themselves have
proved by their own example that marriage is not unbecoming the sanctity
of any office, however excellent; for Paul testifies that they not only
retained their wives, but took them about with them.[1071]

XXVI. It has also betrayed egregious impudence, to insist on this
appearance of chastity as a necessary thing, to the great disgrace of
the ancient Church, which abounded with such peculiar Divine knowledge,
but was still more eminent for sanctity. For if they pay no regard to
the apostles, whom they often have the hardihood to treat with contempt,
what will they say of all the ancient fathers, who, it is certain, not
only tolerated marriage in bishops, but likewise approved of it? It
would follow that they must have practised a foul profanation of sacred
things, since, according to the notion we are opposing, they did not
celebrate the mysteries of the Lord with the requisite purity. The
injunction of celibacy was agitated in the council of Nice; for there
are never wanting little minds, absorbed in superstition, who endeavour
to make themselves admired by the invention of some novelty. But what
was the decision? The council coincided in the opinion of Paphnutius,
who pronounced that “a man’s cohabitation with his own wife is
chastity.” Therefore marriage continued to be held sacred among them,
nor was it esteemed any disgrace to them, or considered as casting any
blemish on the ministry.

XXVII. Afterwards followed times distinguished by a too superstitious
admiration of celibacy. Hence those frequent and extravagant encomiums
on virginity, with which scarcely any other virtue was in general deemed
worthy to be compared. And though marriage was not condemned as impure,
yet its dignity was so diminished, and its sanctity obscured, that he
who did not refrain from it was not considered as aspiring to perfection
with sufficient fortitude of mind. Hence those canons, which prohibited
the contraction of marriage by those who had already entered on the
office of priests; and succeeding ones, which prohibited the admission
to that office of any but those who had never been married, or who had
abjured all cohabitation with their wives. Because these things seemed
to add respectability to the priesthood, they were received, I confess,
even in early times, with great applause. But our adversaries object
antiquity against us. I answer, In the first place, in the days of the
apostles, and for several ages after, the bishops were at liberty to
marry; and the apostles themselves, as well as other pastors of the
highest reputation who succeeded them, made use of this liberty without
any difficulty. The example of the primitive Church we ought to hold in
higher estimation than to deem that unlawful or unbecoming which was
then received and practised with approbation. Secondly; even that age,
which, from a superstitious attachment to virginity, began to be more
unfavourable to marriage, did not impose the law of celibacy upon the
priests as if it were absolutely necessary, but because they preferred
celibacy to marriage. Lastly; this law did not require the compulsion of
continence in those who were not able to keep it; for while the severest
punishments were denounced on priests who were guilty of fornication,
those who married were merely dismissed from their office.

XXVIII. Therefore, whenever the advocates of this modern tyranny attempt
to defend their celibacy with the pretext of antiquity, we shall not
fail to reply, that they ought to restore the ancient chastity in their
priests, to remove all adulterers and fornicators, not to suffer those,
whom they forbid the virtuous and chaste society of a wife, to abandon
themselves with impunity to every kind of debauchery, to revive the
obsolete discipline by which all indecencies may be repressed, to
deliver the Church from this flagitious turpitude, by which it has been
so long deformed. When they shall have granted this, it will still be
necessary to admonish them not to impose that as necessary, which, being
free in itself, depends on the convenience of the Church. Yet I have not
made these observations from an opinion that we ought on any condition
to admit those canons which impose the obligation of celibacy on the
clergy, but to enable the more judicious to perceive the effrontery of
our adversaries in alleging the authority of antiquity to bring disgrace
on holy marriage in priests. With respect to the fathers, whose writings
are extant, with the exception of Jerome, they have not so malignantly
detracted from the virtue of marriage, when they have been expressing
their own sentiments. We shall content ourselves with one testimony of
Chrysostom, because he, who was a principal admirer of virginity, cannot
be supposed to have been more lavish than others in commendation of
marriage. He says, “The first degree of chastity is pure virginity; the
second is faithful marriage. Therefore the second species of virginity
is the chaste love of matrimony.”

Footnote 1043:

Acts xx. 20, 26, 31.

Footnote 1044:

Matt. xviii. 15-17.

Footnote 1045:

Matt. xviii. 15.

Footnote 1046:

1 Tim. v. 20.

Footnote 1047:

Gal. ii. 11, 14.

Footnote 1048:

1 Cor. v. 6.

Footnote 1049:

1 Cor. v. 11.

Footnote 1050:

2 Thess. iii. 14.

Footnote 1051:

1 Cor. v. 3, 5.

Footnote 1052:

2 Cor. ii. 7.

Footnote 1053:

2 Cor. ii. 8.

Footnote 1054:

2 Thess. iii. 15.

Footnote 1055:

Matt. xiii. 29.

Footnote 1056:

1 Cor. v. 13.

Footnote 1057:

Eph. iv. 2, 3.

Footnote 1058:

Acts xiii. 2, 3.

Footnote 1059:

Acts xiv. 23.

Footnote 1060:

Luke ii. 37.

Footnote 1061:

Neh. i. 4.

Footnote 1062:

1 Cor. vii. 5.

Footnote 1063:

Joel ii. 15.

Footnote 1064:

Jonah iii. 5.

Footnote 1065:

Matt. ix. 15. Luke v. 34, 35.

Footnote 1066:

Joel ii. 13.

Footnote 1067:

Isaiah lviii. 5.

Footnote 1068:

1 Tim. iii. 2. Titus i. 6.

Footnote 1069:

1 Tim. iv. 1, 3.

Footnote 1070:

Heb. xiii. 4.

Footnote 1071:

1 Cor. ix. 5.

CHAPTER XIII.
VOWS: THE MISERY OF RASHLY MAKING THEM.

It is a thing truly to be deplored, that the Church, after its liberty
had been purchased by the inestimable price of the blood of Christ,
should have been so oppressed with a cruel tyranny, and almost
overwhelmed with an immense mass of traditions; but the general frenzy
of individuals shows that it has not been without the justest cause,
that God has permitted so much to be done by Satan and his ministers.
For it was not sufficient for them to neglect the command of Christ, and
to endure every burden imposed on them by false teachers, unless they
respectively added some of their own, and so sunk themselves deeper in
pits of their own digging. This was the consequence of their rivalling
each other in the contrivance of vows to add a stronger and stricter
obligation to the common bonds. As we have shown that the service of God
was corrupted by the audacity of those who domineered over the Church
under the title of pastors, insnaring unhappy consciences with their
unjust laws; it will not be irrelevant here to expose a kindred evil, in
order to show that men, in the depravity of their hearts, have opposed
every possible obstacle to those means by which they ought to have been
conducted to God. Now, to make it more evident that vows have been
productive of the most serious mischiefs, it is necessary to remind the
readers of the principles already stated. In the first place, we have
shown that every thing necessary to the regulation of a pious and holy
life is comprehended in the law. We have also shown, that the Lord, in
order to call us off more effectually from the contrivance of new works,
has included all the praise of righteousness in simple obedience to his
will. If these things be true, the conclusion is obvious, that all the
services which we invent for the purpose of gaining the favour of God,
are not at all acceptable to him, whatever pleasure they may afford to
ourselves; and, in fact, the Lord himself, in various places, not only
openly rejects them, but declares them to be objects of his utter
abomination. Hence arises a doubt respecting vows which are made without
the authority of the express word of God, in what light they are to be
considered; whether they may be rightly made by Christian men, and how
far they are obligatory upon them. For what is styled a _promise_ among
men, in reference to God is called a _vow_. Now, we promise to men
either such things as we think will be agreeable to them, or such as we
owe them on the ground of duty. There is need, therefore, of far greater
care respecting vows, which are addressed to God himself, towards whom
we ought to act with the utmost seriousness. But here superstition has
prevailed, in all ages, to a wonderful degree, so that, without judgment
or discretion, men have precipitately vowed to God whatever was
uppermost in their minds, or even on their lips. Hence those fooleries,
and even monstrous absurdities of vows, by which the heathen insolently
trifled with their gods. And I sincerely wish that Christians had not
imitated them in such audacity. This ought never to have been the case;
but we see, that for several ages nothing has been more common than this
presumption; amidst the general contempt of the law of God, people have
been all inflamed with a mad passion for vowing whatever had delighted
them in their dreams. I have no wish to proceed to an odious
exaggeration, or a particular enumeration of the enormity and varieties
of this offence; but I have thought it proper to make these remarks by
the way, to show that we are not instituting an unnecessary discussion,
when we treat of vows.

II. If we would avoid any error in judging what vows are legitimate, and
what are preposterous, it is necessary to consider three things—first,
to whom vows are to be addressed; secondly, who we are that make vows;
lastly, with what intention vows are made. The first consideration calls
us to reflect, that we have to do with God; who takes such pleasure in
our obedience, that he pronounces a curse on all acts of will-worship,
however specious and splendid they may be in the eyes of men. If God
abominates all voluntary services invented by us without his command, it
follows, that nothing can be acceptable to him, except what is approved
by his word. Let us not, therefore, assume to ourselves such a great
liberty, as to presume to vow to God any thing that has no testimony of
his approbation. For the maxim of Paul, that “whatsoever is not of faith
is sin,”[1072] while it extends to every action, is without doubt
principally applicable when a man addresses his thoughts directly to
God. Paul is there arguing respecting the difference of meats; and if we
err and fall even in things of the least moment, where we are not
enlightened by the certainty of faith, how much greater modesty is
requisite when we are undertaking a business of the greatest importance!
For nothing ought to be of greater importance to us than the duties of
religion. Let this, then, be our first rule in regard to vows—never to
attempt vowing any thing without a previous conviction of conscience,
that we are attempting nothing rashly. And our conscience will be secure
from all danger of rashness, when it shall have God for its guide,
dictating, as it were, by his word, what it is proper or useless to do.

III. The second consideration which we have mentioned, calls us to
measure our strength, to contemplate our calling, and not to neglect the
liberty which God has conferred on us. For he who vows what is not in
his power, or is repugnant to his calling, is chargeable with rashness;
and he who despises the favour of God, by which he is constituted lord
of all things, is guilty of ingratitude. By this remark, I do not intend
that we have any thing in our power, so as to enable us to promise it to
God in a reliance on our own strength. For, with the strictest regard to
truth, it was decreed in the council of Arausium, that nothing is
rightly vowed to God but what we have received from his hand, seeing
that all the things which are presented to him are merely gifts which he
has imparted. But as some things are given to us by the goodness of God,
and other things are denied to us by his justice, let every man follow
the admonition of Paul, and consider the measure of grace which he has
received.[1073] My only meaning here, therefore, is, that vows ought to
be regulated by that measure which the Lord prescribes to us, by what he
has given us; lest, by attempting more than he permits, we precipitate
ourselves into danger, by arrogating too much to ourselves. Luke gives
us an example in those assassins who vowed “that they would neither eat
nor drink till they had killed Paul:”[1074] even though the design
itself had not been criminal, yet it would have betrayed intolerable
rashness, to make a man’s life and death subject to their power. So
Jephthah suffered the punishment of his folly, when, in the fervour of
precipitation, he made an inconsiderate vow.[1075] In vows of this
class, distinguished by mad presumption, that of celibacy holds the
preëminence. Priests, monks, and nuns, forgetting their infirmity, think
themselves capable of celibacy. But by what revelation have they been
taught that they shall preserve their chastity all their lifetime, to
the end of which their vow reaches? They hear the declaration of God
concerning the universal condition of man; “It is not good for man to be
alone.”[1076] They understand, and I wish they did not feel, that sin
remaining in us is attended with the most powerful stimulants. With what
confidence can they dare to reject that general calling for their whole
life-time, whereas the gift of continence is frequently bestowed for a
certain time, as opportunity requires? In such obstinacy let them not
expect God to assist them, but rather let them remember what is written:
“Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.”[1077] Now, it is tempting God,
to strive against the nature which he has implanted in us, and to
despise the gifts which he presents, as though they were not at all
suitable for us. And they not only do this, but even marriage itself,
which God has deemed it no degradation of his majesty to institute,
which he has pronounced to be “honourable in all,” which our Lord Jesus
Christ sanctified with his presence, which he deigned to dignify with
his first miracle, they are not ashamed to stigmatize as pollution, for
the mere purpose of extolling celibacy, however it may be spent, with
the most extravagant encomiums. As though they did not exhibit a
striking proof in their own lives, that celibacy is one thing, and that
virginity is another; and yet they have the consummate impudence to call
such a life angelic. This is certainly doing a great injury to the
angels of God, to whom they compare persons guilty of fornication,
adultery, and other crimes far more atrocious and impure. And there is
not the least need of arguments, when they are clearly convicted by the
fact itself. For it is very evident what dreadful punishments the Lord
generally inflicts on such arrogance, self-confidence, and contempt of
his gifts. Modesty forbids me to animadvert on those things which are
more secret, of which too much is already known. That we are not at
liberty to vow any thing which may hinder us from serving God in our
vocation, is beyond all controversy; as if a father of a family should
vow that he will desert his wife and children, to undertake some other
charge; or as if a person qualified to fill the office of magistrate, on
being chosen to it, should vow that he would remain in a private
station. But the observation we have made, that our liberty ought not to
be despised, has some difficulty, which requires a further explication.
Now, the meaning may be briefly explained in the following manner: As
God has constituted us lords of all things, and has placed them in
subjection to us, in order that we might use them all for our
accommodation, we have no reason to hope that we should perform a
service acceptable to God, by making ourselves slaves to external
things, which ought to be subservient to our assistance. I say this,
because some persons consider themselves entitled to the praise of
humility, if they entangle themselves with many observances, from which
the Lord, for the best of reasons, intended we should be exempt.
Therefore, if we would escape this danger, let us always remember, that
we are never to depart from that economy which the Lord has instituted
in the Christian Church.

IV. I proceed now to the third consideration which I mentioned; that it
is of great importance with what intention a vow is made, if we wish it
to be approved by God. For as the Lord regards the heart, and not the
external appearance, it happens that the same action, performed with
different designs, is sometimes acceptable to him, and sometimes highly
displeasing. If any one vow abstinence from wine, as if there were any
holiness in such abstinence, he is chargeable with superstition; if this
be done for any other end which is not improper, no one can disapprove
of it. Now, as far as I am able to judge, there are four ends to which
our vows may be rightly directed. For the sake of further elucidation, I
refer two of them to the time past, and the other two to the future. To
the time past belong those vows by which we either testify our gratitude
to God for benefits received, or, in order to deprecate his wrath,
inflict punishment on ourselves for sins that we have committed. The
former may be called vows of thanksgiving; the latter, vows of
penitence. Of the former we have an example in Jacob, who vowed to give
to God the tenth of all he should acquire, if the Lord would bring him
again from his exile to his father’s house in peace.[1078] We have other
examples of the same kind in the ancient peace-offerings, which used to
be vowed by pious kings and generals, entering on just wars, to be
offered in case they should obtain the victory; or by persons labouring
under more than common difficulty, in case the Lord would deliver them.
Thus we are to understand all those places in the Psalms which speak of
vows.[1079] Vows of this kind may also be now used among us, whenever
God delivers us from any great calamity, from a severe disease, or from
any other danger. For on such occasions, it is not inconsistent with the
duty of a pious man to consecrate to God some oblation that he has
vowed, merely as a solemn token of grateful acknowledgment, that he may
not appear unthankful for his goodness. The nature of the second species
of vows will sufficiently appear from only one familiar example. If a
person has fallen into any crime through the vice of intemperance,
nothing prevents him from correcting that vice by a temporary
renunciation of all delicacies, and enforcing this abstinence by a vow,
to lay himself under the stronger obligation. Yet I impose no perpetual
law on those who have been guilty of such an offence; I only point out
what they are at liberty to do, if they think that such a vow would be
useful to them. I consider a vow of this kind, therefore, as lawful,
but, at the same time, as left to the free choice of every individual.

V. Vows which regard the future, as I have observed, have for their
object, partly to render us more cautious of danger, partly to stimulate
us to the performance of duty. For example; a person perceives himself
to be so prone to a certain vice, that, in something not otherwise evil,
he cannot restrain himself from falling into sin; he will commit no
absurdity, if he should deny himself the use of that thing for a season
by a vow. If any one be convinced that this or the other ornament of
dress is dangerous to him, and yet feel excessive desire for it, he
cannot do better than restrain himself by imposing a necessity of
abstinence, in order to free himself from all hesitation. So, if any one
be forgetful or negligent of the necessary duties of piety, why may he
not arouse his memory, and shake off his negligence by the imposition of
a vow? In both cases, I confess, there is an appearance of pupilage;
but, considered as helps of infirmity, such vows may be used with
advantage by the inexperienced and imperfect. Vows, therefore, which
respect one of these ends, especially those relating to external things,
we shall affirm to be lawful, if they be supported by the approbation of
God, if they be suitable to our calling, and if they be limited by the
ability of grace which God has given us.

VI. It will not now be difficult to conclude what ideas ought to be
entertained of vows universally. There is one vow common to all
believers, which is made in baptism, and confirmed and established by us
in the profession of our faith in the Catechism, and in the reception of
the Lord’s supper. For the sacraments resemble covenants, or instruments
of agreement, by which God conveys his mercy to us, and in it eternal
life; and we, on the other hand, promise him obedience. Now, the form,
or at least the sum of the vow is, that, renouncing Satan, we devote
ourselves to the service of God, to obey his holy commands, and not to
follow the corrupt inclinations of the flesh. This vow being sanctioned
by the Scripture, and even required of all the children of God, it ought
not to be doubted that it is holy and useful. It is no objection to
this, that no man in the present life performs the perfect obedience
which God requires of us; for as this stipulation is included in the
covenant of grace, which contains both remission of sins and the spirit
of sanctification, the promise which we then make is connected with, and
presupposes our supplication for mercy, and our solicitation for
assistance. In judging of particular vows, it is necessary to remember
the three rules which we have given, which will enable us to form a
correct estimate of the nature of every vow. Yet I would not be thought
to carry my recommendation, even of those vows which I maintain to be
holy, so far as to wish their daily use. For though I venture to
determine nothing respecting the number or time, yet, if any person
would follow my advice, he will make none but such as are sober, and of
short duration. For if any one often recur to the making of many vows,
all religion will be injured by their frequency, and there will be great
danger of falling into superstition. If any one bind himself by a
perpetual vow, he will not discharge it without great trouble and
difficulty; or, wearied by its long continuance, he will at length
violate it altogether.

VII. Now, it is evident what great superstition has for some ages
prevailed in the world on this subject. One person vowed that he would
drink no wine; as though abstinence from wine were a service in itself
acceptable to God. Another obliged himself to fast; another to abstain
from meat on certain days, which he had falsely imagined to possess some
peculiar sanctity beyond others. There were some vows far more puerile,
though not made by children. For it was esteemed great wisdom to vow
pilgrimages to places of more than common holiness, and to perform the
journey either on foot, or with the body half naked, that the merit
might be augmented by the fatigue. These, and similar vows, with an
incredible rage for which the world has long been inflamed, examined
according to the rules which we have laid down, will not only be found
to be vain and nugatory, but replete with manifest impiety. For whatever
may be the judgment of the flesh, God holds nothing in greater
abomination than services of human invention. The following pernicious
and execrable opinions are also entertained; hypocrites, when they have
performed these fooleries, suppose themselves to have attained a high
degree of righteousness; they place the whole substance of piety in
external observances; and they despise all who discover less concern
about these things than themselves.

VIII. To enumerate all the particular kinds of vows, would answer no
good purpose. But, because monastic vows are held in very high
veneration, as they seemed to be sanctioned by the public authority of
the Church, it is proper to make a few brief remarks respecting them. In
the first place, that no one may defend monachism, as it exists in the
present day, under the pretence of ancient and long-continued
prescription, it must be observed, that the mode of life in monasteries,
in ancient times, was very different from what it is now. They were the
retreats of those who wished to habituate themselves to the greatest
austerity and patience; for the discipline attributed to the
Lacedæmonians, under the laws of Lycurgus, was equalled, and even
considerably exceeded in rigour, by that which was then practised among
the monks. They slept on the ground without any beds or couches; they
drank nothing but water; their food consisted entirely of bread, herbs,
and roots; their principal dainties were oil, pease, and beans. They
abstained from all delicacy of victuals and ornaments of the body. These
things might be thought incredible, if they were not attested by persons
who saw and experienced them, Gregory of Nazianzum, Basil, and
Chrysostom. But it was by such probationary discipline that they
prepared themselves for higher offices. For that the monastic colleges
were at that time the seminaries, from which the Church was furnished
with ministers, is sufficiently evident from the examples of those whom
we have mentioned, who were all educated in monasteries, and from that
situation were called to the episcopal office, as well as of many other
great and excellent men of their age. And Augustine shows that the same
custom of supplying ministers for the Church from the monasteries
continued in his time; for the monks of the Island of Capraria are
addressed by him in the following manner: “We exhort you in the Lord,
brethren, that you keep your purpose, and persevere to the end; and
that, if at any time your mother the Church shall have need of your
labour, you neither undertake the charge with eager pride, nor refuse it
with flattering indolence; but that you obey God with gentleness of
heart; not preferring your leisure to the necessities of the Church,
whom, if no good men had been disposed to assist in the production of
her children, you cannot discover how you could yourselves have been
born.” He here speaks of the ministry, which is the means of the
regeneration of believers. Again, in an epistle to Aurelius, he says:
“It causes an occasion of falling to themselves, and a most injurious
indignity to the ecclesiastical order, if the deserters of monasteries
are chosen to clerical offices; while of those who remain in the
monastery, we are accustomed to promote to such offices only the best
and most approved. Unless, perhaps, as the common people say, A bad
dancer is a good musician, so it should be jocularly said of us, A bad
monk will be a good minister. It is too much to be lamented, if we
stimulate monks to such ruinous pride, and think the clergy deserving of
such heavy disgrace; whereas, sometimes even a good monk will hardly
make a good priest, if he has sufficient continence, and yet is
deficient in necessary learning.” From these passages it appears that
pious men were accustomed to prepare themselves, by monastic discipline,
for the government of the Church, that they might be the better
qualified to undertake such an important office. Not that all monks
attained this end; or even aimed at it; for they were in general
illiterate men, but those who were qualified were selected.

IX. But Augustine has given us a portraiture of the ancient monachism,
principally in two places; in his treatise On the Manners of the
Catholic Church, in which he defends the sanctity of that profession
against the calumnies of the Manichæans; and in another book, On the
Labour of Monks, in which he inveighs against some degenerate monks, who
had begun to corrupt that order. The different things which he states, I
shall here collect in a brief summary, using, as far as possible, his
own words. “Despising the allurements of this world, united in a common
life of the strictest chastity and holiness, they spend their time
together, living in prayers, in readings, and in conferences, neither
inflated with pride, nor turbulent with obstinacy, nor pale with envy.
No one possesses any thing of his own; no one is burdensome to another.
By the labour of their hands, they procure those things which are
sufficient to support the body, without hindering the mind from devotion
to God. Their work they deliver to those who are called Deans. These
Deans dispose of every thing with great care, and render an account to
one, whom they call Father. Most holy in their manners, preëminent in
divine learning, and excelling in every virtue, these Fathers, without
any pride, consult the welfare of those whom they call children,
commanding them with great authority, and obeyed by them with great
cheerfulness. At the close of the day, while yet fasting, every one
comes forth from his cell, and they all assemble to hear the Father; and
each of these Fathers is surrounded by at least three thousand men,” (he
is speaking chiefly of Egypt and the East;) “there they take some bodily
refreshment, as much as is sufficient for life and health; every one
restraining his appetite that he may make but a sparing use even of the
provisions placed before him, which are in small quantities, and of the
plainest description. That they not only abstain from animal food and
from wine, in order to repress libidinous desires, but from such things
as stimulate the appetite with greater power, in proportion to the
opinion entertained by some persons of their purity; under which
pretence a vile longing after exquisite meats, with the exception of
animal food, is wont to be ridiculously and shamefully defended.
Whatever remains beyond their necessary food, (and the surplus is
considerable, both from the diligence of their hands, and from the
abstemiousness of their meals,) is distributed to the poor, with greater
care than if it had been earned by those who distribute it. For they are
not anxious to have an abundance of these things, but all their concern
is, that none of their abundance may remain with them.” Afterwards,
having mentioned their austerity, of which he had seen examples at Milan
and other places, he says, “In these circumstances, no one is urged to
austerities which he is unable to bear; there is no imposition on any
one, of that which he refuses; nor is he condemned by the rest, because
he confesses himself too weak to imitate them; for they remember the
high commendations given of charity; they remember that to the pure, all
things are pure.[1080] Therefore all their industry is exerted, not in
rejecting certain kinds of food as polluted, but in subduing
concupiscence and preserving the love of the brethren. They remember
that it is said, Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats; but God
shall destroy both it and them.[1081] Yet many strong persons abstain on
account of the weak. Many have a different reason for doing it; they are
fond of living on meaner and less sumptuous food. These persons,
therefore, who are abstemious when in perfect health, if a state of
indisposition requires, partake, without any fear, when they are sick.
Many drink no wine; but this is not from an apprehension of being
defiled with it; for they most humanely cause it to be given to those
who are languid, and cannot obtain health of body without it; and some,
who foolishly refuse it, they admonish, with brotherly affection, to
beware lest their vain superstition debilitate them rather than promote
their holiness. Thus they diligently exercise themselves in piety: but
they know that the exercise of the body extends only to a short time.
Charity is principally observed; to charity the food, the conversation,
the apparel, the countenance, are subservient. They all assemble and
combine into one charity; to violate this, is accounted unlawful, and a
sin against God; if any one resist charity, he is expelled and shunned;
if any one offend against it, he is not suffered to remain a single
day.” As Augustine appears, in these passages, to have exhibited a
portraiture of the true character of ancient monachism, I have thought
proper, notwithstanding their length, to insert them here; for I saw
that, however I might study brevity, yet I should go into still greater
length, if I were to collect the same things from different authors.

X. My design here is not to pursue the whole argument, but merely to
point out, by the way, the characters of the monks who belonged to the
ancient Church, and the nature of the monastic profession at that
period, that the judicious readers may be able, from a comparison, to
judge of the effrontery of those who plead antiquity in support of the
monachism of the present day. When Augustine gives us a description of
holy and legitimate monachism, he excludes from it all rigid exaction or
imposition of those things which the Lord in his word has left free. But
there is nothing at the present day more severely enforced. For they
consider it a crime, never to be expiated, for any one to deviate in the
minutest particular from the rules prescribed in the colour or shape of
their apparel, the kind of food, or other frivolous and uninteresting
ceremonies. Augustine strenuously contends, that it is not lawful for
monks to live in idleness at the expense of others. He denies that there
was such an example to be found in his time in any well regulated
monastery. The present monks place the principal part of their sanctity
in idleness. For if they were divested of idleness, what would become of
that contemplative life, in which they boast of excelling other men, and
of making near approaches to the life of angels? In fine, Augustine
requires a monachism which would be no other than an exercise and
assistance in the duties of piety, which are enjoined on all Christians.
What! when he represents charity as the principal and almost only rule
of it, can we suppose him to be commending a conspiracy, by which a few
men are closely united to each other, and separated from the whole body
of the Church? On the contrary, he would have them to enlighten others
by their example, in order to the preservation of the unity of the
Church. In both these respects, the nature of modern monachism is so
different, that it is scarcely possible to find any thing more
dissimilar or opposite. For, not content with that piety, to the study
of which Jesus Christ commands his servants constantly to devote
themselves, our present monks imagine I know not what new kind of piety,
in the meditation of which they are become more perfect than all others.

XI. If they deny this, I would wish them to inform me why they dignify
their order alone with the title of _perfection_, and deny this
character to all the callings appointed by God. I am not unacquainted
with their sophistical solution, that it is so called, not as containing
perfection in it, but because it is the best calculated of all callings
for the attainment of perfection. When they wish to elevate themselves
in the estimation of the people, to entrap inexperienced and ignorant
youths, to assert their privileges, to extol their own dignity to the
degradation of others, they boast of being in a state of perfection.
When they are so closely pressed, that they cannot defend such empty
arrogance, they have recourse to this subterfuge—that they have not yet
attained perfection, but that they are in a condition more favourable
than any others for aspiring towards it. In the mean time they retain
the admiration of the people, as though the monastic life, and that
alone, were angelic, perfect, and purified from every blemish. Under
this pretext they carry on a most lucrative traffic; but their
moderation lies buried in a few books. Who does not see that this is an
intolerable mockery? But let us argue the case as if they really
attributed no higher honour to their profession, than to call it a state
adapted to the attainment of perfection. Still, by giving it this
designation, they distinguish it, as by a peculiar mark, from all other
modes of life. And who can bear that such honour should be transferred
to an institution, which has never received from God even a single
syllable of approbation, and that such indignity should be cast on all
the other callings of God, which have not only been enjoined, but
adorned with signal commendations by his most holy word? And what an
outrageous insult is offered to God, when a mere human invention is
preferred beyond all the kinds of life which he has appointed and
celebrated by his own testimony!

XII. Now, let them charge me with a calumny in what I have already
alleged, that they are not content with the rule which God has
prescribed to his servants. Though I were silent on the subject, they
furnish more than sufficient ground for their own accusation; for they
openly teach that they take upon themselves a greater burden than Christ
laid upon his disciples, because they promise to keep the evangelical
counsels, which inculcate the love of our enemies, and prohibit the
desire of revenge and profane swearing, and which, they say, are not
binding on Christians at large. What antiquity will they plead here?
This notion never entered into the mind of one of the ancients. They
all, with one consent, declare that there was not a syllable uttered by
Christ which we are not bound to obey; and without any hesitation they
uniformly and expressly represent the passages in question as commands,
which these sagacious interpreters pretend to have been delivered by
Christ merely as counsels. But as we have already shown that this is a
most pestilent error, it may suffice to have briefly remarked here, that
the monachism which exists at present, is founded on the opinion, which
justly deserves to be execrated by all believers, that some rule of life
may be imagined more perfect than the common one given by God to all the
Church. Whatever superstructure is raised on this foundation, cannot but
be abominable.

XIII. But they adduce another argument in proof of their perfection,
which they consider as most conclusive; our Lord said to the young man
who inquired what was the perfection of righteousness, “If thou wilt
be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor.”[1082]
Whether they do this, I shall not now dispute; let us at present put
the case that they do. They boast, therefore, that they have been made
perfect by forsaking all that they have. If the whole of perfection
consist in this, what does Paul mean, when he says, “Though I bestow
all my goods to feed the poor, and have not charity, I am
nothing?”[1083] What kind of perfection is that which is reduced to
nothing by the absence of charity? Here they will be obliged to
answer, that though this is the principal, yet it is not the only work
of perfection. But here also they are contradicted by Paul, who
hesitates not to make “charity,” without any such renunciation, “the
bond of perfection.”[1084] If it is certain, that there is no
discordance between the Master and the disciple,—and Paul explicitly
denies the perfection of a man to consist in the renunciation of his
property, and, on the other hand, asserts that it may exist without
that relinquishment,—it is necessary to examine in what sense we are
to understand the declaration of Christ, “If thou wilt be perfect, go
and sell that thou hast.” Now, there will be no obscurity in the
sense, if we consider, what ought always to be considered in all the
discourses of Christ, to whom the words are addressed. A young man
inquires, “What good thing shall I do, that I may inherit eternal
life?”[1085] As the question related to works, Christ refers him to
the law; and that justly; for, considered in itself, it is the way of
eternal life, and is not otherwise insufficient to conduct us to
salvation, than in consequence of our depravity. By this answer Christ
declared, that he taught no other system of life than that which had
anciently been delivered in the law of God. Thus he at the same time
gave a testimony to the divine law as the doctrine of perfect
righteousness, and precluded all calumnies, that he might not appear,
by inculcating a new rule of life, to incite the people to a departure
from the law. The young man, not indeed from badness of heart, but
infected with vain confidence, replies respecting the precepts of the
law, “All these things have I kept from my youth up.”[1086] It is
certain beyond all doubt, that he was at an immense distance from that
which he boasted of having attained; and had his boast been true, he
would have wanted nothing necessary to complete perfection. For it has
been already proved that the law contains in itself a perfect
righteousness; and it appears from this passage that the observance of
it is called _the entrance_ into eternal life. To teach him how little
proficiency he had made in that righteousness, which he too
confidently replied that he had fulfilled, it was necessary to
investigate and expose a vice which lay concealed in his heart. He
abounded in riches, and his heart was fixed on them. Because he was
not sensible of this secret wound, therefore, Christ probes it. “Go,”
says he, “sell all that thou hast.” If he had been so good an observer
of the law as he imagined, he would not have gone away sorrowful on
hearing this answer. For he who loves God with all his heart, not only
esteems as worthless whatever is inconsistent with his love, but also
abominates it as pernicious. Therefore, when Christ commands a rich
and avaricious man to relinquish all his wealth, it is just the same
as if he commanded an ambitious man to renounce all his honours, a
voluptuous man to abandon all his delicacies, and an unchaste man to
forsake all the instruments of temptation. Thus consciences, which
receive no impression from general admonitions, require to be recalled
to a particular sense of their own guilt. It is in vain, therefore, to
extend this particular argument to a general maxim, as though Christ
placed all the perfection of man in the renunciation of his
possessions, whereas he only meant by this direction to drive this
young man, who betrayed such excessive self-complacency, into a sense
of his malady, that he might perceive himself to be still very far
from the perfect obedience of the law, to which he arrogantly and
falsely pretended. I confess that this passage was misunderstood by
some of the fathers, and that their misconstruction gave rise to an
affectation of voluntary poverty; so that they were supposed to be the
only happy persons, who renounced all earthly things, and devoted
themselves entirely to Christ. But I trust that the explication which
I have given will be satisfactory to all good and peaceable persons,
so as to leave them in no doubt of the true meaning of Christ.

XIV. Nothing, however, was further from the intention of the fathers,
than to establish such a perfection as has since been fabricated by
these hooded sophisters, which goes to set up two kinds of Christianity.
For no one had then given birth to that sacrilegious dogma, which
compares the monastic profession to baptism, and even openly asserts it
to be a species of second baptism. Who can doubt that the fathers would
have sincerely abhorred such blasphemy? As to the concluding observation
of Augustine, respecting the ancient monks, that they devoted themselves
wholly to charity, what need is there for a word to be said to
demonstrate it to be altogether inapplicable to this modern profession?
The fact itself declares, that all who retire into monasteries separate
themselves from the Church. For do they not separate themselves from the
legitimate society of believers, by taking to themselves a peculiar
ministry and a private administration of the sacraments? What is a
disruption of the communion of the Church, if this be not? And to pursue
the comparison which I have commenced, and to conclude it at once, what
resemblance have they in this respect to the monks of ancient times?
Though they lived in a state of seclusion from other men, they had no
separate Church; they received the sacraments with others; they attended
the solemn assemblies to hear preaching, and to unite in prayers with
the company of believers; and there they formed a part of the people. In
erecting a private altar for themselves, what have the present monks
done, but broken the bond of unity? For they have excommunicated
themselves from the general body of the Church, and have shown contempt
of the ordinary ministry, by which it has pleased God that peace and
charity should be preserved among his servants. All the present
monasteries, therefore, I maintain to be so many conventicles of
schismatics, who disturb the order of the Church, and have been cut off
from the legitimate society of believers. And to place this division
beyond all doubt, they have assumed various names of sects; and have not
been ashamed to glory in that which Paul execrates beyond all
possibility of exaggeration. Unless we suppose that Christ was divided
by the Corinthians, when every one boasted of his particular
teacher;[1087] and that it is now no derogation from the honour of
Christ, when, instead of the name of Christians, some are called
Benedictines, others Franciscans, others Dominicans; and when they
haughtily assume these titles to themselves as the badges of their
religious profession, from an affectation of being distinguished from
the general body of Christians.

XV. The differences which I have stated, between the ancient monks and
those of the present age, relate not to manners, but to the profession
itself. Let it, therefore, be remembered by the readers, that I have
spoken of monachism rather than of monks, and have censured those faults
which are not merely chargeable on the lives of a few, but which are
inseparable from the life itself. The great dissimilarity of their
manners can hardly require a particular representation. It is obvious,
that there is no order of men more polluted with all the turpitude of
vice; none more disgraced by factions, animosities, cabals, and
intrigues. In some few convents, indeed, they live in chastity; if
chastity it must be called, where concupiscence is so far restrained as
not to be publicly infamous; but it is scarcely possible to find one
convent in ten, which is not rather a brothel than a sanctuary of
chastity. What frugality is there in their food? They are exactly like
so many swine fattening in a sty. But lest they should complain that I
handle them too roughly, I proceed no further; though in the few
particulars upon which I have touched, whoever knows the matter of fact
will acknowledge that I have confined myself to the simple truth.
Augustine, at a time when, according to his own testimony, monks were so
eminent for the strictest chastity, yet complains that there were many
vagabonds among them, who, by wicked arts and impostures, extorted money
from the unwary, who exercised a scandalous traffic by carrying about
the relics of martyrs, and even sold the bones of any dead men as the
bones of martyrs, and who brought disgrace on the order by a great
number of similar crimes. As he declares that he had seen no better men
than those who had been improved in monasteries, so he complains that he
had seen no worse men than those who had been corrupted in monasteries.
What would he say, at the present day, to see almost all monasteries,
not only filled, but overflowing, with so many and such desperate vices?
I say nothing but what is notorious to every person; though this censure
is not applicable to all without any exception. For as the rule and
discipline of holy living has never been so well established in
monasteries, but that there were always some drones very different from
the rest, so I do not say that the monks of the present day have so far
degenerated from that holy antiquity, that there are not still some good
men among their body; but they are few, dispersed and concealed among a
vast multitude of the wicked and abandoned; and they are not only held
in contempt, but insulted and molested, and sometimes even treated with
cruelty by the rest; who, according to a proverb of the Milesians, think
that no good man ought to be suffered to remain among them.

XVI. By this comparison of ancient and modern monachism I trust I have
succeeded in my design of evincing the fallacy of the plea, which the
present men of the hood allege in defence of their profession, from the
example of the primitive Church; as they differ from the early monks
just as apes do from men. At the same time, I admit that even in the
ancient system which Augustine commends, there is something which I
cannot altogether approve. I grant, they discovered no superstition in
the external exercises of a too rigid discipline; but I maintain that
they were not free from excessive affectation and misguided zeal. It
seemed a good thing to forsake their property in order to exempt
themselves from all earthly solicitude; but God sets a higher value on
pious exertions for the government of a family, when a holy father of a
family, free from all avarice, ambition, and other corrupt passions,
devotes himself to this object, that he may serve God in a particular
calling. It is a beautiful thing to live the life of a philosopher in
retirement, at a distance from the society of men; but it is not the
part of Christian charity for a man to act as if he hated all mankind,
withdrawing to the solitude of a desert, and abandoning the principal
duties which the Lord has commanded. Though we should grant that there
was no other evil in this profession, yet certainly this was not a small
one, that it introduced a useless and pernicious example into the
Church.

XVII. Let us now examine the nature of the vows by which monks in the
present day are initiated into this celebrated order. In the first
place, their design is to institute a new service, in order to merit the
favour of God; therefore I conclude, from the principles already
established, that whatever they vow is an abomination in the sight of
God. Secondly, without any regard to the calling of God, and without any
approbation from him, they invent for themselves a new mode of life, in
conformity with their own inclinations; therefore I maintain it to be a
rash and unlawful attempt, because their consciences have nothing to
rest upon before God, and “whatsoever is not of faith, is sin.”[1088]
Thirdly, they bind themselves to many corrupt and impious services,
comprehended in the monachism of the present day; therefore I contend,
that they are not consecrated to God, but to the devil. For why was it
lawful for the prophet to say of the Israelites, that “they sacrificed
unto devils, not to God,”[1089] only because they had corrupted the true
worship of God with profane ceremonies; and why shall it not be lawful
for us to say the same of the monks, whose assumption of the hood is
accompanied with the yoke of a thousand impious superstitions? Now, what
is the nature of their vows? They promise to God to maintain perpetual
virginity, as if they had previously stipulated with him that he should
exempt them from the necessity of marriage. They have no room to plead,
that they make this vow merely in a reliance on the grace of God; for as
he declares that it is not given to all men,[1090] we have no right to
entertain a confidence that we shall receive the special gift. Let those
who possess it use it: if they experience disquietude from the
stimulations of passion, let them have recourse to his aid by whom alone
they can be strengthened to resist. If they are unsuccessful, let them
not despise the remedy which is offered to them. For those who are
denied the gift of continence, are undoubtedly called to marriage by the
voice of God. By continence I mean, not a mere abstinence of the body
from fornication, but an unpolluted chastity of mind. For Paul enjoins
the avoidance not only of external impurity, but also of the internal
burning of libidinous desire.[1091] It has been a custom, they say, from
time immemorial, for persons who intended to devote themselves entirely
to the Lord, to bind themselves by a vow of continence. I confess that
this custom was practised in the early ages; but I cannot admit those
ages to have been so free from every fault, that whatever was done then
must be received as a rule. And it was only by degrees that in process
of time things were carried to such an extreme of rigour that no one,
after having made the vow, was permitted to recall it. This is evident
from Cyprian. “If virgins have faithfully dedicated themselves to God,
let them persevere in modesty and chastity without any disguise. Thus,
being firm and constant, they may expect the reward of virginity. But if
they will not, or cannot persevere, it is better for them to be married,
than with their pleasure to fall into the fire.” With what reproaches
would they now hesitate to stigmatize a person who would wish to
introduce such a reasonable limitation of the vow of continence? They
have widely departed, therefore, from the ancient custom, in refusing to
admit the least moderation or relaxation, if any one be found incapable
of performing the vow; and not only so, but they are not ashamed to
pronounce that he commits a greater sin, if he remedies his intemperance
by taking a wife, than if he contaminates his body and soul with
fornication.

XVIII. But they still pursue the argument, and endeavour to show that
vows of this kind were in use in the times of the apostles; because Paul
says that widows who, after having been received into the public service
of the church, married, had “cast off their first faith.”[1092] I do not
deny that widows who dedicated themselves and their services to the
Church, thereby entered into a tacit obligation never to marry again;
not because they placed any religion in such abstinence, as began to be
the case afterwards; but because they could not discharge that office
without being at their own disposal, free from the restraint of
marriage. But if, after having pledged their faith, they contemplated a
second marriage, what was this but renouncing the calling of God? It is
no wonder, therefore, if he says that with such desires “they wax wanton
against Christ.” Afterwards, by way of amplification, he subjoins, that
they failed of performing what they had promised to the Church, so that
they even violated and annulled their first faith pledged in baptism;
which includes an engagement from every one to fulfil the duties of his
calling. Unless it be thought better to understand the meaning to be,
that having, as it were, lost all shame, they would thenceforward have
no longer any regard for virtue, but would abandon themselves to every
kind of profligacy, and in a licentious and dissolute life exhibit the
greatest contrariety to the character of Christian women—an
interpretation which I much approve. We reply, therefore, that those
widows, who were then received into the service of the Church, imposed
on themselves the condition of perpetual widowhood; if they afterwards
married, we easily understand their situation to have been as Paul
states, that, casting off shame, they betrayed an insolence unbecoming
Christian women; and that thus they not only sinned in breaking their
faith pledged to the Church, but in departing from the common
obligations of pious females. But first, I deny that they engaged to
remain in a state of widowhood for any other reason than because
marriage would be altogether incompatible with the office which they
undertook; or that they bound themselves to widowhood at all, except as
far as the necessity of their vocation should require. Secondly, I do
not admit that their profession was so binding, but that even then it
was better for them to marry than to be inflamed with concupiscence, or
to be guilty of any impurity of conduct. Thirdly, I observe that Paul
prescribes that age which is generally beyond all danger, forbidding any
to be received under threescore years old; and especially when he
directs that the choice shall be limited to those who have been content
with one marriage, and have thus already given proof of their
continence. And we condemn the vow of celibacy for no other reason, but
because it is unjustly considered as a service acceptable to God, and is
rashly made by those who have not the power to keep it.

XIX. But how was it possible to apply this passage of Paul to nuns? For
widows were appointed deaconesses, not to charm God by songs or
unintelligible murmurs, and to spend the rest of their time in idleness;
but to serve the poor on behalf of the whole Church, and to employ
themselves with all attention, earnestness, and diligence, in the duties
of charity. They made a vow of widowhood, not with a view of performing
any service to God in abstaining from marriage, but merely that they
might be more at liberty for the discharge of their office. Lastly, they
made this vow, not in their youth, nor in the flower of their age, to
learn afterwards, by late experience, over what a precipice they had
thrown themselves; but, when they appeared to have passed all danger,
they made a vow equally consistent with safety and with piety. But, not
to urge the two former considerations, it is sufficient to observe, that
it was not allowable for women to be admitted to make vows of continence
before the age of sixty years; since the apostle says, “Let not a widow
be taken into the number under threescore years old.” “I will that the
younger women marry and bear children.”[1093] The subsequent admission
of this vow at the age of forty-eight years, then forty years, and then
thirty, can by no means be excused; and it is still more intolerable
that unhappy girls, before they are old enough to be capable of knowing
or having any experience of themselves, should be inveigled by fraud and
compelled by threats to entangle themselves in those execrable snares. I
shall not stay to oppose the other two vows, made by monks and nuns, of
poverty and obedience. I will only observe, that beside the many
superstitions with which, under existing circumstances, they are
interwoven, they appear to be framed for the purpose of mocking both God
and men. But that we may not seem too severe in agitating every
particular point, we shall content ourselves with the general repetition
already given.

XX. The nature of those vows which are legitimate and acceptable to God,
I think, has been sufficiently declared. Yet as timid and inexperienced
consciences, even after they are dissatisfied with a vow, and convinced
of its impropriety, nevertheless feel doubts respecting the obligation,
and are grievously distressed, on the one hand, from a dread of
violating their promise to God, and, on the other, from a fear of
incurring greater guilt by observing it, it is necessary here to offer
them some assistance to enable them to extricate themselves from this
difficulty. Now, to remove every scruple at once, I remark, that all
vows, not legitimate or rightly made, as they are of no value with God,
so they ought to have no force with us. For if in human contracts no
promises are obligatory upon us, but those to which the party with whom
we contract wishes to bind us, it is absurd to consider ourselves
constrained to the performance of those things which God never requires
of us; especially as our works cannot be good unless they please God,
and are accompanied with the testimony of our conscience that he accepts
them. For this remains a fixed principle, that “whatsoever is not of
faith, is sin;”[1094] by which Paul intends, that whatever work is
undertaken with doubts, is consequently sinful, because all good works
spring from faith, by which we are assured of their acceptance with God.
Therefore, if it be not lawful for a Christian man to attempt any thing
without this assurance, and if any one through ignorance has made a rash
vow, and afterwards discovered his error, why should he not desist from
the performance of it? since vows inconsiderately made, not only are not
binding, but ought of necessity to be cancelled; and, also, as they are
not only of no value in the sight of God, but are an abomination to him,
as we have already demonstrated. It is useless to argue any longer on a
subject which does not require it. This one argument appears to me
sufficient to tranquillize pious consciences, and to liberate them from
every scruple—That all works not proceeding from a pure source, and
directed to a legitimate end, are rejected by God, and rejected in such
a manner that he forbids our continuance, as much as our commencement,
of them. Hence we may conclude, that vows which have originated in error
and superstition, are of no value with God, and ought to be relinquished
by us.

XXI. This solution will furnish an answer to the calumnies of the
wicked, in defence of those who leave monachism for some honourable way
of life. They are heavily accused of breach of faith and perjury; having
broken, as it is commonly supposed, the indissoluble bond which held
them to God and the Church. But I maintain that there is no bond, where
that which man confirms is abrogated by God. Besides, though we should
grant that they were bound while they were involved in error and
ignorance of God,—now, since they have been enlightened with the
knowledge of the truth, I maintain that the grace of Christ has
delivered them from the obligation. For if the cross of Christ possesses
such efficacy as to deliver us from the curse, under which we were held
by the law of God, how much more, then, shall it extricate us from other
bonds, which are nothing but delusive snares of Satan! Whomsoever,
therefore, Christ illuminates with the light of his gospel, there is no
doubt that he liberates them from all the snares in which they had
entangled themselves by superstition. Though they are not at a loss for
another defence, if they are not qualified to live in celibacy. For if
an impossible vow be the ruin of souls, which it is the will of the Lord
to save and not to destroy,—it follows that it is not right to persevere
in it. But the impossibility of an observance of the vow of continence
by those who are not endued with a special gift, we have already shown,
and without my saying a word, experience itself declares; for it is
notorious what extreme impurity prevails in almost all monasteries; and
if any of them appear more virtuous and modest than the rest, it does
not follow that they are really more chaste, because they conceal the
vice of unchastity. Thus God inflicts awful punishments on the audacity
of men, when, forgetting their weakness, they covet, in opposition to
nature, that which is denied them, and, despising the remedies which God
had put into their hands, indulge a contumacious and obstinate
presumption that they are able to overcome the vice of incontinence. For
what shall we call it but contumacy, when any one who is admonished that
he stands in need of marriage, and that it has been given to him by the
Lord as a remedy, not only contemns it, but binds himself by an oath to
persevere in that contempt?

Footnote 1072:

Rom. xiv. 23.

Footnote 1073:

Rom. xii. 3. 1 Cor. xii. 11.

Footnote 1074:

Acts xxiii. 12.

Footnote 1075:

Judges xi. 30-40.

Footnote 1076:

Gen. ii. 18.

Footnote 1077:

Deut. vi. 16. Matt. iv. 7.

Footnote 1078:

Gen. xxviii. 20-22.

Footnote 1079:

Psalm xxii. 25; lvi. 12; cxvi. 14, 18.

Footnote 1080:

Titus i. 15.

Footnote 1081:

1 Cor. vi. 13.

Footnote 1082:

Matt. xix. 21.

Footnote 1083:

1 Cor. xiii. 3.

Footnote 1084:

Col. iii. 14.

Footnote 1085:

Matt. xix. 16.

Footnote 1086:

Matt. xix. 20.

Footnote 1087:

1 Cor. i. 12, 13; iii. 4.

Footnote 1088:

Rom. xiv. 23.

Footnote 1089:

Deut. xxxii. 17.

Footnote 1090:

Matt. xix. 11.

Footnote 1091:

1 Cor. vii. 9.

Footnote 1092:

1 Tim. v. 12.

Footnote 1093:

1 Tim. v. 9, 14.

Footnote 1094:

Rom. xiv. 23.

CHAPTER XIV.
THE SACRAMENTS.

Connected with the preaching of the gospel, another assistance and
support for our faith is presented to us in the sacraments; on the
subject of which it is highly important to lay down some certain
doctrine, that we may learn for what end they were instituted, and how
they ought to be used. In the first place, it is necessary to consider
what a sacrament is. Now, I think it will be a simple and appropriate
definition, if we say that it is an outward sign, by which the Lord
seals in our consciences the promises of his good-will towards us, to
support the weakness of our faith; and we on our part testify our piety
towards him, in his presence and that of angels, as well as before men.
It may, however, be more briefly defined, in other words, by calling it
a testimony of the grace of God towards us, confirmed by an outward
sign, with a reciprocal attestation of our piety towards him. Whichever
of these definitions be chosen, it conveys exactly the same meaning as
that of Augustine, which states a sacrament to be “a visible sign of a
sacred thing,” or “a visible form of invisible grace;” but it expresses
the thing itself with more clearness and precision; for as his
conciseness leaves some obscurity, by which many inexperienced persons
may be misled, I have endeavoured to render the subject plainer by more
words, that no room might be left for any doubt.

II. The reason why the ancient fathers used this word in such a sense is
very evident. For whenever the author of the old common version of the
New Testament wanted to render the Greek word μυστηριον, _mystery_, into
Latin, especially where it related to Divine things, he used the word
_sacramentum_, “sacrament.” Thus, in the Epistle to the Ephesians,
“Having made known unto us the _mystery_ of his will.”[1095] Again: “If
ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me
to you-ward; how that by revelation he made known unto me the
_mystery_.”[1096] In the Epistle to the Colossians: “The _mystery_ which
hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest
to his saints; to whom God would make known what is the riches of the
glory of this _mystery_.”[1097] Again, to Timothy: “Great is the
_mystery_ of godliness; God was manifest in the flesh.”[1098] In all
these places, where the word _mystery_ is used, the author of that
version has rendered it _sacrament_. He would not say _arcanum_, or
_secret_, lest he should appear to degrade the majesty of the subject.
Therefore he has used the word _sacrament_ for a sacred or Divine
secret. In this signification it frequently occurs in the writings of
the fathers. And it is well known, that baptism and the Lord’s supper,
which the Latins denominate _sacraments_, are called _mysteries_ by the
Greeks; a synonymous use of the terms, which removes every doubt. And
hence the word _sacrament_ came to be applied to those signs which
contained a representation of sublime and spiritual things; which is
also remarked by Augustine, who says, “It would be tedious to dispute
respecting the diversity of signs, which, when they pertain to Divine
things, are called _sacraments_.”

III. Now, from the definition which we have established, we see that
there is never any sacrament without an antecedent promise of God, to
which it is subjoined as an appendix, in order to confirm and seal the
promise itself, and to certify and ratify it to us; which means God
foresees to be necessary, in the first place on account of our ignorance
and dulness, and in the next place on account of our weakness; and yet,
strictly speaking, not so much for the confirmation of his sacred word,
as for our establishment in the faith of it. For the truth of God is
sufficiently solid and certain in itself, and can receive no better
confirmation from any other quarter than from itself; but our faith
being slender and weak, unless it be supported on every side, and
sustained by every assistance, immediately shakes, fluctuates, totters,
and falls. And as we are corporeal, always creeping on the ground,
cleaving to terrestrial and carnal objects, and incapable of
understanding or conceiving of any thing of a spiritual nature, our
merciful Lord, in his infinite indulgence, accommodates himself to our
capacity, condescending to lead us to himself even by these earthly
elements, and in the flesh itself to present to us a mirror of spiritual
blessings. “For if we were incorporeal,” as Chrysostom says, “he would
have given us these things pure and incorporeal. Now because we have
souls enclosed in bodies, he gives us spiritual things under visible
emblems; not because there are such qualities in the nature of the
things presented to us in the sacraments, but because they have been
designated by God to this signification.”

IV. This is what is commonly said, that a sacrament consists of the word
and the outward sign. For we ought to understand the _word_, not of a
murmur uttered without any meaning or faith, a mere whisper like a
magical incantation, supposed to possess the power of consecrating the
elements, but of the gospel preached, which instructs us in the
signification of the visible sign. That which is commonly practised
under the tyranny of the pope, therefore, involves a gross profanation
of the mysteries; for they have thought it sufficient for the priest to
mutter over the form of consecration, while the people are gazing in
ignorance. Indeed, they have taken effectual care that it should be all
unintelligible to the people; for they have pronounced the consecration
in Latin, before illiterate men; and have at length carried superstition
to such a pitch, as to consider it not rightly performed, unless it be
done in a hoarse murmur, which few could hear. But Augustine speaks in a
very different manner of the sacramental word. “Let the word,” says he,
“be added to the element, and it will become a sacrament. For whence
does the water derive such great virtue, as at once to touch the body
and purify the heart, except from the word? not because it is spoken,
but because it is believed. For in the word itself the transient sound
is one thing, the permanent virtue is another. ‘This is the word of
faith which we preach,’[1099] says the apostle. Whence it is said of the
Gentiles, in the Acts of the Apostles, that ‘God purifies their hearts
by faith.’[1100] And the apostle Peter says, ‘Baptism doth also now save
us, (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a
good conscience towards God.)’[1101] ‘This is the word of faith which we
preach,’ by which baptism is consecrated to endue it with a purifying
virtue.” We see how he makes the preaching of the word necessary to the
production of faith. And we need not labour much to prove this, because
it is very plain what Christ did, what he commanded us to do, what the
apostles followed, and what the purer Church observed. Even from the
beginning of the world, whenever God gave the holy fathers any sign, it
is well known to have been inseparably connected with some doctrine,
without which our senses would only be astonished with the mere view of
it. Therefore, when we hear mention made of the sacramental word, let us
understand it of the promise, which, being audibly and intelligibly
preached by the minister, instructs the people in the meaning and
tendency of the sign.

V. Nor ought any attention to be paid to some, who endeavour to oppose
this by a dilemma which discovers more subtlety than solidity. They say,
Either we know that the word of God which precedes the sacrament is the
true will of God, or we do not know it. If we know it, then we learn
nothing new from the sacrament which follows. If we do not know it,
neither shall we learn it from the sacrament, the virtue of which lies
entirely in the word. Let it be concisely replied, that the seals
appended to charters, patents, and other public instruments, are
nothing, taken by themselves; because they would be appended to no
purpose, if the parchment had nothing written upon it; and yet they
nevertheless confirm and authenticate what is written on the instruments
to which they are annexed. Nor can it be objected that this similitude
has been recently invented by us; for it has been used by Paul himself,
who calls circumcision a _seal_,[1102] σφραγιδα, in a passage where he
is professedly contending that circumcision did not constitute the
righteousness of Abraham, but was a seal of that covenant, in the faith
of which he had already been justified. And what is there that ought to
give any man much offence, if we teach that the promise is sealed by the
sacraments, while it is evident that among the promises themselves one
is confirmed by another? For in proportion to its superior clearness, it
is the better calculated for the support of faith. Now, the sacraments
bring us the clearest promises, and have this peculiarity beyond the
word, that they give us a lively representation of them, as in a
picture. Nor ought we to regard the objection, frequently urged, from
the distinction between sacraments and seals of civil instruments, that
while they both consist of the carnal elements of this world, the former
cannot be fit to seal the promises of God, which are spiritual and
eternal, as the latter are accustomed to be appended to seal the edicts
of princes relative to frail and transitory things. For the believer,
when the sacraments are placed before his eyes, does not confine himself
to that carnal spectacle; but by those steps of analogy which I have
indicated, rises in pious contemplation to the sublime mysteries which
are concealed under the sacramental symbols.

VI. And since the Lord calls his promises _covenants_, and the
sacraments _seals of covenants_, we may draw a similitude from the
covenants of men. The ancients, in confirmation of their engagements,
were accustomed to kill a sow. But what would have been the slaughter of
a sow, if it had not been accompanied, and even preceded, by some words?
For sows were often slaughtered without any latent or sublime mystery.
What is the contact of one man’s right hand with that of another, since
hands are not unfrequently joined in hostility? But when words of
friendship and compact have preceded, the obligations of covenants are
confirmed by such signs, notwithstanding they have been previously
conceived, proposed, and determined in words. Sacraments, therefore, are
exercises, which increase and strengthen our faith in the word of God;
and because we are corporeal, they are exhibited under corporeal
symbols, to instruct us according to our dull capacities, and to lead us
by the hand as so many young children. For this reason Augustine calls a
sacrament “a visible word;” because it represents the promises of God
portrayed as in a picture, and places before our eyes an image of them,
in which every lineament is strikingly expressed. Other similitudes may
also be adduced for the better elucidation of the nature of sacraments;
as if we call them _pillars of our faith_; for as an edifice rests on
its foundation, and yet, from the addition of pillars placed under it,
receives an increase of stability, so faith rests on the word of God as
its foundation; but when the sacraments are added to it as pillars, they
bring with them an accession of strength. Or if we call them _mirrors_,
in which we may contemplate the riches of grace which God imparts to us;
for in the sacraments, as we have already observed, he manifests himself
to us as far as our dulness is capable of knowing him, and testifies his
benevolence and love towards us more expressly than he does by his word.

VII. Nor is there any force in their reasoning, when they contend that
the sacraments are not testimonies of the grace of God, because they are
often administered to the wicked, who yet do not, in consequence of
this, experience God to be more propitious to them, but rather procure
to themselves more grievous condemnation. For, by the same argument,
neither would the gospel be a testimony of the grace of God, because it
is heard by many who despise it, nor even Christ himself, who was seen
and known by multitudes, of whom very few received him. A similar
observation may be applied to royal edicts; for great numbers of people
despise and deride that seal of authentication, notwithstanding they
know that it proceeded from the monarch to confirm his will; some
utterly disregard it, as a thing not relating to them; others even hold
it in execration; so that a survey of the correspondence of the two
cases ought to produce greater approbation of the similitude which I
have before used. Therefore it is certain that the Lord offers us his
mercy, and a pledge of his grace, both in his holy word and in the
sacraments; but it is not apprehended except by those who receive the
word and sacraments with a certain faith; as the Father has offered and
presented Christ to all for salvation, but he is not known and received
by all. Augustine, intending to express this sentiment, somewhere says,
that the efficacy of the word is displayed in the sacrament, “not
because it is spoken, but because it is believed.” Therefore Paul, when
he is addressing believers, speaks of the sacraments so as to include in
them the communion of Christ; as when he says, “As many of you as have
been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ.”[1103] Again: “By one
Spirit are we all baptized into one body.”[1104] But when he speaks of
the improper use of the sacraments, he attributes no more to them than
to vain and useless figures; by which he signifies that, however impious
persons and hypocrites, by their perversion of the sacraments, may
destroy or obscure the effect of Divine grace in them, yet that,
notwithstanding this, whenever and wherever God pleases, they afford a
true testimony of the communion of Christ, and the Spirit of God himself
exhibits and performs the very thing which they promise. We conclude,
therefore, that sacraments are truly called testimonies of the grace of
God, and are, as it were, seals of the benevolence he bears to us,
which, by confirming it to our minds, sustain, cherish, strengthen, and
increase our faith. The reasons which some are in the habit of objecting
against this sentiment are exceedingly weak and frivolous. They allege,
that if our faith be good, it cannot be made better; for that there is
no real faith except that which rests on the mercy of God, without any
wavering, instability, or distraction. It would have been better for
such persons to pray, with the apostles, that the Lord would increase
their faith,[1105] than confidently to boast of such a perfection of
faith, as no one of the sons of men ever yet attained, or ever will
attain, in this life. Let them answer what kind of faith they suppose
him to have possessed, who said, “Lord, I believe; help thou mine
unbelief.”[1106] For even that, though yet only in its commencement, was
a good faith, and capable of being improved by the removal of unbelief.
But there is no argument which more fully refutes them than their own
conscience; for if they confess themselves sinners, which, whatever they
may wish, they cannot deny, they must be obliged to impute it to the
imperfection of their faith.

VIII. But they say, Philip answered the eunuch, that he might be
baptized “if” he “believed with all” his “heart.”[1107] And what room,
they ask, is there here for the confirmation of baptism, where faith
fills the whole heart? On the other hand, I ask them, whether they do
not feel a large part of their heart destitute of faith, and whether
they do not daily know some fresh increase of it. A heathen gloried that
he grew old in learning. We Christians are miserable indeed if we grow
old in making no improvement, whose faith ought to be advancing from one
stage to another till its attainment of perfect manhood. “To believe
with all the heart,” therefore, in this passage, is not to believe
Christ in a perfect manner, but only signifies embracing him with
sincerity of soul and firmness of mind; not to be filled with him, but
to hunger, thirst, and sigh after him with ardent affection. It is the
custom of the Scriptures to say that any thing is done with the whole
heart which is done with sincerity of mind, as in these and other
passages: “With my whole heart have I sought thee;” “I will praise the
Lord with my whole heart.”[1108] On the contrary, when it rebukes the
fraudulent and deceitful, it reproaches them with “a double
heart.”[1109] Our adversaries further allege, that if faith be increased
by the sacraments, the Holy Spirit must have been given in vain, whose
work and influence it is to commence, to confirm, and to consummate
faith. I confess that faith is the peculiar and entire work of the Holy
Spirit, by whose illumination we know God and the treasures of his
goodness, and without whose light our mind is too blind to be capable of
any sight, and too stupid to be capable of the least relish of spiritual
things. But instead of one favour of God, which they mention, we
acknowledge three. For, first, the Lord teaches and instructs us by his
word; secondly, he confirms us by his sacraments; lastly, he illuminates
our minds by the light of his Holy Spirit, and opens an entrance into
our hearts for the word and sacraments; which otherwise would only
strike the ears and present themselves to the eyes, without producing
the least effect upon the mind.

IX. With respect to the confirmation and increase of faith, therefore, I
wish the reader to be apprized, and I conceive I have already expressed,
in language too plain to be misunderstood, that I assign this office to
the sacraments; not from an opinion of their possessing a perpetual
inherent virtue, efficacious of itself to the advancement or
confirmation of faith; but because they have been instituted by the Lord
for the express purpose of promoting its establishment and augmentation.
But they only perform their office aright when they are accompanied by
the Spirit, that internal Teacher, by whose energy alone our hearts are
penetrated, our affections are moved, and an entrance is opened for the
sacraments into our souls. If he be absent, the sacraments can produce
no more effect upon our minds than the splendour of the sun on blind
eyes, or the sound of a voice on deaf ears. I make such a distinction
and distribution, therefore, between the Spirit and the sacraments, that
I consider all the energy of operation as belonging to the Spirit, and
the sacraments as mere instruments, which, without his agency, are vain
and useless, but which, when he acts and exerts his power in the heart,
are fraught with surprising efficacy. Now, it is evident how, according
to this opinion, the faith of a pious mind is confirmed by the
sacraments; namely, as the eyes see by the light of the sun, and the
ears hear by the sound of a voice: the light would have no effect upon
the eyes, unless they had a natural faculty capable of being
enlightened; and it would be in vain for the ears to be struck with any
sound, if they had not been naturally formed for hearing. But if it be
true, as we ought at once to conclude, that what the visive faculty is
in our eyes towards our beholding the light, and the faculty of hearing
is in our ears towards our perception of sound, such is the work of the
Holy Spirit in our hearts for the formation, support, preservation, and
establishment of our faith; then these two consequences immediately
follow—that the sacraments are attended with no benefit without the
influence of the Holy Spirit; and that, in hearts already instructed by
that Teacher, they still subserve the confirmation and increase of
faith. There is only this difference, that our eyes and ears are
naturally endued with the faculties of seeing and hearing, but Christ
accomplishes this in our hearts by special and preternatural grace.

X. This reasoning will also serve for a solution of the objections with
which some persons are greatly disturbed; that if we attribute to
creatures either the increase or confirmation of faith, we derogate from
the Spirit of God, whom we ought to acknowledge as its sole Author. For
we do not, at the same time, deny him the praise of its confirmation and
increase; but we assert that the way in which he increases and confirms
our faith is by preparing our minds, by his inward illumination, to
receive that confirmation which is proposed in the sacraments. If the
way in which this has been expressed be too obscure, it shall be
elucidated by the following similitude. If you intend to persuade a
person to do a certain act, you will consider all the reasons calculated
to draw him over to your opinion, and to constrain him to submit to your
advice. But you will make no impression upon him, unless he possess a
perspicuous and acute judgment, to be able to determine what force there
is in your reasons; unless his mind also be docile, and prepared to
listen to instruction; and lastly, unless he have conceived such an
opinion of your fidelity and prudence as may prepossess him in favour of
your sentiments. For there are many obstinate spirits, never to be moved
by any reasons; and where a person’s fidelity is suspected, and his
authority despised, little effect will be produced, even with those who
are disposed to learn. On the contrary, let all these things be present,
and they will insure the acquiescence of the person advised, in those
counsels which he would otherwise have derided. This work also the
Spirit effects within us. Lest the word should assail our ears in
vain,—lest the sacraments should in vain strike our eyes,—he shows us
that it is God who addresses us in them; he softens the hardness of our
hearts, and forms them to that obedience which is due to the word of the
Lord; in fine, he conveys those external words and sacraments from the
ears into the soul. Our faith is confirmed, therefore, both by the word
and by the sacraments, when they place before our eyes the good-will of
our heavenly Father towards us, in the knowledge of which all the
firmness of our faith consists, and by which its strength is augmented;
the Spirit confirms it, when he makes this confirmation effectual by
engraving it on our minds. In the mean time, the Father of lights cannot
be prohibited from illuminating our minds by means of the lustre of the
sacraments, as he enlightens our bodily eyes with the rays of the sun.

XI. That there is this property in the external word, our Lord has shown
in a parable, by calling it “seed.”[1110] For as seed, if it fall on a
desert and neglected spot of ground, will die without producing any
crop, but if it be cast upon a well manured and cultivated field, it
brings forth its fruit with an abundant increase,—so the word of God, if
it fall upon some stiff neck, will be as unproductive as seed dropped
upon the sea-shore; but if it light upon a soul cultivated by the agency
of the heavenly Spirit, it will be abundantly fruitful. Now, if the word
be justly compared to seed,—as we say that from seed, corn grows,
increases, and comes to maturity,—why may we not say that faith derives
its commencement, increase, and perfection, from the word of God? Paul,
in different places, excellently expresses both these things. For, with
a view to recall to the recollection of the Corinthians with what
efficacy God had attended his labours, he glories in having the ministry
of the Spirit, as if there were an indissoluble connection between his
preaching and the power of the Holy Spirit operating to the illumination
of their minds, and the excitement of their hearts.[1111] But in another
place, with a view to apprize them how far the power of the word of God
extends, merely as preached by man, he compares ministers to husbandmen;
who, when they have employed their labour and industry in cultivating
the ground, have nothing more that they can do. But what would
ploughing, and sowing, and watering, avail, unless heavenly goodness
caused the seed to vegetate? Therefore he concludes, “Neither is he that
planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God, that giveth the
increase.”[1112] The apostles, then, in their preaching, exerted the
power of the Spirit, as far as God made use of the instruments appointed
by himself for the exhibition of his spiritual grace. But we must always
keep in view this distinction, that we may remember how far the power of
man extends, and what is exclusively the work of God.

XII. Now, it is so true that the sacraments are confirmations of our
faith, that sometimes, when the Lord intends to take away the confidence
of those things which had been promised in the sacraments, he removes
the sacraments themselves. When he deprived Adam of the gift of
immortality, he expelled him from the garden of Eden, saying, “Lest he
put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live
for ever.”[1113] What can be the meaning of this language? Could the
fruit restore to Adam the incorruption from which he had now fallen?
Certainly not. But it was the same as if the Lord had said, Lest he
should cherish a vain confidence, if he retain the symbol of my promise,
let him be deprived of that which might give him some hope of
immortality. For the same reason, when the apostle exhorts the Ephesians
to “remember that” they “were without Christ, being aliens from the
commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenant of promise,
having no hope, and without God in the world,” he states that they were
not partakers of circumcision;[1114] thereby signifying that not having
received the sign of the promise, they were excluded from the promise
itself. To the other objection which they make, that the glory of God is
transferred to creatures to whom so much power is attributed, and
thereby sustains a proportionate diminution, it is easy to answer, that
we place no power in creatures; we only maintain that God uses such
means and instruments as he sees will be suitable, in order that all
things may be subservient to his glory, as he is the Lord and Ruler of
all. Therefore, as by bread and other aliments he feeds our bodies, as
by the sun he enlightens the world, as by fire he produces warmth,—yet
bread, the sun, and fire, are nothing but instruments by which he
dispenses his blessings to us,—so he nourishes our faith in a spiritual
manner by the sacraments, which are instituted for the purpose of
placing his promises before our eyes for our contemplation, and of
serving us as pledges of them. And as we ought not to place any
confidence in the other creatures, which, by the liberality and
beneficence of God, have been destined to our uses, and by whose
instrumentality he communicates to us the bounties of his goodness, nor
to admire and celebrate them as the causes of our enjoyments,—so neither
ought our confidence to rest in the sacraments, or the glory of God to
be transferred to them; but, forsaking all other things, both our faith
and confession ought to rise to him, the Author of the sacraments and of
every other blessing.

XIII. The argument which some persons adduce from the very name of
_sacrament_ is destitute of any force;—though the word _sacrament_ has
various significations in authors of the first authority, yet it has but
one which has any agreement or connection with _signs_ or _standards_,
(signa;) that is, when it denotes the solemn oath taken by a soldier to
his commander when he enters on a military life. For as by the military
oath new soldiers bind themselves to their commander, and assume the
military profession, so by our signs we profess Christ to be our Leader,
and declare that we fight under his banners. They add similitudes for
the further elucidation of their opinion. As the dress of the Romans,
who wore gowns, distinguished them from the Greeks, who wore cloaks; as
the different orders among the Romans were distinguished from each other
by their respective badges, the senatorial order from the equestrian by
purple habits and round shoes, and the equestrian from the plebeian by a
ring; as French and English ships of war are known by flags of different
colours, the French flags being white and the English red; so we have
our signs or badges to distinguish us from unbelievers. But from the
observations already made, it is evident that the ancient fathers, who
gave our signs the name of sacraments, were not at all guided by the
previous use of this word in Latin writers; but that they gave it a new
sense for their own convenience, simply denoting sacred signs. And if we
wish to carry our researches any further, it may be found that they
transferred this name to the signification now given, on the same
principle of analogy which induced them to transfer the word _faith_ to
the sense in which it is now used. For as faith properly signifies truth
in the fulfilment of promises, yet they have applied it to the assurance
or certain persuasion which a person has of the truth itself; so, as a
sacrament is an oath by which a soldier binds himself to his leader,
they have applied it to the sign by which the leader receives soldiers
into his army. For by the sacraments the Lord promises that he will be
our God, and that we shall be his people. But we pass over such
subtleties, as I think I have proved by sufficient arguments that the
ancients had no other view, in their application of the word
_sacrament_, than to signify that the ceremonies to which they applied
it were signs of holy and spiritual things. We admit the comparison
deduced from external badges, but we cannot bear that the last and least
use of the sacraments should be represented as their principal and even
sole object. The first object of them is, to assist our faith towards
God; the second, to testify our confession before men. The similitudes
which have been mentioned are applicable to this secondary design, but
the primary one ought never to be forgotten; for otherwise, as we have
seen, these mysteries would cease to interest us, unless they were aids
of our faith, and appendices of doctrine, destined to the same use and
end.

XIV. On the other hand, we require to be apprized, that as these persons
weaken the force of the sacraments, and entirely subvert their use, so
there are others of a contrary party, who attribute to the sacraments I
know not what latent virtues, which are nowhere represented as
communicated to them by the word of God. By this error the simple and
inexperienced are dangerously deceived, being taught to seek the gifts
of God where they can never be found, and being gradually drawn away
from God to embrace mere vanity instead of his truth. For the
sophistical schools have maintained, with one consent, that the
sacraments of the new law, or those now used in the Christian Church,
justify and confer grace, provided we do not obstruct their operation by
any mortal sin. It is impossible to express the pestilent and fatal
nature of this opinion, and especially as it has prevailed over a large
part of the world, to the great detriment of the Church, for many ages
past. Indeed, it is evidently diabolical; for by promising justification
without faith, it precipitates souls into destruction: in the next
place, by representing the sacraments as the cause of justification, it
envelops the minds of men, naturally too much inclined to the earth, in
gross superstition, leading them to rest in the exhibition of a
corporeal object rather than in God himself. Of these two evils I wish
we had not had such ample experience as to supersede the necessity of
much proof. What is a sacrament, taken without faith, but the most
certain ruin of the Church? For as nothing is to be expected from it,
but in consequence of the promise, which denotes God’s wrath against
unbelievers as much as it offers his grace to believers,—the person who
supposes that the sacraments confer any more upon him than that which is
offered by the word of God, and which he receives by a true faith, is
greatly deceived. Hence also it may be concluded, that confidence of
salvation does not depend on the participation of the sacraments, as
though that constituted our justification, which we know to be placed in
Christ alone, and to be communicated to us no less by the preaching of
the gospel than by the sealing of the sacraments, and that it may be
completely enjoyed without this participation. So true is the
observation, which has also been made by Augustine, that invisible
sanctification may exist without the visible sign, and, on the contrary,
that the visible sign may be used without real sanctification. For, as
he also writes in another place, “Men put on Christ, sometimes by the
reception of a sacrament, sometimes by sanctification of life.” The
first case may be common to the good and the bad; the second is peculiar
to believers.

XV. Hence that distinction, if it be well understood, which is
frequently stated by Augustine, between a sacrament and the matter of a
sacrament. For his meaning is, not only that a sacrament contains a
figure, and some truth signified by that figure, but that their
connection is not such as to render them inseparable from each other;
and even when they are united, the thing signified ought always to be
distinguished from the sign, that what belongs to the one may not be
transferred to the other. He speaks of their separation, when he
observes, that “the sacraments produce the effect which they represent,
in the elect alone.” Again, when he is speaking of the Jews: “Though the
sacraments were common to all, the grace which is the power of the
sacrament was not common; so now, also, the washing of regeneration is
common to all; but the grace itself, by which the members of Christ are
regenerated with their Head, is not common to all.” Again, in another
place, speaking of the Lord’s supper: “We also in the present day
receive visible meat; but the sacrament is one thing, and the power of
the sacrament is another. How is it that many receive of the altar and
die, and die in consequence of receiving? For the morsel of bread given
by the Lord to Judas was poison; not because Judas received an evil
thing, but because, being a wicked man, he received a good thing in a
sinful manner.” A little after: “The sacrament of this thing, that is,
of the unity of the body and blood of Christ, is prepared on the table
of the Lord, in some places daily, in other places on appointed days, at
stated intervals of time; and is thence received, by some to life, by
others to destruction. But the thing signified by this sacrament is
received, not to destruction, but to life, by every one who partakes of
it.” He had just before said, “He shall not die, who eats; I refer not
to the visible sacrament, but to the power of the sacrament; who eats
internally, not externally; he who eats in his heart, not he who presses
with his teeth.” In all these passages we find it maintained, that a
sacrament is separated from the truth signified in it, by the
unworthiness of a person who receives it amiss, so that there is nothing
left in it but a vain and useless figure. In order to enjoy the thing
signified together with the sign, and not a mere sign destitute of the
truth it was intended to convey, it is necessary to apprehend by faith
the word which is contained in it. Thus, in proportion to the communion
we have with Christ by means of the sacraments, will be the advantage
which we shall derive from them.

XVI. If this be obscure in consequence of its brevity, I will explain it
more at large. I affirm that Christ is the matter, or substance, of all
the sacraments; since they have all their solidity in him, and promise
nothing out of him. So much more intolerable is the error of Peter
Lombard, who expressly makes them causes of righteousness and salvation,
of which they are parts. Leaving all causes, therefore, of human
invention, we ought to adhere to this one cause. As far as we are
assisted by their instrumentality, to nourish, confirm, and increase our
faith in Christ, to obtain a more perfect possession of him and an
enjoyment of his riches, so far they are efficacious to us; and this is
the case when we receive by true faith that which is offered in them. Do
the impious, then, it will be said, by their ingratitude, frustrate the
ordinance of God, and cause it to come to nothing? I reply, that what I
have said is not to be understood as implying, that the virtue and truth
of a sacrament depends on the condition or choice of him who receives
it. For what God has instituted continues unshaken, and retains its
nature, however men may vary; but as it is one thing to offer, and
another to receive, there is no incongruity in maintaining, that a
symbol, consecrated by the word of the Lord, is in reality what it is
declared to be, and preserves its virtue, and yet that it confers no
benefit on a wicked and impious person. But Augustine happily solves
this question in a few words: he says, “If thou receive it carnally,
still it ceases not to be spiritual; but it is not so to thee.” And, as
in the passages already cited, this father shows that the symbol used in
a sacrament is of no value, if it be separated from the truth signified
by it, so, on the other hand, he states that it is necessary to
distinguish them, even where they are united, lest our attention be
confined too much to the external sign. “As to follow the letter,” says
he, “and to take the signs instead of the things signified, betrays
servile weakness, so it is the part of unsteadiness and error to
interpret the signs in such a manner as to derive no advantage from
them.” He mentions two faults, against which it is necessary to guard.
One is, when we take the signs as if they were given in vain, and
disparaging or diminishing their secret significations by our perverse
misconstruction, exclude ourselves from the advantage which we ought to
derive from them. The other is, when, not elevating our minds beyond the
visible sign, we transfer to the sacraments the praise of those
benefits, which are only conferred upon us by Christ alone, and that by
the agency of the Holy Spirit, who makes us partakers of Christ himself,
by the instrumentality of the external signs which invite us to Christ,
but which cannot be perverted to any other use, without a shameful
subversion of all their utility.

XVII. Wherefore let us abide by this conclusion, that the office of the
sacraments is precisely the same as that of the word of God; which is to
offer and present Christ to us, and in him the treasures of his heavenly
grace; but they confer no advantage or profit without being received by
faith; just as wine, or oil, or any other liquor, though it be poured
plentifully on a vessel, yet will it overflow and be lost, unless the
mouth of the vessel be open; and the vessel itself, though wet on the
outside, will remain dry and empty within. It is also necessary to guard
against being drawn into an error allied to this, from reading the
extravagant language used by the fathers with a view to exalt the
dignity of the sacraments; lest we should suppose there is some secret
power annexed and attached to the sacraments, so that they communicate
the grace of the Holy Spirit, just as wine is given in the cup; whereas
the only office assigned to them by God, is to testify and confirm his
benevolence towards us; nor do they impart any benefit, unless they are
accompanied by the Holy Spirit to open our minds and hearts, and render
us capable of receiving this testimony: and here, also, several distinct
favours of God are eminently displayed. For the sacraments, as we have
before hinted, fulfil to us, on the part of God, the same office as
messengers of joyful intelligence, or earnests for the confirmation of
covenants on the part of men; they communicate no grace from themselves,
but announce and show, and, as earnests and pledges, ratify, the things
which are given to us by the goodness of God. The Holy Spirit, whom the
sacraments do not promiscuously impart to all, but whom God, by a
peculiar privilege, confers upon his servants, is he who brings with him
the graces of God, who gives the sacraments admission into our hearts,
and causes them to bring forth fruit in us. Now, though we do not deny
that God himself accompanies his institution by the very present power
of his Spirit, that the administration of the sacraments which he has
ordained may not be vain and unfruitful, yet we assert the necessity of
a separate consideration and contemplation of the internal grace of the
Spirit, as it is distinguished from the external ministry. Whatever God
promises and adumbrates in signs, therefore, he really performs; and the
signs are not without their effect, to prove the veracity and fidelity
of their Author. The only question here is, whether God works by a
proper and intrinsic power, as it is expressed, or resigns the office to
external symbols. Now, we contend, that whatever instruments he employs,
this derogates nothing from his supreme operation. When this doctrine is
maintained respecting the sacraments, their dignity is sufficiently
announced, their use plainly signified, their utility abundantly
declared, and a proper moderation is preserved in all these particulars,
so that nothing is attributed, which ought not to be attributed to them,
and nothing that belongs to them is denied; while there is no admission
of that figment, which places the cause of justification and the power
of the Spirit in the sacramental elements, as in so many vehicles; and
that peculiar power which has been omitted by others is clearly
expressed. Here, also, it must be remarked, that God accomplishes
within, that which the minister represents and testifies by the external
act; that we may not attribute to a mortal man what God challenges
exclusively to himself. Augustine has judiciously suggested the same
sentiment. “How,” says he, “do Moses and God both sanctify? Not Moses
instead of God. Moses does it with visible signs, by his ministry. God
does it with invisible grace, by his Holy Spirit. Here also lies all the
efficacy of visible sacraments. For what avail those visible sacraments
without that sanctification of invisible grace?”

XVIII. The term _sacrament_, as we have hitherto treated of its nature,
comprehends generally all the signs which God has ever given to men, to
certify and assure them of the truth of his promises. These he has been
pleased to place in natural things, and sometimes to exhibit in
miracles. Examples of the former kind are such as these: when he gave
Adam and Eve the tree of life, as a pledge of immortality, which they
might assure themselves of enjoying as long as they should eat of the
fruit of that tree;[1115] and when he “set” his “bow in the cloud,” as a
token to Noah and his posterity, that there should “no more be a flood
to destroy the earth.”[1116] These Adam and Noah had as sacraments. Not
that the tree would actually communicate immortality to them, which it
could not give to itself; or that the rainbow, which is merely a
refraction of the rays of the sun on the opposite clouds, would have any
efficacy in restraining the waters; but because they had a mark
impressed upon them by the word of God, constituting them signs and
seals of his covenants. The tree and the rainbow both existed before,
but when they were inscribed with the word of God, they were endued with
a new form, so that they began to be something that they were not
before. And that no one may suppose this to be spoken in vain, the bow
itself continues to be a witness to us in the present age, of that
covenant which God made with Noah: whenever we behold it, we read this
promise of God in it, that he would never more destroy the earth with a
flood. Therefore, if any smatterer in philosophy, with a view to
ridicule the simplicity of our faith, contend that such a variety of
colours is the natural result of the refraction of the solar rays on an
opposite cloud, we must immediately acknowledge it, but we may smile at
his stupidity in not acknowledging God as the Lord and Governor of
nature, who uses all the elements according to his will for the
promotion of his own glory. And if he had impressed similar characters
on the sun, on the stars, on the earth, and on stones, they would all
have been sacraments to us. Why is not silver of as much value before it
is coined, as it is after, since the metal is the very same? The reason
is, that it has nothing added to its natural state; stamped with a
public impression, it becomes money, and receives a new valuation. And
shall not God be able to mark his creatures with his word, that they may
become sacraments, though before they were mere elements? Examples of
the second kind were exhibited, when God showed Abraham “a smoking
furnace and a burning lamp;”[1117] when he watered the fleece with dew
while the earth remained dry, and afterwards bedewed the earth without
wetting the fleece, to promise victory to Gideon;[1118] when “he brought
the shadow ten degrees backward in the dial,”[1119] to promise recovery
to Hezekiah. As these things were done to support and establish the
weakness of their faith, they also were sacraments.

XIX. But our present design is to treat particularly of those sacraments
which the Lord has appointed to be ordinarily used in his Church, to
keep his worshippers and servants in one faith and in the confession of
the same. “For,” to use the language of Augustine, “men cannot be united
in any profession of religion, whether true or false, unless they are
connected by some communion of visible signs or sacraments.” Our most
merciful Father, therefore, foreseeing this necessity, did, from the
beginning, institute for his servants certain exercises of piety, which
Satan afterwards depraved and corrupted in a variety of ways,
transferring them to impious and idolatrous worship. Hence those
initiations of the heathen into their mysteries, and the rest of their
degenerate rites, which, though fraught with error and superstition, at
the same time furnish an evidence that such external signs are
indispensable to a profession of religion. But as they were neither
founded on the word of God, nor referred to that truth which ought to be
the object of all religious emblems, they are unworthy of notice, where
mention is made of the sacred symbols which have been instituted by God,
and which have never been perverted from their original principle, which
constitutes them aids of true piety. Now, they consist not of mere
signs, like the rainbow and the tree of life, but in ceremonies; or,
rather, the signs which are here given are ceremonies. And, as we have
before observed, as they are testimonies of grace and salvation on the
part of the Lord, so on our part they are badges of our profession, by
which we publicly devote ourselves to God, and swear obedience and
fidelity to him. Chrysostom, therefore, somewhere properly calls them
_compacts_, by which God covenants with us, and we bind ourselves to
purity and sanctity of life; because a mutual stipulation is made in
them between God and us. For as the Lord promises to obliterate and
efface all the guilt and punishment that we have incurred by sin, and
reconciles us to himself in his only begotten Son, so we, on our parts,
by this profession, bind ourselves to him, to serve him in piety and
innocence of life; so that such sacraments may justly be described as
ceremonies by which God is pleased to exercise his people, in the first
place, to nourish, excite, and confirm faith in their hearts; and in the
next place, to testify their religion before men.

XX. And even the sacraments have been different according to the
varieties of different periods, and corresponding to the dispensation by
which it has pleased the Lord to manifest himself in different ways to
mankind. For to Abraham and his posterity circumcision was commanded; to
which the law of Moses afterwards added ablutions, sacrifices, and other
rites. These were the sacraments of the Jews till the coming of Christ;
which was followed by the abrogation of these, and the institution of
two others, which are now used in the Christian Church; namely, baptism
and the supper of the Lord. I speak of those which were instituted for
the use of the whole Church; for as to the imposition of hands, by which
the ministers of the Church are introduced into their office, while I
make no objection to its being called a sacrament, I do not class it
among the ordinary sacraments. What opinion ought to be entertained
respecting those which are commonly reputed the five other sacraments,
we shall see in a subsequent chapter. Those ancient sacrifices, however,
referred to the same object towards which ours are now directed, their
design being to point and lead to Christ, or rather, as images, to
represent and make him known. For as we have already shown that they are
seals to confirm the promises of God, and it is very certain that no
promise of God was ever offered to man except in Christ,—in order to
teach us any thing respecting the promises of God, they must of
necessity make a discovery of Christ. This was the design of that
heavenly pattern of the tabernacle and model of the legal worship, which
was exhibited to Moses in the mount. There is only one difference
between those sacraments and ours: they prefigured Christ as promised
and still expected; ours represent him as already come and manifested.

XXI. All these things will be considerably elucidated by a particular
detail. In the first place, circumcision was a sign to the Jews to teach
them that whatever is produced from human seed—that is, the whole nature
of man—is corrupt, and requires to be pruned: it was likewise a
testification and memorial to confirm them in the promise given to
Abraham respecting the blessed seed, in whom all the nations of the
earth were to be blessed, and from whom their own blessing was also to
be expected.[1120] Now, that blessed seed, as Paul informs us, was
Christ, on whom alone they relied for recovering that which they had
lost in Adam. Wherefore circumcision was the same to them as Paul
declares it to have been to Abraham, even “a seal of the righteousness
of faith;”[1121] that is, a seal for the further assurance that their
faith, with which they expected that seed, would be imputed by God to
them for righteousness. But the comparison between circumcision and
baptism we shall have more suitable occasion for pursuing in another
place. Ablutions and purifications placed before their eyes their
uncleanness and pollution, by which they were naturally contaminated,
and promised another ablution, by which they would be purified from all
their defilement; and this ablution was Christ, washed in whose blood we
bring his purity into the presence of God to cover all our
impurities.[1122] Their sacrifices accused and convicted them of their
iniquity, and, at the same time, taught the necessity of some
satisfaction to be made to the Divine justice, and that, therefore,
there would come a great High Priest, a Mediator between God and men,
who was to satisfy the justice of God by the effusion of blood and the
oblation of a sacrifice, which would be sufficient to obtain the
remission of sins. This great High Priest was Christ; he shed his own
blood, and was himself the victim; was obedient to his Father even unto
death, and by his obedience obliterated the disobedience of man, which
had provoked the indignation of God.[1123]

XXII. Our two sacraments present us with a clearer exhibition of Christ,
in proportion to the nearer view of him which men have enjoyed since he
was really manifested by the Father in the manner in which he had been
promised. For baptism testifies to us our purgation and ablution; the
eucharistic supper testifies our redemption. Water is a figure of
ablution, and blood of satisfaction. These things are both found in
Christ, who, as John says, “came by water and blood;”[1124] that is, to
purify and redeem. Of this the Spirit of God is a witness; or, rather,
“there are three that bear witness, the Spirit, the Water, and the
Blood.”[1125] In the water and the blood we have a testimony of
purgation and redemption; and the Spirit, as the principal witness,
confirms and secures our reception and belief of this testimony. This
sublime mystery was strikingly exhibited on the cross, when blood and
water issued from Christ’s sacred side; which, on this account,
Augustine has justly called “the fountain of our sacraments;” of which
we are yet to treat more at large. And there is no doubt, if we compare
one time with another, but that the more abundant grace of the Spirit is
also here displayed. For that belongs to the glory of the kingdom of
Christ; as we gather from various places, and especially from the
seventh chapter of John. In this sense we must understand that passage
where Paul, speaking of the legal institutions, says, “which are a
shadow of things to come, but the body is of Christ.”[1126] His design
in this declaration is, not to deny the efficacy of those testimonies of
grace, in which God was formerly pleased to attest his veracity to the
fathers, as he does to us now in baptism and the sacred supper, but to
represent the comparative superiority of what has been given to us, that
no one might wonder at the ceremonies of the law having been abolished
at the advent of Christ.

XXIII. I will just observe by the way, that the doctrine of the schools,
which asserts such a wide difference between the sacraments of the old
and new law, as though the former merely prefigured the grace of God,
and the latter actually communicated it, ought to be altogether
exploded. For the apostle speaks in a manner equally as honourable of
the former as of the latter, when he states that the fathers, in the
time of Moses, “did all eat the same spiritual meat”[1127] with us, and
explains that meat to be Christ. Who will dare to call that an empty
sign, which exhibited to the Jews the real communion of Christ? And the
state of the case, which the apostle is there discussing, is clearly in
favour of our argument. For, that no man might dare to despise the
judgment of God, in a reliance on a speculative knowledge of Christ, and
the mere name of Christianity, with its external signs, he exhibits the
examples of Divine severity displayed among the Jews, to teach us that
the same punishments which they suffered await us, if we indulge in the
same sins. Now, that the comparison might be pertinent, it was necessary
to show that there was no inequality between us and them in those
privileges of which he forbids us to indulge unfounded boasts. First,
therefore, he shows them to have been equal to us in the sacraments, and
leaves not a particle of superiority capable of exciting in our minds
the least hope of impunity. Nor is it right to attribute to our baptism
any thing more than he attributes to circumcision, when he calls it “a
seal of the righteousness of faith.”[1128] Whatever is presented to us
in the present day in our sacraments, was anciently received by the Jews
in theirs—even Christ and his spiritual riches. Whatever power our
sacraments have, they also experienced the same in theirs: they were
seals of the Divine benevolence to them, confirming their hope of
eternal salvation. If the advocates of the opinion which we are opposing
had been skilful interpreters of the Epistle to the Hebrews, they would
not have been so deceived; but when they read there that sins were not
expiated by the legal ceremonies, and that the ancient shadows had no
power to confer righteousness,—neglecting the comparison intended to be
drawn, and confining their attention to this single consideration, that
the law in itself was unprofitable to its observers, they have simply
concluded that the figures were destitute of any truth. But the design
of the apostle was to represent the ceremonial law as of no value till
it was referred to Christ, on whom alone depended all its efficacy.

XXIV. But they will allege what Paul says of the “circumcision in the
letter,”[1129] that it is in no estimation with God; that it confers no
advantage; that it is in vain; for such a representation they conceive
to degrade it far below baptism. But this is not true; for all that he
says of circumcision might justly be affirmed of baptism. And it is
actually asserted; first by Paul himself, where he shows that God
regards not the external ablution by which we enter on the profession of
religion, unless the heart be purified within, and persevere in piety to
the end; and, secondly, by Peter, when he declares the truth of baptism
to consist, not in “the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the
answer of a good conscience.”[1130] It will be objected, that Paul seems
in another place utterly to despise “the circumcision made with hands,”
when he compares it with “the circumcision of Christ.”[1131] I reply,
that that passage derogates nothing from its dignity. Paul is there
disputing against those who required it as still necessary, after it had
been abrogated. He therefore admonishes believers to leave the ancient
shadows, and adhere to the truth. These teachers, he says, urge you to
be circumcised in your bodies. But you have been spiritually circumcised
both in body and soul: you have the substance itself, therefore, which
is better than the shadow. Some one might object to this, that the
figure was not to be despised in consequence of their having the
substance; for that the fathers under the Old Testament had experienced
the circumcision of the heart, and the putting off of the old man, of
which the apostle was speaking, and yet that external circumcision had
not been unnecessary or useless to them. He anticipates and supersedes
this objection, by immediately adding, that the Colossians had been
“buried with Christ in baptism;” by which he signifies that baptism is
to Christians what circumcision was to the ancient believers, and
consequently that circumcision cannot be imposed upon Christians without
injury to baptism.

XXV. But our objectors proceed to allege, that a still stronger argument
in their favour arises from what follows, which I have lately
quoted,—that all the Jewish ceremonies were “a shadow of things to come,
but the body is of Christ;”[1132] and that the strongest argument of all
is what is contained in the Epistle to the Hebrews, that the blood of
beasts did not reach the conscience, that “the law” had “a shadow of
good things to come, and not the very image of the things, and that the
worshippers could never attain perfection from the Mosaic
ceremonies.”[1133] I repeat what I have already suggested, that Paul
called the ceremonies _shadows_, not as if they had nothing solid in
them, but because their accomplishment had been deferred till the
manifestation of Christ. In the next place, I remark that this is to be
understood, not of the efficacy of the ceremonies, but rather of the
mode of representation. For till Christ was manifested in the flesh, all
the signs prefigured him as absent; however, he displayed his power, and
consequently himself, as present in the hearts of believers. But the
principal thing to be observed is, that in all these places Paul is not
speaking of the subject, considered simply in itself, but with reference
to those against whom he is contending. As he was combating the false
apostles, who maintained piety to consist in the ceremonies alone,
without any regard to Christ,—nothing more was necessary for their
confutation, than to discuss what value ceremonies possess of
themselves. This also was the object pursued by the author of the
Epistle to the Hebrews. Let us remember, therefore, that the question
here does not respect ceremonies, taken in their true and natural
signification, but as distorted by a false and perverse interpretation;
the controversy is not about the legitimate use, but the superstitious
abuse of them. What wonder, then, is it, if ceremonies, separated from
Christ, are divested of all their virtue? For all signs are reduced to
nothing, when the thing signified is taken away. So when Christ was
addressing those who supposed the manna to have been mere food for the
body, he accommodated his discourse to their gross notion, and said that
he would give them better food, to nourish their souls with the hope of
immortality.[1134] If a clearer solution be required, all that has been
said may be comprised in these three observations: first, that all the
ceremonies of the law of Moses, unless they were directed to Christ,
were vain and useless; secondly, that they had reference to Christ, so
that when he was manifested in the flesh, they received their
accomplishment; lastly, that it was necessary for them to be abolished
at his advent, as a shadow vanishes in the clear light of the sun. But
as I defer the more extended discussion of this subject to the chapter
in which I intend to compare baptism with circumcision, I touch the more
briefly upon it here.

XXVI. It is possible that these miserable sophists have been led into
this error by the extravagant encomiums on the sacraments which are
found in the writings of the fathers; as when Augustine says, that “the
sacraments of the old law only promised the Saviour, but ours give
salvation.” Not observing that these and other similar forms of
expression were hyperbolical, they, also, on their part, have
promulgated their hyperbolical dogmas, but in a sense altogether foreign
from the writings of the fathers. For the meaning of Augustine in that
passage was the same as in another, where he says, “The sacraments of
the Mosaic law announced Christ as afterwards to come; ours announce him
as already come.” Again: “They were promises of things to be fulfilled;
these are signs of things accomplished;” as if he had said, that the old
sacraments prefigured Christ while he was yet expected, but that ours
exhibit him as present, since he has already come. Besides, he speaks of
the mode of representation, as he also shows in another place, where he
says, “The law and the prophets had sacraments announcing something
future; but what they celebrated as about to come, the sacraments of our
time announce as already come.” His sentiments respecting their truth
and efficacy he declares in several places; as when he says, “The
sacraments of the Jews were different from ours in the signs; in the
thing signified, they were equal; different in visible form, equal in
spiritual efficacy.” Again: “In different signs, the same faith; in
different signs, just as in different words; because words change their
sounds in different times, and words are no other than signs. The
fathers drank the same spiritual drink as we; though their corporeal
drink was different. See, then, the signs have been varied without any
change in the faith. To them the Rock was Christ; to us, that which is
placed on the altar is Christ. And as a great sacrament, they drank the
water flowing from the Rock; what we drink, believers know. If we
consider the visible form, there was a difference; if we regard the
intelligible signification, they drank the same spiritual drink.” In
another place: “In the mystery their meat and drink were the same as
ours; but the same in signification, not in form; because the very same
Christ was prefigured to them in the Rock, and has been manifested to us
in the flesh.” Yet in this respect, also, we admit that there is some
difference between their sacraments and ours. For both testify that the
paternal benevolence of God is offered to us in Christ, together with
the graces of the Holy Spirit; but ours testify it in a more clear and
evident manner. In both there is an exhibition of Christ, but the
exhibition of him in ours is richer and fuller, corresponding to the
difference between the Old Testament and the New, of which we have
already treated. And this is what was intended by Augustine, whom I
quote more frequently than any other, as the best and most faithful
writer of antiquity, when he states, that after the revelation of
Christ, sacraments were instituted, “fewer in number, more noble in
signification, and more excellent in efficacy.” It is right, also, just
to apprize the readers, that all the jargon of the sophists respecting
the _work wrought_ (_opus operatum_) is not only false, but repugnant to
the nature of the sacraments; which God has instituted, in order that
believers, being poor and destitute of every good, may come to them
simply confessing their wants, and imploring him to supply them.
Consequently, in receiving the sacraments, they perform nothing at all
meritorious, and the action itself being, as far as they are concerned,
merely passive, no _work_ can be attributed to them in it.

Footnote 1095:

Eph. i. 9.

Footnote 1096:

Eph. iii. 2, 3.

Footnote 1097:

Col. i. 26, 27.

Footnote 1098:

1 Tim. iii. 16.

Footnote 1099:

Rom. x. 8.

Footnote 1100:

Acts xv. 9.

Footnote 1101:

1 Peter iii. 21.

Footnote 1102:

Rom. iv. 11.

Footnote 1103:

Gal. iii. 27.

Footnote 1104:

1 Cor. xii. 13.

Footnote 1105:

Luke xvii. 5.

Footnote 1106:

Mark ix. 24.

Footnote 1107:

Acts viii. 37.

Footnote 1108:

Psalm cxix. 10; cxi. 1; cxxxviii. 1.

Footnote 1109:

Psalm xii. 2.

Footnote 1110:

Matt. xiii. 3-23. Like viii. 5-15.

Footnote 1111:

1 Cor. ii. 4. 2 Cor. iii. 6, 8.

Footnote 1112:

1 Cor. iii. 7.

Footnote 1113:

Gen. iii. 22.

Footnote 1114:

Eph. ii. 11, 12.

Footnote 1115:

Gen. ii. 9, 16, 17.

Footnote 1116:

Gen. ix. 12-17.

Footnote 1117:

Gen. xv. 17.

Footnote 1118:

Judges vi. 37-40.

Footnote 1119:

2 Kings xx. 11.

Footnote 1120:

Gen. xii. 3; xxii. 18. Gal. iii. 16.

Footnote 1121:

Rom. iv. 11.

Footnote 1122:

Heb. ix. 10-14. 1 John i. 7. Rev. i. 5.

Footnote 1123:

Heb. iv. 14; ix. 11; x. 1-4. Phil. ii. 8. Rom. v. 19.

Footnote 1124:

1 John v. 8.

Footnote 1125:

1 John v. 8.

Footnote 1126:

Col. ii. 17.

Footnote 1127:

1 Cor. x. 3.

Footnote 1128:

Rom. iv. 11.

Footnote 1129:

Rom. ii. 25-29. 1 Cor. vii. 19. Gal. vi. 15.

Footnote 1130:

1 Pet. iii. 21.

Footnote 1131:

Col. ii. 11.

Footnote 1132:

Col. ii. 17.

Footnote 1133:

Heb. ix. 9; x. 1, 2.

Footnote 1134:

John vi. 27.

CHAPTER XV.
BAPTISM.

Baptism is a sign of initiation, by which we are admitted into the
society of the Church, in order that, being incorporated into Christ, we
may be numbered among the children of God. Now, it has been given to us
by God for these ends, which I have shown to be common to all
sacraments: first, to promote our faith towards him; secondly, to
testify our confession before men. We shall treat of both these ends of
its institution in order. To begin with the first: from baptism our
faith derives three advantages, which require to be distinctly
considered. The first is, that it is proposed to us by the Lord, as a
symbol and token of our purification; or, to express my meaning more
fully, it resembles a legal instrument properly attested, by which he
assures us that all our sins are cancelled, effaced, and obliterated, so
that they will never appear in his sight, or come into his remembrance,
or be imputed to us. For he commands all who believe to be baptized for
the remission of their sins. Therefore those who have imagined that
baptism is nothing more than a mark or sign by which we profess our
religion before men, as soldiers wear the insignia of their sovereign as
a mark of their profession, have not considered that which was the
principal thing in baptism; which is, that we ought to receive it with
this promise, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.”[1135]

II. In this sense we are to understand what is said by Paul, that Christ
sanctifies and cleanses the Church “with the washing of water by the
word;”[1136] and in another place, that “according to his mercy he saved
us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy
Ghost;”[1137] and by Peter, that “baptism doth save us.”[1138] For it
was not the intention of Paul to signify that our ablution and salvation
are completed by the water, or that water contains in itself the virtue
to purify, regenerate, and renew; nor did Peter mean that it was the
cause of salvation, but only that the knowledge and assurance of it is
received in this sacrament; which is sufficiently evident from the words
they have used. For Paul connects together the “word of life” and “the
baptism of water;” as if he had said that our ablution and
sanctification are announced to us by the gospel, and by baptism this
message is confirmed. And Peter, after having said that “baptism doth
save us,” immediately adds that it is “not the putting away of the filth
of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience towards God,” which
proceeds from faith. But, on the contrary, baptism promises us no other
purification than by the sprinkling of the blood of Christ; which is
emblematically represented by water, on account of its resemblance to
washing and cleansing. Who, then, can pretend that we are cleansed by
that water, which clearly testifies the blood of Christ to be our true
and only ablution? So that, to refute the error of those who refer all
to the virtue of the water, no better argument could be found, than in
the signification of baptism itself, which abstracts us, as well from
that visible element which is placed before our eyes, as from all other
means of salvation, that it may fix our minds on Christ alone.

III. Nor must it be supposed that baptism is administered only for the
time past, so that for sins into which we fall after baptism it would be
necessary to seek other new remedies of expiation in I know not what
other sacraments, as if the virtue of baptism were become obsolete. In
consequence of this error, it happened, in former ages, that some
persons would not be baptized except at the close of their life, and
almost in the moment of their death, that so they might obtain pardon
for their whole life—a preposterous caution, which is frequently
censured in the writings of the ancient bishops. But we ought to
conclude, that at whatever time we are baptized, we are washed and
purified for the whole of life. Whenever we have fallen, therefore, we
must recur to the remembrance of baptism, and arm our minds with the
consideration of it, that we may be always certified and assured of the
remission of our sins. For though, when it has been once administered,
it appears to be past, yet it is not abolished by subsequent sins. For
the purity of Christ is offered to us in it; and that always retains its
virtue, is never overcome by any blemishes, but purifies and obliterates
all our defilements. Now, from this doctrine we ought not to take a
license for the commission of future sins; for it is very far from
inculcating such presumption; it is only delivered to those who, when
they have sinned, groan under the fatigue and oppression of their
transgressions; in order to afford them some relief and consolation, and
to preserve them from sinking into confusion and despair. Thus Paul
says, that Christ was “set forth to be a propitiation for the remission
of sins that are past.”[1139] He does not deny that we have a constant
and perpetual remission of sins in Christ, but signifies that he has
been given by the Father only to miserable sinners, who sigh for the
physician to heal the wounds of a guilty conscience. To such the mercy
of God is offered; while those who, from a remission of punishment, seek
to derive an occasion and license for sinning, do nothing but draw down
upon themselves the wrath and vengeance of God.

IV. I know the common opinion is, that remission of sins, which at our
first regeneration we receive by baptism alone, is afterwards obtained
by repentance and the benefit of the keys. But the advocates of this
opinion have fallen into an error, for want of considering that the
power of the keys, of which they speak, is so dependent on baptism that
it cannot by any means be separated from it. It is true, that the sinner
receives remission by the ministry of the Church; but not without the
preaching of the gospel. Now, what is the nature of that preaching? That
we are cleansed from our sins by the blood of Christ. What sign and
testimony of that ablution is there, except baptism? We see, then, how
this absolution is referred to baptism. This error has produced the
imaginary sacrament of penance; on which I have touched a little
already, and shall finish what remains in its proper place. Now, it is
no wonder if men, whose groveling minds were inordinately attached to
external things, have betrayed that corrupt propensity, by a discontent
with the pure institution of God, and an introduction of new expedients
invented by themselves; as if baptism itself were not a sacrament of
repentance; but if repentance be enjoined upon us as long as we live,
the virtue of baptism ought to be extended to the same period. Wherefore
it is evident that the pious, whenever, in any part of their lives, they
are distressed with a consciousness of their sins, may justly have
recourse to the remembrance of baptism, in order to confirm themselves
in the confidence of their interest in that one perpetual ablution which
is enjoyed in the blood of Christ.

V. Baptism is also attended with another advantage: it shows us our
mortification in Christ, and our new life in him. For, as the apostle
says, “So many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized
into his death: therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death,
that we should walk in newness of life.”[1140] In this passage he does
not merely exhort us to an imitation of Christ, as if he had said, that
we are admonished by baptism, that after the example of his death we
should die to sin, and that after the example of his resurrection we
should rise to righteousness; but he goes considerably further, and
teaches us, that by baptism Christ has made us partakers of his death,
in order that we may be ingrafted into it. And as the scion derives
substance and nourishment from the root on which it is ingrafted, so
they, who receive baptism with the faith with which they ought to
receive it, truly experience the efficacy of Christ’s death in the
mortification of the flesh, and also the energy of his resurrection in
the vivification of the spirit. Hence he deduces matter of exhortation,
that, if we are Christians, we ought to be “dead unto sin, but alive
unto God.”[1141] He uses the same argument in another place; that we
“are circumcised, putting off the body of the sins of the flesh,” after
we have been “buried with” Christ “in baptism.”[1142] And in this sense,
in the passage already quoted, he calls it “the washing of regeneration
and renewing.”[1143] Thus we are promised, first, the gratuitous
remission of sins, and imputation of righteousness; and, secondly, the
grace of the Holy Spirit to reform us to newness of life.

VI. The last advantage which our faith receives from baptism, is the
certain testimony it affords us, that we are not only ingrafted into the
life and death of Christ, but are so united as to be partakers of all
his benefits. For this reason he dedicated and sanctified baptism in his
own body, that he might have it in common with us, as a most firm bond
of the union and society which he has condescended to form with us; so
that Paul proves from it, that we are the children of God, because we
have put on Christ in baptism.[1144] Thus we see that the accomplishment
of baptism is in Christ; whom, on this account, we call the proper
object of baptism. Therefore it is no wonder if the apostles baptized in
his name,[1145] though they had also been commanded to baptize in the
name of the Father and of the Spirit.[1146] For all the gifts of God,
which are presented in baptism, are found in Christ alone. Yet it cannot
be but that he who baptizes into Christ, equally invokes the name of the
Father and of the Spirit. For we have purification in his blood, because
our merciful Father, in his incomparable goodness, being pleased to
receive us to his mercy, has appointed this Mediator between us, to
conciliate his favour to us. But we receive regeneration from his death
and resurrection, when we are endued with a new and spiritual nature by
the sanctification of the Spirit. Of our purification and regeneration,
therefore, we obtain, and distinctly perceive, the cause in the Father,
the matter in the Son, and the efficacy in the Spirit. Thus John first,
and the apostles afterwards, baptized “with the baptism of repentance
for the remission of sins;”[1147] by _repentance_, intending
regeneration, and by _remission of sins_, ablution.

VII. Hence also it is very certain that the ministry of John was
precisely the same as that which was afterwards committed to the
apostles. For their baptism was not different, though it was
administered by different hands; but the sameness of their doctrine
shows their baptism to have been the same. John and the apostles agreed
in the same doctrine; both baptized to repentance, both to remission of
sins; both baptized in the name of Christ, from whom repentance and
remission of sins proceed. John said of Christ, “Behold the Lamb of God,
which taketh away the sin of the world;”[1148] thus acknowledging and
declaring him to be the sacrifice acceptable to the Father, the procurer
of righteousness, and the author of salvation. What could the apostles
add to this confession? Wherefore let no one be disturbed by the
attempts of the ancient writers to distinguish and separate one baptism
from the other; for their authority ought not to have weight enough to
shake our confidence in the Scripture. For who will attend to
Chrysostom, who denies that remission of sins was included in the
baptism of John, rather than to Luke, who, on the contrary, affirms that
“John came preaching the baptism of repentance, for the remission of
sins?”[1149] Nor must we admit that subtlety of Augustine, “that in the
baptism of John sins were remitted in hope, but in the baptism of Christ
they were remitted in fact.” For as the evangelist clearly testifies
that John, in his baptism, promised the remission of sins, why should we
diminish this commendation, when no necessity constrains us to it? But
if any difference be sought for in the word of God, the only difference
that will be found is, that John baptized in the name of him who was to
come, the apostles in the name of him who had already manifested
himself.

VIII. The more abundant effusion of the graces of the Spirit, after the
resurrection of Christ, contributes nothing to establish a diversity of
baptisms. For the baptism administered by the apostles, during his life
on earth, was called his; yet it was attended with no greater abundance
of the Spirit than the baptism of John. And even after his ascension,
the Samaritans, even though they had been baptized in the name of Jesus,
received no other gifts of the Spirit than those which were common to
all believers, till Peter and John were sent to lay their hands upon
them.[1150] I suppose that the fathers were misled into an opinion, that
the baptism of John was merely a preparation for that of Christ,[1151]
entirely from an apprehension that some persons, who had previously
received the baptism of John, were baptized again by Paul. But that they
were mistaken in this point, shall be very clearly shown in the proper
place. What is the meaning, then, of the declaration of John, that he
“baptized with water,” but that Christ would come to “baptize with the
Holy Ghost and with fire?”[1152] This may be explained in few words; for
he did not mean to distinguish between one baptism and the other, but
was comparing himself with the person of Christ; that he was a minister
of water, but that Christ was the giver of the Holy Spirit, and would
display this power by a visible miracle, on that day when he would send
down the Holy Spirit upon the apostles in the form of fiery
tongues.[1153] What could the apostles boast beyond this? What more can
they pretend to, who baptize in the present day? For they are merely
ministers of the outward sign, and Christ is the author of the inward
grace; as the same ancient writers invariably teach, and especially
Augustine, whose principal argument against the Donatists is, that
whatever be the character of the person who administers baptism, yet
Christ alone presides in it.

IX. These things, which we have stated respecting mortification and
ablution, were adumbrated in the people of Israel, whom, on this
account, the apostle declares to have been “baptized in the cloud and in
the sea.”[1154] Mortification was figuratively represented, when the
Lord, delivering them from the power and cruel servitude of Pharaoh,
made a way for them through the Red Sea, and drowned Pharaoh himself,
and the Egyptians, their enemies, who pursued, and almost overtook them.
For in this manner, in baptism, he promises, and gives us a sign to
assure us, that we are extricated and delivered by his power from the
captivity of Egypt, that is, from the servitude of sin; that our
Pharaoh, that is, the devil, is drowned, though still he ceases not to
harass and fatigue us. But as the Egyptians did not remain sunk to the
bottom of the sea, but, being cast upon the shore, still terrified the
Israelites with the dreadful sight, though they were not able to injure
them, so this enemy of ours still threatens, displays his arms, and
makes himself felt, but cannot overcome. In the cloud there was an
emblem of ablution. For as the Lord there covered them with a cloud,
affording them refreshment, that they might not faint and be consumed by
the overpowering heat of the sun, so, in baptism, we acknowledge
ourselves to be covered and protected by the blood of Christ, that the
severity of God, which is indeed an intolerable flame, may not fall upon
us. Though this mystery was then obscured, and known only to few
persons, yet, as there is no other way of obtaining salvation but by
those two blessings of grace, the Lord, having adopted the ancient
fathers as his heirs, was pleased to bestow upon them tokens of both.

X. Now, we may clearly perceive the falsehood of the notion which some
have long ago disseminated, and which others persist in
maintaining,—that by baptism we are delivered and exempted from original
sin, and from the corruption which has descended from Adam to all his
posterity, and are restored to the same righteousness and purity of
nature which Adam would have obtained if he had continued in the
integrity in which he was first created. For teachers of this kind have
never understood the nature of original sin, or original righteousness,
or the grace of baptism. Now, we have already proved that original sin
is the pravity and corruption of our nature, which first renders us
obnoxious to the wrath of God, and then produces in us those works which
the Scripture calls “works of the flesh.”[1155] Therefore these two
things are to be distinctly observed: first, that our nature being so
entirely depraved and vitiated, we are, on account of this very
corruption, considered as convicted and justly condemned in the sight of
God, to whom nothing is acceptable but righteousness, innocence, and
purity. And therefore even infants themselves bring their own
condemnation into the world with them, who, though they have not yet
produced the fruits of their iniquity, yet have the seed of it within
them; even their whole nature is, as it were, a seed of sin, and
therefore cannot but be odious and abominable to God. By baptism,
believers are certified that this condemnation is removed from them;
since, as we said, the Lord promises us by this sign, that a full and
entire remission is granted both of the guilt which is to be imputed to
us, and of the punishment to be inflicted on account of that guilt; they
also receive righteousness, such as the people of God may obtain in this
life; that is, only by imputation, because the Lord, in his mercy,
accepts them as righteous and innocent.

XI. The other thing to be remarked is, that this depravity never ceases
in us, but is perpetually producing new fruits—those works of the flesh
which we have already described, like the emission of flame and sparks
from a heated furnace, or like the streams of water from an unfailing
spring. For concupiscence never dies, nor is altogether extinguished in
men, till by death they are delivered from the body of death, and
entirely divested of themselves. Baptism, indeed, promises us the
submersion of our Pharaoh, and the mortification of sin; yet not so that
it no longer exists, or gives us no further trouble; but only that it
may never overcome us. For as long as we live immured in this prison of
the body, the relics of sin will dwell in us; but if we hold fast by
faith the promise which God has given us in baptism, they shall not
domineer or reign over us. But let no one deceive himself, let no one
flatter himself in his guilt, when he hears that sin always dwells in
us. These things are not said in order that those who are already too
prone to do evil may securely sleep in their sins, but only that those
who are tempted by their corrupt propensities may not faint and sink
into despondency; but that they may rather reflect that they are yet in
the way, and may consider themselves as having made some progress, when
they experience their corruptions diminishing from day to day, till they
shall attain the mark at which they are aiming, even the final
destruction of their depravity, which will be accomplished at the close
of this mortal life. In the mean time, let them not cease to fight
manfully, to animate themselves to constant advances, and to press
forward to complete victory. For it ought to give additional impulse to
their exertions, to see that, after they have been striving so long, so
much still remains for them to do. We conclude, therefore, that we are
baptized into the mortification of the flesh, which commences in us at
baptism, which we pursue from day to day, and which will be perfected
when we shall pass out of this life to the Lord.

XII. Here we say nothing different from what is most clearly stated by
Paul in the sixth and seventh chapters of the Epistle to the Romans. For
after he had argued respecting gratuitous righteousness,—because some
impious men concluded from that doctrine that they might live according
to their own corrupt inclinations, as we are not accepted by God for the
merit of our works, he adds, that all who are clothed with the
righteousness of Christ are also regenerated by his Spirit, and that of
this regeneration we have an earnest in baptism. Hence he exhorts
believers not to suffer sin to reign in their members. Because he knew
that there always remains some infirmity in them, that they might not be
dejected on account of it, he adds for their consolation, that they are
not under the law. On the other hand, as it might seem to encourage
licentiousness in Christians, to say that they were not under the yoke
of the law, he discusses the nature of that abrogation, and shows what
is the use of the law—a question which he had already determined. The
sum of all that he says is, that we are delivered from the rigour of the
law to adhere to Christ; and that the office of the law is to convince
us of our depravity, and lead us to a confession of our impotence and
misery. Now, because the depravity of our nature is not so easily
discovered in a profane man who indulges his corrupt passions without
any fear of God, he gives an example in a regenerate man, that is, in
himself. He says, therefore, that he has a perpetual conflict with the
relics of his corruption, and that he is bound with a miserable
servitude, which prevents his entire consecration of himself to an
obedience of the Divine law; so that he is constrained to exclaim, “O
wretched man that I am! Who shall deliver me from the body of this
death?” If the children of God are captives detained in prison as long
as they live, they cannot but feel great anxiety from reflection on
their danger, unless there be something to obviate this fear. For this
purpose, therefore, he has added a consolation, that “there is now no
condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus;”[1156] by which he
teaches, that those whom the Lord has once received into his favour,
incorporated into the communion of his Christ, and introduced by baptism
into the society of his Church, notwithstanding they are surrounded and
assaulted with sin, and even carry sin about within them, yet while they
persevere in the faith of Christ, are absolved from guilt and
condemnation. If this be the simple and genuine meaning of Paul, there
is no reason why we should be considered as promulgating a new or
strange doctrine.

XIII. Baptism also serves for our confession before men. For it is a
mark by which we openly profess our desire to be numbered among the
people of God, by which we testify our agreement with all Christians in
the worship of one God, and in one religion, and by which we make a
public declaration of our faith; that the praises of God may not only be
breathed in the secret aspirations of our hearts, but may also be loudly
proclaimed by our tongues, and by all the members of our body, in the
different modes in which they are capable of expressing them. For thus
all that we have is devoted, as it ought to be, to the glory of God, to
which every thing ought to be subservient, and by our example others are
incited to the same pursuit. It was with this view that Paul inquired of
the Corinthians, whether they had not been baptized in the name of
Christ; signifying that, in having been baptized in his name, they had
dedicated themselves to him, had avowed him as their Lord and Master,
and had bound themselves by a solemn obligation before men; so that they
could never again confess any other except him, unless they intended to
renounce the confession which they had made at their baptism.

XIV. Now, as we have stated what was the design of our Lord in the
institution of baptism, it is easy to judge in what manner we ought to
use and receive it. For as it is given for the support, consolation, and
confirmation of our faith, it requires to be received as from the hand
of the Author himself: we ought to consider it as beyond all doubt, that
it is he who speaks to us by this sign; that it is he who purifies and
cleanses us, and obliterates the remembrance of our sins; that it is he
who makes us partakers of his death, who demolishes the kingdom of
Satan, who weakens the power of our corrupt propensities, who even makes
us one with himself, that, being clothed with him, we may be reckoned
children of God; and that he as truly and certainly performs these
things internally on our souls, as we see that our bodies are externally
washed, immersed, and enclosed in water. For this analogy or similitude
is a most certain rule of sacraments; that in corporeal things we
contemplate spiritual things, just as if they were placed before our
eyes, as it has pleased God to represent them to us by such figures: not
that such blessings are bound or enclosed in the sacrament, or that it
has the power to impart them to us; but only because it is a sign by
which the Lord testifies his will, that he is determined to give us all
these things: nor does it merely feed our eyes with a bare prospect of
the symbols, but conducts us at the same time to the thing signified,
and efficaciously accomplishes that which it represents.

XV. We may see this exemplified in Cornelius the centurion, who, after
having received the remission of his sins and the visible graces of the
Holy Spirit, was baptized; not with a view to obtain by baptism a more
ample remission of sins, but a stronger exercise of faith, and an
increase of confidence from that pledge.[1157] Perhaps it may be
objected, “Why, then, did Ananias say to Paul, ‘Arise, and be baptized,
and wash away thy sins,’[1158] if sins are not washed away by the
efficacy of baptism itself?” I answer, We are said to receive or obtain
that which our faith apprehends, as presented to us by the Lord, whether
at the time that he first declares it to us, or when, by any subsequent
testimony, he affords us a more certain confirmation of it. Ananias,
therefore, only intended to say to Paul, “That thou mayest be assured
that thy sins are forgiven, be baptized. For in baptism the Lord
promises remission of sins; receive this and be secure.” It is not my
design, however, to diminish the efficacy of baptism; but the substance
and truth accompanies the sign, as God works by external means.
Nevertheless, from this sacrament, as from all others, we obtain nothing
except what we receive by faith. If faith be wanting, it will be a
testimony of our ingratitude, to render us guilty before God, because we
have not believed the promise given in the sacrament; but as baptism is
a sign of our confession, we ought to testify by it, that our confidence
is in the mercy of God, and our purity in the remission of sins, which
is obtained for us by Jesus Christ; and that we enter into the Church of
God in order to live in the same harmony of faith and charity, of one
mind with all the faithful. This is what Paul meant when he said, that
“by one Spirit we are all baptized into one body.”[1159]

XVI. Now, if it be true, as we have stated, that a sacrament is to be
considered as received, not so much from the hand of him by whom it is
administered, as from the hand of God himself, from whom, without doubt,
it proceeded, we may conclude that it is not capable of any addition or
diminution from the dignity of the person by whose hand it is delivered.
And as, among men, if a letter be sent, provided the hand and seal of
the writer be known, it is of very little importance who and what the
carrier of it may be, so it ought to be sufficient for us to know the
hand and seal of our Lord in his sacraments, by whatever messenger they
may be conveyed. This fully refutes the error of the Donatists, who
measured the virtue and value of the sacrament by the worthiness of the
minister. Such, in the present day, are our Anabaptists, who positively
deny that we are rightly baptized, because we were baptized by impious
and idolatrous ministers in the kingdom of the pope, and therefore
violently urge us to be baptized again; against whose follies we shall
be fortified with an argument of sufficient strength, if we consider
that we are baptized not in the name of any man, but in the name of the
Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and consequently that it
is not the baptism of man, but of God, by whomsoever it is administered.
Though those who baptized us were chargeable with the grossest ignorance
or contempt of God and of all religion, yet they did not baptize us into
the fellowship of their own ignorance or sacrilege, but into the faith
of Jesus Christ; because they invoked, not their own name, but the name
of God, and baptized in no other name but his. Now, if it was the
baptism of God, it certainly contained the promise of remission of sins,
mortification of the flesh, spiritual vivification, and participation of
Christ. Thus it was no injury to the Jews to have been circumcised by
impure and apostate priests; nor was the sign on that account useless,
so as to render it necessary to be repeated, but it was sufficient to
recur to the genuine original. They object, that baptism ought to be
celebrated in the congregation of the godly; but this does not prove
that it loses all its value in consequence of being partially wrong. For
when we teach what ought to be done to preserve baptism pure and free
from every blemish, we do not abolish the institution of God, however
idolaters corrupt it. For when circumcision was anciently corrupted with
many superstitions, yet it ceased not to be considered as a sign of
grace; nor, when Hezekiah and Josiah assembled together out of all
Israel those who had revolted from God, did they call any of them to a
second circumcision.

XVII. When they ask us what faith we had for many years after our
baptism, in order to show that our baptism was vain, since baptism is
not sanctified to us except by the word of promise received in faith,—to
this inquiry we answer, that being blind and unbelieving for a long
time, we did not embrace the promise which had been given us in baptism,
yet that the promise itself, as it was from God, always remained steady,
firm, and true. Though all men were false and perfidious, yet God ceases
not to be true; though all men were lost, yet Christ remains a Saviour.
We confess, therefore, that during that time we received no advantage
whatever from baptism, because we totally neglected the promise offered
to us in it, without which baptism is nothing. Now, since, by the grace
of God, we have begun to repent, we accuse our blindness and hardness of
heart for our long ingratitude to his great goodness; yet we believe
that the promise itself never expired, but, on the contrary, we reason
in the following manner:—By baptism God promises remission of sins, and
will certainly fulfil the promise to all believers: that promise was
offered to us in baptism; let us, therefore, embrace it by faith: it was
long dormant by reason of our unbelief; now, then, let us receive it by
faith. Wherefore, when God exhorts the Jewish people to repentance, he
does not command them, who had been circumcised, as we have remarked, by
impious and sacrilegious hands, and who had lived for some time immersed
in the same impiety, to be circumcised again: he only urges conversion
of heart. For however the covenant had been violated by them, yet the
symbol of the covenant, according to the institution of the Lord, always
remained firm and inviolable. On the sole condition of repentance,
therefore, they were restored to the covenant which God had once made
with them in circumcision; even though they had received it by the hands
of the unfaithful priests, and had themselves done all that was in their
power to corrupt it and render it ineffectual.

XVIII. But they conceive themselves to be armed with an invincible
argument, when they allege that Paul rebaptized some who had previously
been baptized with the baptism of John.[1160] For if, by our own
confession, the baptism of John was in all respects the same as ours is
now,—as these persons who had first been erroneously instructed, after
having been taught the right faith, were rebaptized into it, so that
baptism, which was unaccompanied with the true doctrine, should be
considered as nothing, and we ought to be baptized afresh into the true
religion, which we have now first imbibed. It is supposed by some, that
they had received their first baptism from a pretended and corrupt
imitator of John, who had rather baptized them into a vain superstition
than into the truth. This conjecture they seem to derive from the
confession of those persons that they were entirely ignorant of the Holy
Spirit—an ignorance in which it is concluded John would not have
suffered his disciples to remain. But it is not probable that Jews, even
though they had never been baptized at all, would have been destitute of
all knowledge of the Holy Spirit, who is celebrated in so many
testimonies of Scripture. The answer, therefore, which they gave, “We
have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost,” is to be
understood as equivalent to a declaration that they had never heard
whether the graces of the Spirit, respecting which Paul inquired, were
given to the disciples of Christ. For myself, I grant that the baptism
they had received was the true baptism of John, and the very same with
the baptism of Christ; but I deny that they were baptized again. What is
the meaning of these words, “They were baptized in the name of the Lord
Jesus?” Some explain it to be, that they were only instructed by Paul in
the pure doctrine; but I prefer understanding it, in a more simple
manner, of the baptism of the Holy Spirit; that is, of the visible
graces of the Spirit given by imposition of hands. It is not uncommon in
the Scripture to designate those graces by the appellation of _baptism_;
as on the day of Pentecost, the apostles are said to have remembered the
words of the Lord respecting the baptism of the Spirit and of fire. And
Peter declared that he remembered the same, when he saw those graces
poured out on Cornelius and his family and relatives. Nor is this
interpretation inconsistent with what is stated afterwards, that “When
Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them.” For
Luke does not relate two different things, but follows a mode of
narration familiar to the Hebrews, who first propose a subject
generally, and then unfold it more in detail. This is obvious from the
very connection of the words; for he says, “When they heard this, they
were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid his
hands on them, the Holy Ghost came on them.” The latter clause describes
the kind of baptism intended in the former. If ignorance vitiate a first
baptism, so that it requires to be corrected by a second, the first
persons who ought to have been rebaptized were the apostles themselves,
who for three years after their baptism had scarcely any knowledge of
the least particle of pure doctrine. And among us, what rivers would be
sufficient for the repetition of ablutions as numerous as the errors
which are daily corrected in us by the mercy of the Lord!

XIX. The virtue, dignity, utility, and end of this mystery, have now, if
I mistake not, been sufficiently explained. With respect to the external
symbol, I sincerely wish that the genuine institution of Christ had the
influence it ought to have, to repress the audacity of man. For, as
though it were a contemptible thing to be baptized in water, according
to the precept of Christ, men have invented a benediction, or rather
incantation, to pollute the true consecration of the water. They
afterwards added a wax taper with chrism; exorcism seemed to open the
gate to baptism. Now, though I am not ignorant of the ancient origin of
this adventitious medley, yet it is lawful for me and for all believers
to reject every thing that men have presumed to add to the institution
of Christ. Now, Satan, seeing that from the very first introduction of
the gospel, his impostures had been easily received by the foolish
credulity of the world, proceeded to grosser illusions; hence spittle,
salt, and other fooleries, which were publicly introduced with an
unlimited license, to the reproach of baptism. From these experiments we
may learn that there is nothing holier, or better, or safer, than to
content ourselves with the authority of Christ alone. How much better
was it, therefore, omitting all theatrical pomps which dazzle the eyes
and stupefy the minds of the simple, whenever any one was to be
baptized, that he should be presented to the congregation of believers,
and be offered to God in the presence and with the prayers of the whole
Church; that the confession of faith, in which the catechumen was to be
instructed, should be recited; that the promises which are included in
baptism should be declared; that the catechumen should be baptized in
the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; and lastly,
that he should be dismissed with prayers and thanksgivings! Thus nothing
material would be omitted; and that one ceremony, which was instituted
by God, would shine with the greatest lustre, unencumbered with any
extraneous corruptions. But whether the person who is baptized be wholly
immersed, and whether thrice or once, or whether water be only poured or
sprinkled upon him, is of no importance; Churches ought to be left at
liberty, in this respect, to act according to the difference of
countries. The very word _baptize_, however, signifies to immerse; and
it is certain that immersion was the practice of the ancient Church.

XX. It is also necessary to state, that it is not right for private
persons to take upon themselves the administration of baptism; for this,
as well as the administration of the Lord’s supper, is a part of the
public ministry of the Church. Christ never commanded women, or men in
general, to baptize; he gave this charge to those whom he had appointed
to be apostles. And when he enjoined his disciples, in the celebration
of the supper, to do as they had seen done by him when he executed the
office of a legitimate dispenser, he intended, without doubt, that they
should imitate his example. The custom, which has been received and
practised for many ages past, and almost from the primitive times of the
Church, for baptism to be performed by laymen, in cases where death was
apprehended, and no minister was present in time, it appears to me
impossible to defend by any good reason. Indeed, the ancients
themselves, who either observed or tolerated this custom, were not
certain whether it was right or not. Augustine betrays this uncertainty,
when he says, “And if a layman, compelled by necessity, has given
baptism, I know not whether any one may piously affirm that it ought to
be repeated. For if it be done without the constraint of necessity, it
is a usurpation of an office which belongs to another; but if necessity
obliges, it is either no offence, or a venial one.” Respecting women, it
was decreed without any exception, in the Council of Carthage, that they
should not presume to baptize at all, on pain of excommunication. But it
is alleged, there is danger, lest a child, who is sick and dies without
baptism, should be deprived of the grace of regeneration. This I can by
no means admit. God pronounces that he adopts our infants as his
children, before they are born, when he promises that he will be a God
to us, and to our seed after us. This promise includes their salvation.
Nor will any dare to offer such an insult to God as to deny the
sufficiency of his promise to insure its own accomplishment. The
mischievous consequences of that ill-stated notion, that baptism is
necessary to salvation, are overlooked by persons in general, and
therefore they are less cautious; for the reception of an opinion, that
all who happen to die without baptism are lost, makes our condition
worse than that of the ancient people, as though the grace of God were
more restricted now than it was under the law; it leads to the
conclusion that Christ came not to fulfil the promises, but to abolish
them; since the promise, which at that time was of itself sufficiently
efficacious to insure salvation before the eighth day, would have no
validity now without the assistance of the sign.

XXI. What was the custom of the Church before Augustine was born, may be
collected from the ancient fathers. In the first place, Tertullian says,
“That it is not permitted for a woman to speak in the Church, neither to
teach, nor to baptize, nor to offer, that she may not claim to herself
the functions of any office belonging to men, and especially to
priests.” The same thing is fully attested by Epiphanius, when he
censures Marcion for having given women liberty to baptize. I am aware
of the answer made to this by persons of opposite sentiments—that there
is a great difference between a common usage, and an extraordinary
remedy employed in cases of urgent necessity; but when Epiphanius
pronounces it to be a mockery, without making any exception, to give
women liberty to baptize, it is sufficiently evident that he condemns
this corruption, and considers it inexcusable by any pretext whatever;
nor does he add any limitation, in his third book, where he observes
that this liberty was not granted even to the holy mother of Christ.

XXII. The example of Zipporah is alleged, but is not applicable to the
case. Because the angel of God was appeased after she had taken a stone
and circumcised her son,[1161] it is unreasonable to infer that her
action was approved by God. On the same principle it might be
maintained, that God was pleased with the worship established by the
nations who were transplanted from Assyria to Samaria. But there are
other powerful reasons to prove the absurdity of setting up the conduct
of that foolish woman as a pattern for imitation. If I should allege,
that this was a single act, which ought not to be considered as a
general example, and especially as we nowhere find any special command
that the rite of circumcision was to be performed by the priests, the
case of circumcision is different from that of baptism; and this would
be sufficient to refute the advocates of its administration by women.
For the words of Christ are plain: “Go ye, therefore, and teach all
nations, baptizing them.”[1162] Since he constitutes the same persons
preachers of the gospel and administrators of baptism, “and no man,”
according to the testimony of the apostle, “taketh this honour upon
himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron,”[1163] whoever
baptizes without a legitimate call, intrudes into another person’s
office. Even in the minutest things, as in meat and drink, whatever we
do with a doubtful conscience, Paul expressly declares to be sin.[1164]
Female baptism, therefore, being an open violation of the rule delivered
by Christ, is a still greater sin; for we know that it is impious to
dissever things which God has united. But all this I pass over; and
would only request my readers to consider that nothing was further from
the design of Zipporah, than to perform a service to God. For seeing her
son to be in danger, she fretted and murmured, and indignantly cast the
foreskin on the ground, reproaching her husband in such a manner as to
betray anger against God. In short, it is plain that all this proceeded
from violence of temper, because she was displeased with God and her
husband that she was constrained to shed the blood of her son. Besides,
if she had conducted herself with propriety in all other respects, yet
it was an act of inexcusable presumption for her to circumcise her son
in the presence of her husband, and that husband not a private man, but
Moses, the principal prophet of God, who was never succeeded by a
greater in Israel; which was no more lawful for her to do, than it is
for women now to baptize in the presence of a bishop. But this
controversy will easily be decided by the establishment of this
principle—that infants are not excluded from the kingdom of heaven, who
happen to die before they have had the privilege of baptism. But we have
seen that it is no small injustice to the covenant of God, if we do not
rely upon it as sufficient of itself, since its fulfilment depends not
on baptism, or on any thing adventitious. The sacrament is afterwards
added as a seal, not to give efficacy to the promise of God, as if it
wanted validity in itself, but only to confirm it to us. Whence it
follows, that the children of believers are not baptized, that they may
thereby be made the children of God, as if they had before been
strangers to the Church; but, on the contrary, they are received into
the Church by a solemn sign, because they already belonged to the body
of Christ by virtue of the promise. If the omission of the sign,
therefore, be not occasioned by indolence, or contempt, or negligence,
we are safe from all danger. It is far more consistent with piety to
show this reverence to the institution of God, not to receive the
sacraments from any other hands than those to which the Lord has
committed them. When it is impossible to receive them from the Church,
the grace of God is not so attached to them, but that we may obtain it
by faith from the word of the Lord.

Footnote 1135:

Mark xvi. 16.

Footnote 1136:

Eph. v. 26.

Footnote 1137:

Titus iii. 5.

Footnote 1138:

1 Peter iii. 21.

Footnote 1139:

Rom. iii. 25.

Footnote 1140:

Rom. vi. 3, 4.

Footnote 1141:

Rom. vi. 11.

Footnote 1142:

Col. ii. 11, 12.

Footnote 1143:

Titus iii. 6.

Footnote 1144:

Gal. iii. 26, 27.

Footnote 1145:

Acts viii. 16.

Footnote 1146:

Matt. xxviii. 19.

Footnote 1147:

Matt. iii. 6, 11. Luke iii. 3. John iii. 23; iv. 1. Acts ii. 38, 41.

Footnote 1148:

John i. 29.

Footnote 1149:

Luke iii. 3.

Footnote 1150:

Acts viii. 14-17.

Footnote 1151:

Acts xix. 3-5.

Footnote 1152:

Matt. iii. 11.

Footnote 1153:

Acts ii. 3.

Footnote 1154:

1 Cor. x. 2.

Footnote 1155:

Gal. v. 19.

Footnote 1156:

Rom. viii. 1.

Footnote 1157:

Acts x. 44-48.

Footnote 1158:

Acts xxii. 16.

Footnote 1159:

1 Cor. xii. 13.

Footnote 1160:

Acts xix. 1-6.

Footnote 1161:

Exod. iv. 25.

Footnote 1162:

Matt. xxviii. 19.

Footnote 1163:

Heb. v. 4.

Footnote 1164:

Rom. xiv. 23.

CHAPTER XVI.
PÆDOBAPTISM PERFECTLY CONSISTENT WITH THE INSTITUTION OF CHRIST AND THE
NATURE OF THE SIGN.

As some turbulent spirits in the present age have raised fierce
disputes, which still continue to agitate the Church, on the subject of
infant baptism, I cannot refrain from adding some observations with a
view to repress their violence. If any one should think this chapter
extended to an immoderate length, I would request him to consider, that
purity of doctrine in a capital point, and the peace of the Church,
ought to be of too much importance in our estimation for us to feel any
thing tedious which may conduce to the restoration of both. I shall also
study to make this discussion of as much use as possible to a further
elucidation of the mystery of baptism. They attack infant baptism with
an argument which carries with it an appearance of great plausibility,
asserting that it is not founded on any institution of Christ, but was
first introduced by the presumption and corrupt curiosity of man, and
afterwards received with foolish and inconsiderate facility. For a
sacrament rests on no authority, unless it stands on the certain
foundation of the word of God. But what if, on a full examination of the
subject, it shall appear that this is a false and groundless calumny on
the holy ordinance of the Lord? Let us, therefore, inquire into its
first origin. And if it shall be found to have been a mere invention of
human presumption, we ought to renounce it, and regulate the true
observance of baptism solely by the will of God. But if it shall be
proved to be sanctioned by his undoubted authority, it behoves us to
beware lest, by opposing the holy institutions of God, we offer an
insult to their Author himself.

II. In the first place, it is a principle sufficiently known, and
acknowledged by all believers, that the right consideration of
sacramental signs consists not merely in the external ceremonies, but
that it chiefly depends on the promise and the spiritual mysteries which
the Lord has appointed those ceremonies to represent. Whoever,
therefore, wishes to be fully informed of the meaning of baptism, and
what baptism is, must not fix his attention on the element and the
outward spectacle, but must rather elevate his thoughts to the promises
of God which are offered to us in it, and to those internal and
spiritual things which it represents to us. He who discovers these
things, has attained the solid truth and all the substance of baptism,
and thence he will also learn the reason and use of the external
sprinkling. On the other hand, he who contemptuously disregards these
things, and confines his attention entirely to the visible ceremony,
will understand neither the force nor propriety of baptism, nor even the
meaning or use of the water. This sentiment is established by
testimonies of Scripture too numerous and clear to leave the least
necessity for pursuing it any further at present. It remains, therefore,
that from the promises given in baptism, we endeavour to deduce its
nature and meaning. The Scripture shows, that the first thing
represented in it, is the remission and purgation of sins, which we
obtain in the blood of Christ; and the second the mortification of the
flesh, which consists in the participation of his death, by which
believers are regenerated to newness of life, and so into communion with
him. This is the sum to which we may refer every thing delivered in the
Scriptures concerning baptism, except that it is also a sign by which we
testify our religion before men.

III. As the people of God, before the institution of baptism, had
circumcision instead of it, let us examine the similarity and difference
between these two signs, in order to discover how far we may argue from
one to the other. When the Lord gave Abraham the command of
circumcision, he prefaced it by saying, “I will be a God unto thee, and
to thy seed after thee;” at the same time declaring himself to be
“Almighty,” having an abundance of all things at his disposal, that
Abraham might expect to find his hand the source of every
blessing.[1165] These words contain the promise of eternal life,
according to the interpretation of Christ, who deduces from this
declaration an argument to evince the immortality and resurrection of
believers. “For God,” says he, “is not the God of the dead, but of the
living.”[1166] Wherefore also Paul, in showing the Ephesians from what
misery the Lord had delivered them, concludes, from their not having
been admitted to the covenant of circumcision, that “at that time” they
“were without Christ, strangers from the covenants of promise, having no
hope and without God;”[1167] all these things being comprehended in that
covenant. But the first access to God, the first entrance into immortal
life, is the remission of sins. Whence it follows that this promise
corresponds with the promise of baptism respecting our purgation. The
Lord afterwards stipulated with Abraham, that he should walk before him
in sincerity and purity of heart: this belongs to mortification, or
regeneration. And to preclude any doubt that circumcision is a sign of
mortification, Moses more expressly declares it in another place, when
he exhorts the Israelites to circumcise their hearts, because the Lord
had chosen them for himself above all the nations of the earth. As God,
when he adopts the posterity of Abraham to be his people, commands them
to be circumcised, so Moses pronounces it to be necessary to circumcise
the heart, thereby declaring the true signification of that carnal
circumcision.[1168] Then, that no one might attempt this in his own
strength, he teaches that it is the work of Divine grace.[1169] All
these things are so often inculcated by the prophets, that there is no
need to collect here the numerous testimonies which every where present
themselves. We have ascertained, therefore, that a spiritual promise,
the very same which is given to us in baptism, was given to the fathers
in circumcision; which represented to them the remission of sins and the
mortification of the flesh. Moreover, as we have shown that Christ, in
whom both these things are obtained, is the foundation of baptism, the
same must be evident of circumcision. For he was promised to Abraham,
and in him the blessing of all nations; and the sign of circumcision was
added in confirmation of this grace.

IV. There is now no difficulty in discovering what similarity or what
difference there is between these two signs. The promise, in which we
have stated the virtue of the signs to consist, is the same in both;
including the paternal favour of God, remission of sins, and eternal
life. In the next place, the thing signified also is one and the same,
namely, regeneration. The foundation, on which the accomplishment of
these things rests, is the same in both. Wherefore there is no
difference in the internal mystery, by which all the force and peculiar
nature of sacraments must be determined. All the difference lies in the
external ceremony, which is the smallest portion of it; whereas the
principal part depends on the promise and the thing signified. We may
conclude, therefore, that whatever belongs to circumcision, except the
difference of the visible ceremony, belongs also to baptism. To this
inference and comparison we are led by the apostle’s rule, which directs
us to examine every interpretation of Scripture by the proportion of
faith.[1170] And, indeed, the truth on this subject is obvious to the
slightest observation. For as circumcision was a pledge to the Jews, by
which they were assured of their adoption as the people and family of
God, and on their parts professed their entire subjection to him, and
therefore was their first entrance into the Church, so now we are
initiated into the Church of God by baptism, are numbered among his
people, and profess to devote ourselves to his service. Hence it is
evident, beyond all controversy, that baptism has succeeded in the place
of circumcision.

V. Now, if it be inquired, whether baptism may rightly be administered
to infants, shall we not pronounce it an excess of folly, and even
madness, in any one who resolves to dwell entirely on the element of
water and the external observance, and cannot bear to direct his
thoughts to the spiritual mystery; a due consideration of which will
prove, beyond all doubt, that baptism is justly administered to infants,
as that to which they are fully entitled? For the Lord, in former ages,
did not favour them with circumcision without making them partakers of
all those things which were then signified by circumcision. Otherwise,
he must have deluded his people with mere impostures, if he deceived
them by fallacious symbols; which it is dreadful even to hear. For he
expressly pronounces that the circumcision of a little infant should
serve as a seal for the confirmation of the covenant. But if the
covenant remains firm and unmoved, it belongs to the children of
Christians now, as much as it did to the infants of the Jews under the
Old Testament. But if they are partakers of the thing signified, why
shall they be excluded from the sign? If they obtain the truth, why
shall they be debarred from the figure? Though the external sign in the
sacrament is so connected with the word, as not to be separated from it,
yet if it be distinguished, which shall we esteem of the greater
importance? Certainly, when we see that the sign is subservient to the
word, we shall pronounce it to be inferior to it, and assign it the
subordinate place. While the word of baptism, then, is directed to
infants, why shall the sign, which is an appendix to the word, be
prohibited to them? This one reason, if there were no others, would be
abundantly sufficient for the refutation of all opposers. The objection
that there was a particular day fixed for circumcision, is a mere
evasion. We admit that we are not now bound to certain days, like the
Jews; but when the Lord, though he prescribes no particular day, yet
declares it to be his pleasure that infants shall be received into his
covenant by a solemn rite, what do we want more?

VI. The Scripture, however, still affords a more certain knowledge of
the truth. For it is most evident that the covenant which the Lord once
made with Abraham continues as much in force with Christians in the
present day, as it did formerly with the Jews; and consequently that
that word is no less applicable to Christians than it was to the Jews.
Unless we suppose that Christ by his advent diminished or curtailed the
grace of the Father; which is execrable blasphemy. Wherefore the
children of the Jews, because they were made heirs of that covenant, and
distinguished from the children of the impious, were called a holy seed;
and for the same reason, the children of Christians, even when only one
of the parents is pious, are accounted holy, and according to the
testimony of the apostle, differ from the impure seed of idolaters. Now,
as the Lord, immediately after having made the covenant with Abraham,
commanded it to be sealed in infants by an external sacrament, what
cause will Christians assign why they should not also at this day
testify and seal the same in their children? Nor let it be objected,
that the Lord commanded not his covenant to be confirmed by any other
symbol than that of circumcision, which has long ago been abolished. For
it is easy to reply, that during the time of the Old Testament he
appointed circumcision for the confirmation of his covenant; but that
since the abrogation of circumcision, there always remains the same
reason for confirming it, which we have in common with the Jews. It is
necessary, therefore, to be careful in observing what we have in common
with them, and what they had different from us. The covenant is common,
the reason for confirming it is common. Only the mode of confirmation is
different; for to them it was confirmed by circumcision, which among us
has been succeeded by baptism. Otherwise, if the testimony by which the
Jews were assured of the salvation of their seed be taken away from us,
the effect of the advent of Christ has been to render the grace of God
more obscure and less attested to us than it was to the Jews. If this
cannot be affirmed without great dishonour to Christ, by whom the
infinite goodness of God has been diffused over the earth, and
manifested to men in a more conspicuous and liberal manner than at any
former period, we must be obliged to confess, that at least it ought not
to be more concealed or less attested than under the obscure shadows of
the law.

VII. Wherefore the Lord Jesus, to exhibit a specimen from which the
world might understand that he was come to extend rather than to limit
the mercy of the Father, kindly received the infants that were presented
to him, and embraced them in his arms, chiding his disciples who
endeavoured to forbid their approach to him, because they would keep
those, of whom was the kingdom of heaven, at a distance from him who is
the only way of entrance into it. But some will object, What resemblance
does this embrace of Christ bear to baptism? for he is not said to have
baptized them, but to have received them, taken them in his arms, and
blessed them; therefore, if we desire to imitate his example, let us
assist infants with our prayers, but let us not baptize them. But it is
necessary to consider the conduct of Christ with more attention than it
receives from persons of this class. For it is not to be passed over as
a thing of little importance, that Christ commanded infants to be
brought to him, and added, as a reason for this command, “For of such is
the kingdom of heaven;” and afterwards gave a practical testimony of his
will, when, embracing them in his arms, he commended them to his Father
by his prayers and benedictions. If it be reasonable for infants to be
brought to Christ, why is it not allowable to admit them to baptism, the
symbol of our communion and fellowship with Christ? If of them is the
kingdom of heaven, why shall they be denied the sign, which opens, as it
were, an entrance into the Church, that, being received into it, they
may be enrolled among the heirs of the heavenly kingdom? How unjust
shall we be, if we drive away from Christ those whom he invites to him;
if we deprive them of the gifts with which he adorns them; if we exclude
those whom he freely admits! But if we examine how far what Christ did
on that occasion differs from baptism, how much greater importance shall
we attach to baptism, by which we testify that infants are included in
the covenant of God, than to the reception, the embrace, the imposition
of hands, and the prayers by which Jesus Christ himself acknowledged
them as his, and declared them to be sanctified by him! The other cavils
by which our opponents endeavour to elude the force of this passage,
only betray their ignorance. For they argue that as Christ said, “Suffer
little children to _come_,” they must have been grown to such an age and
stature as to be capable of walking. But they are called by the
evangelists Βρεφη; and παιδια, two words used by the Greeks to signify
little infants hanging on the breast. The word “_come_,” therefore, is
merely used to denote “_access_.” To such evasions are persons obliged
to have recourse, who resist the truth. Nor is there any more solidity
in the objection, that the kingdom of heaven is not said to belong to
infants, but to those who resemble them, because the expression is, not
of _them_, but “of _such_ is the kingdom of heaven.” For if this be
admitted, what kind of reason would it be that Christ assigns, with a
view to show that infants in age ought not to be prevented from
approaching him, when he says, “Suffer little children to come unto me?”
Nothing can be plainer than that he intends those who are in a state of
real infancy. And to prevent this from being thought unreasonable, he
adds, “Of such is the kingdom of heaven.” And if infants be necessarily
comprehended, it is beyond all doubt that the word “_such_” designates
both infants themselves and those who resemble them.[1171]

VIII. Now, every one must perceive, that the baptism of infants, which
is so strongly supported by the authority of Scripture, is very far from
being an invention of men. Nor is there much plausibility in the
objection, that it is nowhere stated that even a single infant was
baptized by the hands of the apostles. For though no such circumstance
is expressly mentioned by the evangelists, yet, on the other hand, as
they are never excluded when mention happens to be made of the baptism
of any family, who can rationally conclude from this, that they were not
baptized? If there were any force in such arguments, women might as well
be interdicted from the Lord’s supper, because we have no account of
their having been admitted to it in the days of the apostles. But in
this we are content with the rule of faith. For when we consider the
design of the institution of the Lord’s supper, the conclusion is easy
respecting the persons who ought to be admitted to a participation of
it. We observe the same rule also in the case of baptism. For when we
consider the end of its institution, we evidently perceive that it
belongs to infants as well as to adults. Therefore they cannot be
deprived of it without a manifest evasion of the will of the Divine
Author. What they circulate among the uninformed multitude, that after
the resurrection of Christ, a long series of years passed, in which
infant baptism was unknown, is shamefully contrary to truth; for there
is no ancient writer who does not refer its origin, as a matter of
certainty, to the age of the apostles.

IX. It remains for us briefly to show what advantage results from this
ceremony, both to believers who present their children to the Church to
be baptized, and to the infants themselves who are washed in the holy
water; to guard it from being despised as useless or unimportant. But if
any man takes it into his head to ridicule infant baptism on this
pretext, he holds the command of circumcision, which was given by the
Lord, in equal contempt. For what will they allege to impugn the baptism
of infants, which may not be retorted against circumcision? Thus the
Lord avenges the arrogance of those, who forthwith condemn what their
carnal sense does not comprehend. But God furnishes us with other
weapons to repel their folly; nor does this sacred ordinance of his
appointment, which we experience to be a source of peculiar support and
consolation to our faith, deserve to be called unnecessary. For this
sign of God, communicated to a child, like the impress of a seal,
ratifies and confirms the promise given to the pious parent, declaring
that the Lord will be a God, not only to him, but also to his seed, and
that he is determined to exercise his goodness and grace, not only
towards him, but towards his posterity even to a thousand generations.
The manifestation here given of the mercy of God, in the first place,
furnishes the most abundant matter for the celebration of his glory; and
in the second place, fills pious breasts with more than common joy, by
which they are excited to a more ardent return of affection to such an
indulgent Father, in whom they discover such care of their posterity on
their account. Nor shall I regard an objection, if it should be urged,
that the mere promise of God ought to be sufficient to assure us of the
salvation of our children; since God, who knows our weakness, and has
been pleased in this instance to indulge it, has decided otherwise. Let
those, therefore, who embrace the promise of God that he will perpetuate
his mercy to their offspring, consider it their duty to present them to
the Church to be signed with the symbol of mercy, and thereby to animate
their minds to stronger confidence, when they actually see the covenant
of the Lord engraven on the bodies of their children. The children also
receive some advantage from their baptism, their ingrafting into the
body of the Church being a more peculiar recommendation of them to the
other members; and afterwards, when they grow to years of maturity, it
operates upon them as a powerful stimulus to a serious attention to the
worship of God, by whom they were accepted as his children by the solemn
symbol of adoption, before they were capable of knowing him as their
Father. Finally, we ought to be alarmed by the vengeance which God
threatens to inflict, if any one disdains to mark his son with the
symbol of the covenant; for the contempt of that symbol involves the
rejection and abjuration of the grace which it presents.

X. Let us now discuss the arguments with which some violent disputants
continue to impugn this holy institution of God. In the first place,
finding themselves very hardly pressed and exceedingly embarrassed by
the similarity of baptism and circumcision, they labour to establish a
considerable difference between these two signs, that one may appear to
have nothing in common with the other. For they affirm, first, that
different things are signified; secondly, that the covenant is entirely
different; and thirdly, that the children are mentioned in a different
manner. But when they endeavour to prove the first point, they allege
that circumcision was a figure of mortification, and not of baptism;
which we most readily grant, for it is an excellent argument in our
favour. We urge no other proof of our sentiment, than that baptism and
circumcision are equally signs of mortification. Hence we conclude, that
baptism was introduced in the place of circumcision, and represents to
us the very same thing which that formerly did to the Jews. In asserting
a difference of the covenant, with what presumption and absurdity do
they corrupt the Scripture, and that not in a single passage, but
without leaving any part of it secure from their perversions. For they
represent the carnality of the Jews to be such, as to give them a
greater resemblance to brutes than to rational beings; contending that
the covenant made with them was limited to a temporary life, and that
the promises given to them were all confined to present and corporeal
enjoyments. If this notion be admitted, what remains but to consider the
Jewish people as pampered for a season by the Divine bounty, (like a
herd of swine, fattened in a sty,) to perish at length in eternal ruin?
For whenever we adduce circumcision and the promises annexed to it, they
reply, that circumcision was a literal sign, and that the promises
connected with it were all carnal.

XI. Certainly, if circumcision was a literal sign, the same opinion must
be formed of baptism; for the apostle makes one no more spiritual than
the other. He says to the Colossians, “In Christ ye are circumcised with
the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins
of the flesh;” and this he calls “the circumcision of Christ.” In
explication of this sentiment, he adds, that they were “buried with
Christ in baptism.”[1172] What is the meaning of this language, but that
the accomplishment and truth of baptism is the same with the
accomplishment and truth of circumcision, since they both represent the
same thing? For his design is to show that baptism was to Christians the
same that circumcision had before been to the Jews. But as we have now
clearly evinced that the promises of these two signs, and the mysteries
represented by them, are precisely the same, we shall insist no longer
on this point at present. I will only recommend believers to consider,
whether that sign ought to be accounted earthly and literal, which
contains nothing but what is spiritual and heavenly. But to guard the
simple against their fallacies, we shall briefly reply by the way to one
objection, by which they endeavour to support this shameful
misrepresentation. It is very certain that the principal promises of the
covenant, which God made with the Israelites under the Old Testament,
were spiritual, and had reference to eternal life; and that they were
also understood by the fathers, as they ought to be, in a spiritual
sense, and inspired them with confident hopes of the life to come,
towards which they aspired with all the powers of their souls. At the
same time, we are far from denying that he testified his benevolence to
them by terrestrial and carnal advantages, by which we also maintain
that their hopes of spiritual promises were confirmed. Thus, when he
promised eternal blessedness to his servant Abraham, he added, in order
to set a manifest token of his favour before his eyes, another promise
respecting the possession of the land of Canaan. In this manner we ought
to understand all the terrestrial promises which were given to the
Jewish nation; so that the spiritual promise may always be considered as
a source and foundation, to which the others may be referred. But having
treated these points more at large in discussing the difference of the
Old and New Testaments, I touch the more slightly upon them here.

XII. In the mention of the children they find this variety; that under
the Old Testament, those were called the children of Abraham, who
derived their natural descent from him; but that now this appellation is
given to those who imitate his faith; and that, therefore, that carnal
infancy, which was ingrafted into the fellowship of the Church by
circumcision, prefigured those spiritual infants of the New Testament,
who by the word of God are regenerated to an immortal life. In this
language we discover, indeed, a small spark of truth; but it is a great
error of these persons, that while they lay hold of whatever first comes
to their hands, when they ought to pursue it much further, and to
compare many things together, they pertinaciously insist on a single
word; hence it necessarily happens that they are often deceived, because
they acquire no solid knowledge of any thing. We confess that the
natural seed of Abraham did for a time hold the place of those spiritual
children which are incorporated with him by faith. For we are called his
children, notwithstanding there is no natural relationship between him
and us. But if they understand, as they certainly do, that no spiritual
blessing was ever promised by God to the carnal seed of Abraham, they
are greatly deceived. It behoves us to aim at a more correct sentiment,
to which we are directed by the certain guidance of the Scripture. The
Lord, therefore, promised to Abraham, that he should have a Seed, in
whom all the nations of the earth were to be blessed, and accompanied
this promise with an assurance that he would be a God to him, and to his
seed. All those, who by faith receive Christ, the Author of the
blessing, are heirs of this promise, and are therefore denominated
“children of Abraham.”

XIII. Though, after the resurrection of Christ, the boundaries of the
kingdom of God began to be extended far and wide into all nations,
without any distinction, that, according to the declaration of Christ,
believers might be collected “from the east, and from the west, and
from the north, and from the south,” to “sit down with Abraham, and
Isaac, and Jacob,”[1173] in the glory of heaven, yet he had embraced
the Jews with this great mercy for many ages before; and because he
had passed by all others, and selected this one nation, to be for a
season the exclusive objects of his grace, he called them his
“peculiar treasure” and “special people.”[1174] In attestation of this
beneficence, the Lord gave them circumcision, which was a sign to
teach the Jews that he would be their defence and salvation; and the
knowledge of this inspired their hearts with the hope of eternal life.
For what can be wanting to them whom God has taken into his charge?
Wherefore the apostle, with a view to prove that the Gentiles are
children of Abraham as well as the Jews, expresses himself in the
following manner: “Faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness in
uncircumcision. And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of
the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised;
that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be
not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also;
and the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision
only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father
Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised.”[1175] Do not we see
that equal dignity is attributed to Jews and Gentiles? For during the
time fixed by the decree of God, Abraham was the father of
circumcision. When the “middle wall of partition between” them was
“broken down,”[1176] as the apostle says in another place, to give the
Gentiles an entrance into the kingdom of God, he became also their
father, and that without the sign of circumcision; for instead of
circumcision, they have baptism. The express intimation, that Abraham
was not a father to them who were of the circumcision only, was
introduced by the apostle, to repress the vain confidence of some who
neglected all concern about piety, and prided themselves in mere
ceremonies. In the same manner, we may now refute the vanity of those
who in baptism never carry their thoughts beyond the water.

XIV. But in objection to this, another passage is adduced from the same
apostle, in which he states, “that they which are the children of the
flesh” are not “the children of Abraham,” but that only “the children of
the promise are counted for the seed.”[1177] For this passage seems to
imply, that carnal descent from Abraham is nothing, though we attribute
some importance to it. But it is requisite to pay more particular
attention to the subject which the apostle is here discussing. For in
order to show to the Jews, that the goodness of God was not confined to
the seed of Abraham, and even that carnal descent from him was of no
value in itself, he alleges, in proof of it, the cases of Ishmael and
Esau; who, notwithstanding they were the true offspring of Abraham
according to the flesh, were rejected as if they had been strangers, and
the blessing remained with Isaac and Jacob. Hence follows what he
afterwards affirms—that salvation depends on the mercy of God, which he
imparts to whom he pleases; but that the Jews have no reason for
satisfaction, or glorying in the name of the covenant, unless they
observe the law of the covenant; that is, obey the Divine word. Yet,
after having demolished their vain confidence in their descent, knowing,
on the other hand, that the covenant which God had once made with the
posterity of Abraham could by no means be invalidated, he argues, that
the natural descendants are not to be deprived of their dignity; by
virtue of which he shows that the Jews were the first and natural heirs
of the gospel, only that they had been rejected as unworthy, on account
of their ingratitude, yet that the heavenly benediction had not entirely
departed from their nation. For which reason, though they were rebels
and violators of the covenant, yet he calls them holy; such high honours
does he give to the holy generation, which God honoured with his sacred
covenant; but he considers us, in comparison with them, as the
posthumous, and even abortive children of Abraham, and that not by
nature, but by adoption; as if a branch broken off from its native tree
were ingrafted on another stock. That they might not be defrauded of
their prerogative, therefore, it was necessary for the gospel to be
first announced to them; for they are, as it were, the first-born in the
family of God. Wherefore this honour was to be given to them, till they
rejected the offer of it, and by their ingratitude caused it to be
transferred to the Gentiles. Nor, whatever be the obstinacy with which
they persist in opposing the gospel, ought they, on that account, to be
despised by us, if we consider that, for the sake of the promise, the
blessing of God still remains among them; as the apostle clearly
testifies that it will never entirely depart from them; “for the gifts
and calling of God are without repentance.”[1178]

XV. See, now, the importance and the estimate to be formed of the
promise given to the posterity of Abraham. Therefore, though we have no
doubt that the distinction of the heirs of the kingdom from those who
have no share in it, is the free act of the sovereign election of God,
yet, at the same time, we perceive that he has been pleased to display
his mercy in a peculiar manner on the seed of Abraham, and to testify
and seal it by circumcision. The same reason is applicable to the
Christian Church. For as Paul, in that passage, argues that the children
of the Jews were sanctified by their parents, so, in another
place,[1179] he teaches that the children of Christians derive the same
sanctification from their parents; whence it is inferred, that they who,
on the contrary, are condemned as impure, are deservedly separated from
others. Now, who can doubt the falsehood of the consequence attempted to
be established, that the infants who were circumcised in former ages,
only prefigured those who are infants in a spiritual sense, being
regenerated by the word of God? Paul does not reason in this manner,
when he says, “that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for
the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers;”[1180]
as if he had said, Since the covenant made with Abraham relates to his
seed, Jesus Christ, in order to execute and discharge the promise once
pledged by the Father, came to save the people of the Jews. We see how,
even after the resurrection of Christ, Paul understands that the promise
of the covenant is to be fulfilled, not only in an allegorical sense,
but, according to the literal import of the words, to the natural seed
of Abraham. To the same effect is the declaration of Peter to the Jews,
“The promise is unto you and to your children,”[1181] and the
appellation under which he addresses them, “Ye are the children of the
covenant,”[1182] and if children, then heirs. A similar sentiment is
conveyed in another passage of the apostle, which we have already
quoted, where he represents the circumcision performed on infants as a
testimony of the communion which they have with Christ.[1183] And, on
the contrary principle, what will become of that promise, by which the
Lord, in the second precept of his law, declares to his servants, that
he will be merciful to their seed, even to a thousand generations?[1184]
Shall we here have recourse to allegories? That would be a frivolous
evasion. Shall we say that this promise is cancelled? That would be
subversive of the law, which, on the contrary, Christ came to establish,
as a rule, for a holy life. It ought to be admitted, therefore, beyond
all controversy, that God is so kind and liberal to his servants, as,
for their sakes, to appoint even the children who shall descend from
them to be enrolled among his people.

XVI. The other differences which they endeavour to establish between
baptism and circumcision, are not only ridiculous, and destitute of
every appearance of reason, but are even repugnant to each other. For
after they have affirmed that baptism belongs to the first day of the
spiritual conflict, but circumcision to the eighth, when the
mortification is already completed,—immediately forgetting this, they
change their story, and call circumcision a sign of the mortification of
the flesh, and baptism a symbol of a burial, to which none are to be
consigned but those who are already dead. Where can we find another
instance of such levity of self-contradiction? For, according to the
first proposition, baptism ought to precede circumcision; according to
the second, it ought to follow it. Yet it is not a new thing for the
minds of men to run into such inconsistencies, when they prefer their
own dreams to the unerring word of God. We say, therefore, that the
first of these differences is a mere dream. If they wished to allegorize
on the eighth day, yet there was no propriety in this manner of doing
it. It would have been much better to follow the ancients, and refer the
number of the day either to the resurrection of Christ, which took place
on the eighth day, and on which we know that newness of life depends; or
to the whole course of the present life, which ought to be a course of
progressive mortification, till, at the termination of life, the
mortification also should be completed. It is probable, however, that
God deferred circumcision to the eighth day on account of the tenderness
of young infants, whose lives might be endangered by the performance of
that rite immediately on their birth. Nor is there much more solidity in
the second position, that, after being dead, we are buried by baptism;
since the Scripture expressly teaches, that “we are buried by baptism
into death,”[1185] in order to our entrance on a course of
mortification, and continuance in it from that time forward! Nor is
there any more propriety in the objection, that, if it be necessary to
conform baptism to circumcision, women ought not to be baptized. For if
it be evident, that the sign of circumcision testified the
sanctification of the seed of Israel, there can be no doubt that it was
given equally for the sanctification of males and females. And though
only the males were circumcised, they alone being capable of it, the
females were in a certain sense partakers of their circumcision.
Dismissing such follies, therefore, let us never forget the similarity
of baptism and circumcision, between which we discover a complete
agreement in the internal mystery, the promises, the use, and the
efficacy.

XVII. They consider themselves as advancing a most powerful argument for
excluding infants from baptism, when they allege, that by reason of
their age they are not yet capable of understanding the mystery
signified in it; that is, spiritual regeneration, which cannot take
place in early infancy. Therefore they conclude, they are to be
considered in no other view than as children of Adam, till they have
attained an age which admits of a second birth. But all these things are
uniformly contradicted by the truth of God. For if they must be left
among the children of Adam, they are left in death; for in Adam we can
only die. On the contrary, Christ commands them to be brought to him.
Why? Because he is life. To give them life, therefore, he makes them
partakers of himself; while these men, by driving them away from him,
adjudge them to death. For if they pretend that infants do not perish,
even though they are considered as children of Adam, their error is
abundantly refuted by the testimony of Scripture. For when it pronounces
that “in Adam all die,”[1186] it follows that there remains no hope of
life but in Christ. In order to become heirs of life, therefore, it is
necessary for us to be partakers of him. So, when it is said, in other
places, that we are “by nature the children of wrath,”[1187] and
“conceived in sin,”[1188] with which condemnation is always connected,
it follows, that we must depart from our own nature, to have any
admission to the kingdom of God. And what can be more explicit than this
declaration, “that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of
God?”[1189] Let every thing of our own, therefore, be destroyed, which
will not be effected without regeneration, and then we shall see this
possession of the kingdom. Lastly, if Christ speaks the truth, when he
declares himself to be “life,”[1190] it is necessary for us to be
ingrafted into him, that we may be rescued from the bondage of death.
But how, it is inquired, are infants regenerated, who have no knowledge
either of good or evil? We reply, that the work of God is not yet
without existence, because it is not observed or understood by us. Now,
it is certain that some infants are saved; and that they are previously
regenerated by the Lord, is beyond all doubt. For if they are born in a
state of corruption, it is necessary for them to be purified before they
are admitted into the kingdom of God, into which “there shall in no wise
enter any thing that defileth.”[1191] If they are born sinners, as both
David and Paul affirm, either they must remain unacceptable and hateful
to God, or it is necessary for them to be justified. And what do we
require more, when the Judge himself declares that there is no entrance
into the heavenly life, except for those who are born again?[1192] And,
to silence all objectors, by sanctifying John the Baptist in his
mother’s womb, he exhibited an example of what he was able to do for
others. Nor can they gain any advantage by their frivolous evasion, that
this was only a single case, which does not justify the conclusion that
the Lord generally acts in this manner with infants. For we use no such
argument. We only mean to show, that they unjustly confine the power of
God within those narrow limits to which it does not suffer itself to be
restricted. Their other subterfuge is equally weak. They allege that,
according to the usage of the Scripture, the phrase _from the womb_
denotes _from childhood_. But it is easy to see that, in the declaration
of the angel to Zacharias, it was used in a different sense, and that
John was to be filled with the Holy Spirit, even before he was
born.[1193] Let us not attempt, therefore, to impose laws upon God,
whose power has sustained no diminution, but who is able to sanctify
whom he pleases, as he sanctified this child.

XVIII. And for this reason, Christ was sanctified from his earliest
infancy, that he might sanctify in himself all his elect, of every age,
without any difference. For as, in order to obliterate the guilt of the
transgression which had been perpetrated in our flesh, he assumed to
himself that very flesh, that he might perform a perfect obedience in
it, on our account, and in our stead, so he was conceived of the Holy
Spirit, that, having the whole body which he assumed, fully endued with
the sanctity of the Spirit, he might communicate the same to us. If
Christ exhibits a perfect exemplar of all the graces which God bestows
upon his children, he will also furnish us with a proof, that the age of
infancy is not altogether incompatible with sanctification. But, however
this may be, we consider it as clear, beyond all controversy, that not
one of the elect is called out of the present life, without having been
previously regenerated and sanctified by the Spirit of God. Their
objection, that the Holy Spirit, in the Scriptures, acknowledges no
regeneration, except from “the incorruptible seed,” that is, “the word
of God,”[1194] is a misinterpretation of that passage of Peter, which
merely comprehends believers who had been taught by the preaching of the
gospel. To such persons, indeed, we grant that the word of the Lord is
the only seed of spiritual regeneration; but we deny that it ought to be
concluded from this, that infants cannot be regenerated by the power of
God, which is as easy to him as it is wonderful and mysterious to us.
Besides, it would not be safe to affirm, that the Lord cannot reveal
himself in any way so as to make himself known to them.

XIX. But our opponents say, “Faith cometh by hearing,”[1195] of which
they have not yet acquired the use, and they cannot be capable of
knowing God; for Moses declares them to “have no knowledge between good
and evil.”[1196] But they do not consider, that when the apostle makes
hearing the source of faith, he only describes the ordinary economy and
dispensation of the Lord, which he generally observes in the calling of
his people; but does not prescribe a perpetual rule for him, precluding
his employment of any other method; which he has certainly employed in
the calling of many, to whom he has given the true knowledge of himself
in an internal manner, by the illumination of his Spirit, without the
intervention of any preaching. But as they think it would be such a
great absurdity for any knowledge of God to be given to infants, to whom
Moses denies the knowledge of good and evil, I would beg them to inform
me, what danger can result from our affirming that they already receive
some portion of that grace, of which they will ere long enjoy the full
abundance. For if the plenitude of life consists in the perfect
knowledge of God,—when some of them, whom death removes from the present
state in their earliest infancy, pass into eternal life, they are
certainly admitted to the immediate contemplation of the presence of
God. As the Lord, therefore, will illuminate them with the full
splendour of his countenance in heaven, why may he not also, if such be
his pleasure, irradiate them with some faint rays of it in the present
life; especially if he does not deliver them from all ignorance before
he liberates them from the prison of the body? Not that I would hastily
affirm them to be endued with the same faith which we experience in
ourselves, or at all to possess a similar knowledge of faith, which I
would prefer leaving in suspense; my design is only to check their
foolish arrogance, who presumptuously assert or deny whatever they
please.

XX. To strengthen their cause still further, our opponents proceed to
allege, that baptism is a sacrament of repentance and faith; and that,
therefore, as neither of these can be exercised in infancy, infants
ought not to be admitted to a participation of baptism, the
signification of which would thereby be rendered vain. But these
arguments are directed against God, more than against us. For it is very
evident, from many testimonies of Scripture, that circumcision also was
a sign of repentance, and Paul calls it “a seal of the righteousness of
faith.”[1197] Let the reason, then, be demanded of God himself, why he
commanded it to be impressed on the bodies of infants. For, as baptism
and circumcision both stand on the same ground, they can attribute
nothing to the latter which they must not also grant to the former. If
they recur to their favourite subterfuge, that the age of infancy then
prefigured spiritual infants, it has been already answered. We say,
therefore, that since God formerly communicated to infants the rite of
circumcision, which was a sacrament of repentance and faith, it appears
to be no absurdity for them now to be admitted to a participation of
baptism; unless these men wish to offer a direct insult to the
institution of God. But in this, as well as in all the proceedings of
God, his wisdom and righteousness are sufficiently conspicuous to
repress the opposition and detraction of the impious. For though
infants, at the time of their circumcision, did not understand the
meaning of that sign, they were nevertheless truly circumcised into the
mortification of their corrupt and polluted nature, which they were to
pursue in mature years. In short, this objection may be answered without
any difficulty, by saying that they are baptized into future repentance
and faith; for though these graces have not yet been formed in them, the
seeds of both are nevertheless implanted in their hearts by the secret
operation of the Spirit. This answer at once overturns every argument
they urge against us, derived from the signification of baptism; as when
they allege the designation given it by Paul, where he calls it “the
washing of regeneration and renewing;”[1198] whence they argue that it
ought to be given only to such as are capable of being regenerated and
renewed. But we may reply, on the other hand, neither was circumcision,
which was a sign of regeneration, to be given to any but such as were
already regenerated; and this, in their apprehension, will be to condemn
the ordinance of God. Therefore, as we have suggested several times
before, whatever arguments tend equally to invalidate circumcision, can
have no force in the controversy against baptism. Nor can they escape
from any difficulty, by saying, that whatever clearly rests on the
authority of God, we ought to consider as fixed and determined, though
we can discover no reason for it; but that this reverence is not due to
infant baptism, or to other similar things, which are not enjoined upon
us by the express word of God; for they will always be held fast by this
dilemma. Either the command of God, respecting the circumcision of
infants, was legitimate and liable to no objections, or it was deserving
of censure. If there was no absurdity in that command, neither can any
absurdity be detected in the practice of infant baptism.

XXI. The charge of absurdity, with which they endeavour to stigmatize
it, we thus refute: If any of those who are the objects of divine
election, after having received the sign of regeneration, depart out of
this life before they have attained years of discretion, the Lord
renovates them by the power of his Spirit, incomprehensible to us, in
such a manner as he alone foresees will be necessary. If they happen to
live to an age at which they are capable of being instructed in the true
signification of baptism, they will hence be the more inflamed to the
pursuit of that renovation, with the token of which they find themselves
to have been favoured in their earliest infancy, that it might be the
object of their constant attention all their lifetime. In the same sense
must be understood what Paul states in two places, that we are “buried
with Christ by baptism.”[1199] For he does not mean that he who is to be
baptized, must previously be buried with Christ, but simply declares the
doctrine which is contained in baptism, and that to persons already
baptized; so that it would be unreasonable to argue from those passages,
that such burial with Christ must precede baptism. In this manner Moses
and the prophets reminded the people what was the meaning of
circumcision, though they had received that rite when they were infants.
To the same effect is what Paul writes to the Galatians, that “as many
as have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ.”[1200] For what
purpose? Why, that they might thenceforward live to Christ, who had
never lived to him before. And though in adults a knowledge of the
mystery ought to precede the reception of the sign, yet a different rule
is to be applied to infants, as we shall presently show. Nor can any
other conclusion be drawn from that passage of Peter, which they
consider as decisive in their favour—that baptism is “not the putting
away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience
toward God, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.”[1201] They contend
that this passage leaves not the least room for the baptism of infants,
who are not capable of that in which the truth of baptism is here stated
to consist. But they frequently fall into this error, of maintaining
that the thing signified should always precede the sign. For the truth
of circumcision also consisted in the same answer of a good conscience;
but if it ought of necessity to precede it, infants would never have
been circumcised by the command of God. But by showing us that the
answer of a good conscience is comprehended in the truth of
circumcision, and at the same time commanding infants to be circumcised,
he sufficiently indicates that it is administered with a view to
something future. Wherefore, all the present efficacy to be required in
the baptism of infants, is to ratify and confirm the covenant made with
them by the Lord. The remaining signification of this sacrament will
follow afterwards, at the time foreseen and appointed by the Lord.

XXII. It must now, I think, be evident to every person, that all
arguments of this kind are mere perversions of Scripture. Those which
remain, and are nearly allied to these, we shall run over in a cursory
manner. They object, that baptism is given for the remission of sins:
this we admit, and it is completely in favour of our opinion. For being
born sinners, we need pardon and remission even from our birth. Now, as
the Lord does not exclude infants from the hope of mercy, but rather
assures them of it, why shall we refuse them the sign, which is so far
inferior to the thing signified? Wherefore, the argument which they urge
against us, we retort upon themselves; infants are favoured with
remission of sins,—therefore they ought not to be deprived of the sign.
They also adduce that passage where the Lord is said to “cleanse the
Church with the washing of water by the word.”[1202] But no text could
be quoted more conclusive against their error; it furnishes an obvious
confirmation of our sentiment. If it be the will of Christ that the
ablution, with which he cleanses his Church, be testified by baptism, it
appears unreasonable that its testimony should be wanting in infants,
who are justly considered as part of the Church, since they are called
heirs of the kingdom of heaven. For Paul speaks of the whole Church,
when he describes it as cleansed with the washing of water. And, on the
same principle, from that passage where he says that we are all baptized
into the body of Christ,[1203] we conclude that infants, whom he numbers
among his members, ought to be baptized, that they may not be separated
from his body. See with what violence, and with what variety of weapons,
they attack the bulwarks of our faith!

XXIII. They proceed, in the next place, to the practice of the apostolic
age, in which no one is found to have been admitted to baptism without a
previous profession of faith and repentance. For in answer to those who
“were pricked in their heart, and said, What shall we do? Peter said
unto them,” first, “repent,” and then “be baptized for the remission of
sins.”[1204] In like manner Philip, when the eunuch requested to be
baptized, replied, “If thou believest with all thine heart, thou
mayest.”[1205] Hence they think themselves justified in concluding, that
baptism ought never to be administered to any person without being
preceded by faith and repentance. But if we adopt this reasoning, the
first of these passages, which makes no mention of faith, will evince
the sufficiency of repentance alone: the second, where repentance is not
required, will prove that faith alone is sufficient. I suppose they will
reply that one passage is elucidated by the other, and that therefore
they ought to be connected together. I also contend that other places
ought to be consulted, which may contribute to the solution of this
difficulty. For there are many passages of Scripture, the sense of which
depends on the circumstances connected with them. This is exemplified in
the cases now under consideration. For the persons addressed by Peter
and Philip were of an age capable of exercising repentance and faith. We
strenuously deny that such persons ought to be baptized, without a
knowledge of their repentance and faith, as far, at least, as they are
capable of being ascertained by the judgment of men. But that infants
ought to be ranked in a different class, is sufficiently evident; for,
under the former dispensation, if any person connected himself with the
Israelites in religious communion, it was necessary for him to be taught
the covenant of the Lord, and instructed in the law, before he received
circumcision, because he was an alien by birth, not one of the
Israelitish people, with whom the covenant, which was confirmed by
circumcision, had been made.

XXIV. So the Lord himself, when he adopts Abraham, does not begin with
circumcision, concealing for a time what was intended by that sign; but
he first announces the covenant which he designs to make with him, and
then, after he has received that promise in faith, makes him a partaker
of that sacrament. Why does the sacrament follow faith in the case of
Abraham, and in Isaac, his son, precede all exercise of understanding?
Because it is reasonable that a person, who at an adult age is admitted
to the fellowship of a covenant, to which he had hitherto been a
stranger, should first learn the conditions of it; but this is not
necessary in the case of an infant, who, by hereditary right, according
to the form of the promise, is already included in the covenant from its
very birth. Or, to express it with greater clearness and brevity, if the
children of believers, without the aid of understanding, are partakers
of the covenant, there is no reason why they should be excluded from the
sign because they are not capable of expressing their consent to the
stipulation of the covenant. This is evidently the reason why God
sometimes declares the children descended from the Israelites to be born
to himself;[1206] for he undoubtedly considers as his children, the
children of those to whose seed he has promised to be a Father. But he
who is an unbeliever, descended from impious parents, is accounted an
alien from the communion of the covenant, till he be united to God by
faith. It is no wonder, therefore, if he be not a partaker of the sign,
the signification of which in him would be delusive and vain. In this
sense Paul tells the Ephesians, that as long as they were immersed in
idolatry, they were “strangers from the covenant.”[1207] The whole of
the subject, if I mistake not, may be clearly and summarily stated in
the following position; that persons of adult age, who embrace the
Christian religion, having been hitherto aliens from the covenant, are
not to receive the sign of baptism without the intervention of faith and
repentance, which alone can give them an admission to the fellowship of
the covenant; but that the infant children of Christian parents, being
admitted by God to the inheritance of the covenant as soon as they are
born, are also to be admitted to baptism. To this must be referred what
is related by the evangelists, that the people “were baptized of John,
confessing their sins”[1208]—an example which we think ought to be
followed in the present day. For if a Turk or heathen were to offer
himself to baptism, we would not hastily admit him to that sacrament,
without his having first made a confession to the satisfaction of the
Church.

XXV. Moreover, they adduce the language of Christ, which is recorded by
John, and which they suppose to represent a present regeneration as
requisite to baptism; “Except a man be born of water and the Spirit, he
cannot enter into the kingdom of God.”[1209] See, they say, how baptism
is called _regeneration_ by the mouth of the Lord. When it is evident,
then, that infants are utterly incapable of regeneration, on what
pretence do we admit them to baptism, to which regeneration is
indispensably necessary? In the first place, they are deceived in
supposing that this passage refers to baptism, because it mentions
water. For, after Christ had declared to Nicodemus the corruption of
nature, and shown him the necessity of being born again,—because
Nicodemus was dreaming of a second corporeal birth, he here indicates
the manner in which God regenerates us, namely, by water and by the
Spirit; as if he had said, by the Spirit who, in the ablution and
purification of the souls of believers, performs the office of water. I
therefore understand by “water and the Spirit,” simply, the Spirit who
is water. Nor is this a novel mode of expression; for it perfectly
corresponds with that declaration of John the Baptist, “He that cometh
after me shall baptize with the Holy Ghost and with fire.”[1210] As _to
baptize with the Holy Spirit and with fire_, therefore, is to confer the
Holy Spirit, who, in regeneration, has the office and nature of fire, so
_to be born of water and of the Spirit_ is no other than to receive that
influence of the Spirit, which does in the soul what water does on the
body. I know that others give a different interpretation, but I have no
doubt that this is the genuine sense; because the intention of Christ is
simply to teach that all must be divested of their own nature, who
aspire to the kingdom of heaven. However, if we were desirous of
imitating their cavils, it would be easy for us, granting what they
require, to retort upon them, that baptism is prior to faith and
repentance, because, in the words of Christ, water is mentioned before
the Spirit. It is certain that this phrase denotes spiritual gifts; and,
if these follow baptism, I have established what I wish. But, leaving
all subterfuges, let us adhere to the simple interpretation which I have
proposed—that no one, till he is renewed by living water, that is, by
the Spirit, can enter into the kingdom of God.

XXVI. It is further evident that their notion ought to be exploded,
because it adjudges all unbaptized persons to eternal death. Let us
suppose their tenet to be admitted, and baptism to be administered to
adults alone; what will they say will become of a youth who is rightly
instructed in the first principles of piety, if he desires to be
baptized, but, contrary to the expectation of all around, happens to be
snatched away by sudden death? The Lord’s promise is clear: “Whosoever
believeth on the Son, shall not come into condemnation;” but “is passed
from death unto life.”[1211] We are nowhere informed of his having
condemned one who had yet not been baptized. By this I would not be
understood as implying that baptism may be despised with impunity; for,
so far from attempting to excuse such contempt, I affirm it to be a
violation of the covenant of the Lord; I only mean to evince that it is
not so necessary, as that a person, who is deprived of the opportunity
of embracing it, must immediately be considered as lost. But if we
assent to their notion, we shall condemn all, without exception, whom
any circumstance whatever prevents from being baptized, whatever faith
they may otherwise have, even that faith by which Christ himself is
enjoyed. Moreover, they sentence all infants to eternal death, by
denying them baptism, which, according to their own confession, is
necessary to salvation. Let them see, now, how well they agree with the
language of Christ, which adjudges the kingdom of heaven to little
children. But though we should grant them every thing they contend for
relative to the sense of this passage, still they will gain no advantage
from it, unless they first overturn the doctrine which we have already
established respecting the regeneration of infants.

XXVII. But the strongest argument of all in favour of their opinion,
they boast, is contained in the original institution of baptism, which
they quote from the last chapter of Matthew, where Christ, sending forth
his disciples to all nations, gave them a commission, first to teach,
and then to baptize. “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.”[1212] Then, from the last chapter of Mark, they add, “He that
believeth and is baptized shall be saved.”[1213] What more do we
require, say they, when the language of our Lord clearly expresses that
teaching ought to precede baptism, and represents baptism as subsequent
to faith? Of this order, an example was furnished even by the Lord Jesus
himself who was not baptized till he was “about thirty years of
age.”[1214] In what various ways do they embarrass themselves, and
betray their ignorance! For it is a mistake, worse than childish, to
consider that commission as the original institution of baptism, which
Christ had commanded his apostles to administer from the commencement of
his preaching. They have no reason to contend, therefore, that the law
and rule of baptism ought to be derived from those two passages, as if
they contained the first institution of it. Though we should indulge
them by admitting this error, yet what force is there in their
reasoning? Indeed, if we wanted to evade the force of their arguments,
we need not have recourse to any little subterfuge; a most ample field
presents itself before us. For while they so violently insist on the
order of the words, as to argue, that, when it is said, “Go teach and
baptize,” and “he that believeth and is baptized,” the meaning is, that
preaching ought to precede baptism, and that faith ought to precede the
reception of baptism,—why may not we, on the other hand, reply, that
baptizing ought to precede teaching the observance of those things which
Christ has commanded, because it is said, “Baptize, teaching them to
observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.” We have remarked
the same thing on the declaration of Christ, which has just been quoted,
respecting the regeneration of water and of the Spirit; for if it be
understood according to their interpretation, it will appear from that
passage that baptism is prior to regeneration, because it is mentioned
first: Christ teaches that we must be born again, not of the Spirit and
of water, but of water and of the Spirit.

XXVIII. Their invincible bulwark, in which they place such great
confidence, seems already somewhat shaken; but as the truth may be
sufficiently defended by simplicity, I have no inclination to escape
with such sophistical and trivial arguments; they shall therefore have a
solid reply. The principal command which Christ here gives to his
apostles, is to preach the gospel, to which he subjoins the
administration of baptism as an appendage. Besides, he says nothing of
baptism, any otherwise than as its administration is subordinate to the
office of teaching. For Christ sends his apostles to promulgate the
gospel to all the nations of the world, that by the doctrine of
salvation they may collect, from every land, men who before were lost,
and introduce them into his kingdom. But what men, or men of what
description? It is certain that there is no mention of any, but those
who are capable of receiving instruction. He afterwards adds, that such
persons, when they have been instructed, are to be baptized, and
subjoins a promise: “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.”
Is there even a single syllable in the whole discourse respecting
infants? What kind of argumentation, then, is that with which they
assail us? Persons of _adult_ age are to be instructed, in order that
they may believe before they are to be baptized; _therefore_ it is
unlawful to administer baptism to _infants_. It will be impossible for
them, with all their ingenuity, to prove any thing from this passage,
except that the gospel is first to be preached to those who are capable
of hearing it, before they are baptized; for it relates to no others.
Let them raise an obstacle from this, if they can, to exclude infants
from baptism.

XXIX. But to render their fallacies still more palpable, I will show the
absurdity of them by a very plain similitude. The apostle says, “that if
any would not work, neither should he eat.”[1215] Now, if any man should
pretend to infer from this, that infants ought to be deprived of food,
would he not deserve universal contempt? Why so? Because it would be a
perverse application to all men, indiscriminately, of what was spoken of
men of a certain class and a certain age. Nor is there any greater
propriety in their reasoning in the present case. For what every one
sees to belong exclusively to persons of adult age, they apply to
infants, in order to make them subject to a rule, which was only
prescribed for persons of riper years. The example of Christ is far from
affording any support to their cause. He was not baptized till he was
“about thirty years of age.” That is true indeed; but the reason is
obvious; because he then intended to lay a solid foundation for baptism
by his preaching, or rather to establish that which had a little before
been laid by John. Intending, therefore, to institute baptism in his
doctrine, in order to conciliate the greater authority to his
institution, he sanctified it in his own body, and that at the point of
time which he knew to be most proper, namely, when he was about to
commence his ministry. In short, they can prove nothing else from this
circumstance, except that baptism derived its origin and commencement
from the preaching of the gospel. If they approve of fixing the
thirtieth year, why do they not observe it, but admit every one to
baptism as soon as he is, in their judgment, sufficiently qualified for
it? And even Servetus, one of their leaders, though he pertinaciously
insisted on this age, yet began to boast of being a prophet himself when
he had only attained his twenty-first year. As though it ought to be
tolerated for a man to arrogate the office of a teacher in the Church
before he is a member of it.

XXX. At length they object, that there is no more reason why infants
should be admitted to baptism than to the Lord’s supper, which, however,
is not administered to them. As though the Scriptures did not make a
considerable difference between the two cases in every respect. Infant
communion was practised, indeed, in the ancient Church, as appears from
Cyprian and Augustine; but the custom has very properly been
discontinued. For if we consider the nature and property of baptism, we
find it to be an entrance or initiation into the Church, by which we are
enrolled among the people of God—a sign of our spiritual regeneration,
by which we are born again as the children of God; whereas, on the
contrary, the supper is appointed for those of riper years, who, having
passed the tender state of infancy, are capable of bearing solid meat.
This difference is very evidently marked in the Scripture; in which, as
far as relates to baptism, the Lord makes no distinction of age, whereas
he does not present the supper to the participation of all alike, but
only to those who are capable of discerning the body and blood of the
Lord, of examining their own consciences, of showing forth the Lord’s
death, and considering the power of it. Do we wish for any thing plainer
than what the apostle inculcates in the following exhortation? “Let a
man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that
cup.”[1216] It must, therefore, be preceded by examination, which would
in vain be expected from infants. Again: “He that eateth and drinketh
unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the
Lord’s body.”[1217] If no persons can be worthy partakers of it, except
those who can truly distinguish the holiness of the body of Christ, why
should we give to our tender infants poison instead of salutary food?
What is that precept of the Lord, “This do in remembrance of me?”[1218]
What is the inference which the apostle deduces from it? “As often as ye
eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord’s death till he
come.”[1219] What remembrance, I ask, shall we require from infants of
that event, of which they have never attained any knowledge? What
preaching of the cross of Christ, the virtue and benefit of which their
minds are not yet capable of comprehending? Not one of these things is
prescribed in baptism. Between these two signs, therefore, there is a
considerable difference; such as we observe, also, between similar signs
under the Old Testament. Circumcision, which is known to correspond to
our baptism, was destined for infants. The passover, which has now been
succeeded by the sacred supper, did not admit guests of all descriptions
promiscuously, but was rightly eaten only by those who were of
sufficient age to be able to inquire into its signification. If our
opponents had a grain of sound sense, would they shut their eyes against
a thing so clear and obvious?

XXXI. Though I am sorry to burden my readers with such an accumulation
of reveries, yet it will be worth while to refute the specious arguments
adduced in this controversy by Servetus, one of the most eminent of the
Anabaptists, and even the chief glory of that sect. 1. He pretends that
the symbols appointed by Christ, as they are perfect, require also those
who receive them to be perfect, or persons capable of perfection. But
the answer is easy—that the perfection of baptism reaches even unto
death, and cannot with propriety be restricted to one instant of time. I
observe, also, that it is foolish to expect a man on the first day to
attain perfection, towards which baptism invites us to proceed, by
continual advances, as long as we live. 2. He objects, that the symbols
of Christ were instituted as memorials, that every one may remember that
he has been buried with Christ. I answer, that what he has framed from
his own head requires no refutation; and that he applies to baptism what
the language of Paul shows to be peculiar to the sacred supper, namely,
that every one should examine himself; but that nothing like this is any
where said of baptism; from which we conclude, that though, by reason of
their age, infants are not capable of examination, it is nevertheless
right to baptize them. 3. He adduces the declaration of Christ, that “he
that believeth not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God
abideth on him;”[1220] and concludes that infants, who are incapable of
believing, remain in their condemnation. I answer, that in this passage
Christ is not speaking of the general guilt in which all the descendants
of Adam are involved, but only threatening the despisers of the gospel,
who proudly and obstinately reject the grace which is offered to them;
and this has nothing to do with infants. I likewise oppose a contrary
argument; all those whom Christ blesses are exempted from the curse of
Adam and the wrath of God; and as it is known that infants were blessed
by him, it follows that they are exempted from death. He falsely
alleges, as a passage of Scripture, that “whosoever is born of the
Spirit heareth the voice of the Spirit;” which, though we were to admit
as a genuine text, yet he could infer nothing more from it, than that
believers are formed to obedience as the Spirit operates within them.
But that which is affirmed of a certain number, it is wrong to apply
equally to all. 4. He objects, that because “that is first which is
natural,”[1221] we ought to wait the proper time for baptism, which is
spiritual. Now, though I grant that all the descendants of Adam, being
carnal, bring their condemnation into the world with them, yet I deny
that this is any impediment to the communication of a remedy, as soon as
ever God is pleased to impart it. For Servetus can show no Divine
appointment, that many years shall elapse before the newness of
spiritual life can begin; for according to the testimony of Paul, though
the infant children of believers are in a ruined condition by nature,
yet they are sanctified by supernatural grace.[1222] 5. He next produces
an allegory, that when David went up to the fortress of Zion, he took
with him neither the blind nor the lame, but hardy soldiers.[1223] And
what if I oppose him with a parable, in which God invites the blind and
the lame to the celestial feast?[1224] how will he extricate himself
from this difficulty? I ask, also, whether the blind and the lame had
not previously served as soldiers with David. But it is useless to
insist longer on this argument, which the readers will discover from the
sacred history to be founded on mere falsehood. 6. Then follows another
allegory, that the apostles were “fishers of men,”[1225] not of infants.
I ask, what is the meaning of that declaration of Christ, that “the
kingdom of heaven is like unto a net, that was cast into the sea, and
gathered of every kind?”[1226] But as I am not fond of allegorical
trifling, I answer, that when the apostles were appointed to the office
of teaching, they were not forbidden to baptize infants. I would further
wish to be informed, since the evangelist uses the word ανθρωπους, (a
word which comprehends all the human race, without any exception,) why
infants should be denied to be ανθρωπους, (human beings.) 7. He
pretends, that as spiritual things belong to spiritual persons,[1227]
infants who are not spiritual are not fit subjects of baptism. But here
it is evident that he is guilty of a gross perversion of that passage of
Paul, the subject of which relates to doctrine. When the Corinthians
discovered too much complacency in a vain subtlety, the apostle reproved
their stupidity, because they still required to be taught the first
principles of Christian doctrine. Who can infer from this, that baptism
ought to be denied to infants, whom, though they are born of the flesh,
yet God consecrates to himself by gratuitous adoption? 8. He objects,
that if they are new men, they ought to be fed with spiritual food. The
answer is easy—that they are admitted into the flock of Christ by
baptism, and that the symbol of that adoption is sufficient for them,
till they grow to an age capable of bearing solid food; and that it is
therefore necessary to wait for the time of that examination, which God
expressly requires in the sacred supper. 9. He next objects, that Christ
invites all his people to the sacred supper. I answer, it is
sufficiently clear that he admits none but such as are already prepared
to celebrate the remembrance of his death. Whence it follows, that
infants, whom he condescended to take into his arms, remain in a
distinct and peculiar class, till they grow to riper years, and yet that
they are not strangers to the Church. To this he objects, that it is a
monstrous thing for a person that is born, not to eat. I reply, that the
external participation of the supper is not the only way in which souls
are fed; and therefore that Christ is food to infants, notwithstanding
they abstain from the sign; but that the case of baptism is different,
by which alone they are admitted into the Church. He further objects,
that “a faithful and wise servant, whom his lord hath made ruler over
his household, giveth them meat in due season.”[1228] This I readily
grant; but by what authority will he determine the time of baptism for
us, so as to prove that it is not administered to infants at a proper
time? 10. He likewise adduces the command of Christ to his apostles, to
hasten to the harvest, while the fields are whitening.[1229] The sole
design of Christ on that occasion was to stimulate the apostles, that,
seeing the present fruit of their labours, they might exert themselves
in their ministry with the greater cheerfulness. Who can infer from this
that the time of harvest is the only time proper for baptism? 11. His
next argument is, that in the primitive Church Christians and disciples
were the same persons.[1230] But here we see that he injudiciously
reasons from a part to the whole. The appellation of disciples was given
to persons of adult age, who had been already instructed, and had made a
profession of Christianity; just as the Jews under the law were the
disciples of Moses; yet no one can justly infer from this, that infants
were strangers, God having declared them to be part of his family. 12.
Moreover he alleges, that all Christians are brethren, but that we treat
infants as not of that number, as long as we exclude them from the
Lord’s supper. But I return to that principle, that none are heirs of
the kingdom of heaven, except those who are members of Christ; and that
the embrace with which he honoured infants was a true pledge of the
adoption, by which they are united with adults, and that their temporary
abstinence from the supper does not prevent them from belonging to the
body of the Church. The thief who was converted on the cross was a
brother of believers, though he never partook of the Lord’s supper at
all. 13. He proceeds to assert, that no person becomes our brother but
by the spirit of adoption communicated “by the hearing of faith.”[1231]
I reply, that he is constantly reverting to the same false reasoning, by
a preposterous application to infants of that which is spoken
exclusively of adults. Paul is there showing that the ordinary method
which God uses in calling his elect, and bringing them to the faith, is
to raise them up faithful teachers, by whose labours and instructions he
extends his assistance to them. But who will dare to impose a law to
prevent his ingrafting infants into Christ by some other secret method?
14. He objects, that Cornelius was baptized after he had received the
Holy Ghost.[1232] But the absurdity of attempting to extract a general
rule from this one example, is evident from the cases of the eunuch and
the Samaritans,[1233] in whom the Lord observed a different order, for
their baptism preceded their reception of the gifts of the Spirit. 15.
His next argument is worse than absurd; he says, that by regeneration we
are made gods;[1234] but that they are gods to whom the word of God
comes,[1235] which is not applicable to infants. The ascription of deity
to believers is one of his reveries, which it is irrelevant to our
present subject to discuss; but to pervert that quotation from the
Psalms to a sense so remote from its genuine meaning, betrays the most
monstrous impudence. Christ says that the appellation of _gods_ is given
by the prophet to kings and magistrates, because they sustain an office
of Divine appointment. But that which is directed to certain individuals
respecting the particular charge of governors, this dexterous
interpreter applies to the doctrine of the gospel, in order to exclude
infants from the Church. 16. He objects, again, that infants cannot be
accounted new creatures, because they are not begotten by the word. I
must again repeat, what I have so often remarked, that the doctrine of
the gospel is the incorruptible seed, to regenerate those who are
capable of understanding it; but that where, by reason of age, there is
not yet any capacity of learning, God has his different degrees of
regenerating those whom he has adopted. 17. Then he returns to his
allegories, and alleges that sheep and goats were not offered in
sacrifice immediately after they were brought forth.[1236] If I approved
of the application of figures to this subject, I might easily retort,
that all the first born immediately on their birth are consecrated to
the Lord,[1237] and that a lamb was to be sacrificed in its first year;
whence it should follow, that it is not at all necessary to wait for
many years, but that our children ought to be dedicated to God in their
earliest infancy. 18. He further contends, that none can come to Christ
but those who have been prepared by John; as though the office of John
had not been a temporary one. But to pass over this; the children whom
Christ took up in his arms and blessed, had certainly no such
preparation. Wherefore let him depart with his false principle. 19. At
length he calls in the assistance of Trismegistus and the Sibyls, to
show that sacred ablutions are not suitable to any but adults. See what
honourable sentiments he entertains respecting the baptism of Christ,
which he would conform to the profane rites of the heathen, that its
administration might be regulated by the pleasure of Trismegistus. But
we have more reverence for the authority of God, who has been pleased to
consecrate infants to himself, and to initiate them by a sacred sign,
the meaning of which they were too young to be able to understand. Nor
do we esteem it lawful to borrow from the ablutions of the heathen any
thing that may introduce into our baptism the least change of that
eternal and inviolable law which God has established respecting
circumcision. 20. In the last place, he argues, that if it be lawful to
baptize infants without understanding, baptism may be, in mimicry and
jest, administered by boys in play. But he must contest this subject
with God, by whose command circumcision was performed upon infants,
before they had attained any understanding. Was it a ludicrous ceremony,
then, or a fit subject for the sports of children, that they could
overturn the sacred institution of God? But it is no wonder that these
reprobate spirits, as if transported with frenzy, bring forward the most
enormous absurdities in defence of their errors; for such delusion is
the just judgment of God upon their pride and obstinacy. And I trust I
have clearly shown the futility of all the arguments with which Servetus
has endeavoured to assist the cause of his Anabaptist brethren.

XXXII. No doubt, I conceive, can now remain in the mind of any sober
man, that those who raise controversies and contentions on the subject
of infant baptism are presumptuous disturbers of the Church of Christ.
But it is worth while to notice the object which Satan aims at promoting
by so much subtlety; which is, to deprive us of the peculiar benefit of
confidence and spiritual joy, which is to be derived from this source,
and in the same degree also to diminish the glory of the Divine
goodness. For how delightful is it to pious minds, not only to have
verbal assurances, but even ocular proof, of their standing so high in
the favour of their heavenly Father, that their posterity are also the
objects of his care! For here we see how he sustains the character of a
most provident Father to us, since he discontinues not his solicitude
for us even after our death, but regards and provides for our children.
Ought we not, then, after the example of David, to exult in praise and
thanksgiving to God with our whole heart, that his name may be glorified
by such an expression of his goodness? This is evidently the reason why
Satan makes such great exertions in opposition to infant baptism; that
the removal of this testimony of the grace of God may cause the promise
which it exhibits before our eyes gradually to disappear, and at length
to be forgotten. The consequence of this would be, an impious
ingratitude to the mercy of God, and negligence of the instruction of
our children in the principles of piety. For it is no small stimulus to
our education of them in the serious fear of God, and the observance of
his law, to reflect, that they are considered and acknowledged by him as
his children as soon as they are born. Wherefore, unless we are
obstinately determined to obscure the goodness of God, let us present to
him our children, to whom he assigns a place in his family, that is,
among the members of his Church.

Footnote 1165:

Gen. xvii. 1-14.

Footnote 1166:

Matt. xxii. 32. Luke xx. 37, 38.

Footnote 1167:

Ephes. ii. 12.

Footnote 1168:

Deut. x. 16.

Footnote 1169:

Deut. xxx. 6.

Footnote 1170:

Rom. xii. 3, 6.

Footnote 1171:

Matt. xix 13-15. Mark x 13-16. Luke xviii. 15-17.

Footnote 1172:

Col. ii. 11, 12.

Footnote 1173:

Matt. viii. 11. Luke xiii. 29.

Footnote 1174:

Exod. xix. 5. Deut. vii. 6.

Footnote 1175:

Rom. iv. 9-12.

Footnote 1176:

Eph. ii. 14.

Footnote 1177:

Rom. ix. 7, 8.

Footnote 1178:

Rom. xi. 29.

Footnote 1179:

1 Cor. vii. 14.

Footnote 1180:

Rom. xv. 8.

Footnote 1181:

Acts ii. 39.

Footnote 1182:

Acts iii. 25.

Footnote 1183:

Eph. i. 11, 12.

Footnote 1184:

Exod. xx. 6.

Footnote 1185:

Rom. vi. 4.

Footnote 1186:

1 Cor. xv. 22.

Footnote 1187:

Eph. ii. 3.

Footnote 1188:

Psalm li. 5.

Footnote 1189:

1 Cor. xv. 50.

Footnote 1190:

John xi. 25; xiv. 6.

Footnote 1191:

Rev. xxi. 27.

Footnote 1192:

John iii. 3, 5.

Footnote 1193:

Luke i. 15.

Footnote 1194:

1 Peter i. 23.

Footnote 1195:

Rom. x. 17.

Footnote 1196:

Deut. i. 39.

Footnote 1197:

Jer. iv. 4. Rom. iv. 11.

Footnote 1198:

Titus iii. 5.

Footnote 1199:

Rom. vi. 4. Col. ii. 12.

Footnote 1200:

Gal. iii. 27.

Footnote 1201:

1 Peter iii. 21.

Footnote 1202:

Ephes. v. 26.

Footnote 1203:

1 Cor. xii. 13.

Footnote 1204:

Acts ii. 37, 38.

Footnote 1205:

Acts viii. 37.

Footnote 1206:

Ezek. xvi. 20; xxiii. 37.

Footnote 1207:

Eph. ii. 12.

Footnote 1208:

Matt. iii. 6.

Footnote 1209:

John iii. 5.

Footnote 1210:

Matt. iii. 11.

Footnote 1211:

John iii. 18; v. 24.

Footnote 1212:

Matt. xxviii. 19, 20.

Footnote 1213:

Mark xvi. 16.

Footnote 1214:

Luke iii. 23.

Footnote 1215:

2 Thess. iii. 10.

Footnote 1216:

1 Cor. xi. 28.

Footnote 1217:

1 Cor. xi. 29.

Footnote 1218:

1 Cor. xi. 24, 25.

Footnote 1219:

1 Cor xi. 26.

Footnote 1220:

John iii. 36.

Footnote 1221:

1 Cor. xv. 46.

Footnote 1222:

1 Cor. vii. 14.

Footnote 1223:

2 Sam. v. 6-8.

Footnote 1224:

Luke xiv. 21.

Footnote 1225:

Matt. iv. 19.

Footnote 1226:

Matt. xiii. 47.

Footnote 1227:

1 Cor. ii. 13.

Footnote 1228:

Matt. xxiv. 45.

Footnote 1229:

John iv. 35-38.

Footnote 1230:

Acts xi. 26.

Footnote 1231:

Gal. iii. 2.

Footnote 1232:

Acts x. 44-48.

Footnote 1233:

Acts viii. 16, 17, 26, &c.

Footnote 1234:

2 Peter i. 4.

Footnote 1235:

John x. 35. Psalm lxxxii. 6.

Footnote 1236:

Exod. xii. 5.

Footnote 1237:

Exod. xiii. 12. Numb. viii. 17.

CHAPTER XVII.
THE LORD’S SUPPER AND ITS ADVANTAGES.

After God has once received us into his family, and not only so as to
admit us among his servants, but to number us with his children,—in
order to fulfil the part of a most excellent father, solicitous for his
offspring, he also undertakes to sustain and nourish us as long as we
live; and not content with this, he has been pleased to give us a
pledge, as a further assurance of this never-ceasing liberality. For
this purpose, therefore, by the hand of his only begotten Son, he has
favoured his Church with another sacrament, a spiritual banquet, in
which Christ testifies himself to be the bread of life, to feed our
souls for a true and blessed immortality. Now, as the knowledge of so
great a mystery is highly necessary, and on account of its importance,
requires an accurate explication; and, on the other hand, as Satan, in
order to deprive the Church of this inestimable treasure, long ago
endeavoured, first by mists, and afterwards by thicker shades, to
obscure its lustre, and then raised disputes and contentions to alienate
the minds of the simple from a relish for this sacred food, and in our
time also has attempted the same artifice; after having exhibited a
summary of what relates to the subject, adapted to the capacity of the
unlearned, I will disentangle it from those sophistries with which Satan
has been labouring to deceive the world. In the first place, the signs
are bread and wine, which represent to us the invisible nourishment
which we receive from the body and blood of Christ. For as in baptism
God regenerates us, incorporates us into the society of his Church, and
makes us his children by adoption, so we have said, that he acts towards
us the part of a provident father of a family, in constantly supplying
us with food, to sustain and preserve us in that life to which he has
begotten us by his word. Now, the only food of our souls is Christ; and
to him, therefore, our heavenly Father invites us, that being refreshed
by a participation of him, we may gain fresh vigour from day to day,
till we arrive at the heavenly immortality. And because this mystery of
the secret union of Christ with believers is incomprehensible by nature,
he exhibits a figure and image of it in visible signs, peculiarly
adapted to our feeble capacity; and, as it were, by giving tokens and
pledges, renders it equally as certain to us as if we beheld it with our
eyes; for the dullest minds understand this very familiar similitude,
that our souls are nourished by Christ, just as the life of the body is
supported by bread and wine. We see, then, for what end this mystical
benediction is designed; namely, to assure us that the body of the Lord
was once offered as a sacrifice for us, so that we may now feed upon it,
and, feeding on it, may experience within us the efficacy of that one
sacrifice; and that his blood was once shed for us, so that it is our
perpetual drink. And this is the import of the words of the promise
annexed to it: “Take, eat; this is my body, which is given for you.” The
body, therefore, which was once offered for our salvation, we are
commanded to take and eat; that seeing ourselves made partakers of it,
we may certainly conclude, that the virtue of that life-giving death
will be efficacious within us. Hence, also, he calls the cup “the new
testament,” or rather _covenant_, in his blood.[1238] For the covenant
which he once ratified with his blood, he in some measure renews, or
rather continues, as far as relates to the confirmation of our faith,
whenever he presents us that sacred blood to drink.

II. From this sacrament pious souls may derive the benefit of
considerable satisfaction and confidence; because it affords us a
testimony that we are incorporated into one body with Christ, so that
whatever is his, we are at liberty to call ours. The consequence of this
is, that we venture to assure ourselves of our interest in eternal life,
of which he is the heir, and that the kingdom of heaven, into which he
has already entered, can no more be lost by us than by him; and, on the
other hand, that we cannot be condemned by our sins, from the guilt of
which he absolved us, when he wished them to be imputed to himself, as
if they were his own. This is the wonderful exchange which, in his
infinite goodness, he has made with us. Submitting to our poverty, he
has transferred to us his riches; assuming our weakness, he has
strengthened us by his power; accepting our mortality, he has conferred
on us his immortality; taking on himself the load of iniquity with which
we were oppressed, he has clothed us with his righteousness; descending
to the earth, he has prepared a way for our ascending to heaven;
becoming with us the Son of man, he has made us, with himself, the sons
of God.

III. Of all these things we have such a complete attestation in this
sacrament, that we may confidently consider them as truly exhibited to
us, as if Christ himself were presented to our eyes, and touched by our
hands. For there can be no falsehood or illusion in this word, “Take,
eat, drink; this is my body which is given for you; this is my blood
which is shed for the remission of sins.” By commanding us to take, he
signifies that he is ours; by commanding us to eat and drink, he
signifies that he is become one substance with us. In saying that his
body is given for us, and his blood shed for us, he shows that both are
not so much his as ours, because he assumed and laid down both, not for
his own advantage, but for our salvation. And it ought to be carefully
observed, that the principal and almost entire energy of the sacrament
lies in these words, “which is given for you;” “which is shed for you;”
for otherwise it would avail us but little, that the body and blood of
the Lord are distributed to us now, if they had not been once delivered
for our redemption and salvation. Therefore they are represented to us
by bread and wine, to teach us that they are not only ours, but are
destined for the support of our spiritual life. This is what we have
already suggested—that by the corporeal objects which are presented in
the sacrament, we are conducted, by a kind of analogy, to those which
are spiritual. So, when bread is given to us as a symbol of the body of
Christ, we ought immediately to conceive of this comparison, that, as
bread nourishes, sustains, and preserves the life of the body, so the
body of Christ is the only food to animate and support the life of the
soul. When we see wine presented as a symbol of his blood, we ought to
think of the uses of wine to the human body, that we may contemplate the
same advantages conferred upon us in a spiritual manner by the blood of
Christ; which are these—that it nourishes, refreshes, strengthens, and
exhilarates. For if we duly consider the benefits resulting to us from
the oblation of his sacred body, and the effusion of his blood, we shall
clearly perceive that these properties of bread and wine, according to
this analogy, are most justly attributed to those symbols, as
administered to us in the Lord’s supper.

IV. The principal object of the sacrament, therefore, is not to present
us the body of Christ, simply, and without any ulterior consideration,
but rather to seal and confirm that promise, where he declares that his
“flesh is meat indeed, and” his “blood drink indeed,” by which we are
nourished to eternal life; where he affirms that he is “the bread of
life,” and that “he that eateth of this bread shall live for
ever;”[1239] to seal and confirm that promise, I say; and, in order to
do this, it sends us to the cross of Christ, where the promise has been
fully verified, and entirely accomplished. For we never rightly and
advantageously feed on Christ, except as crucified, and when we have a
lively apprehension of the efficacy of his death. And, indeed, when
Christ called himself “the bread of life,” he did not use that
appellation on account of the sacrament, as some persons erroneously
imagine, but because he had been given to us as such by the Father, and
showed himself to be such, when, becoming a partaker of our human
mortality, he made us partakers of his Divine immortality; when,
offering himself a sacrifice, he sustained our curse, to fill us with
his blessing; when, by his death, he destroyed and swallowed up death;
when, in his resurrection, this corruptible flesh of ours, which he had
assumed, was raised up by him, in a state of incorruption and glory.

V. It remains for all this to be applied to us; which is done in the
first place by the gospel, but in a more illustrious manner by the
sacred supper, in which Christ offers himself to us with all his
benefits, and we receive him by faith. The sacrament, therefore, does
not first constitute Christ the bread of life; but, by recalling to our
remembrance that he has been made the bread of life, upon which we may
constantly feed, and by giving us a taste and relish for that bread, it
causes us to experience the support which it is adapted to afford. For
it assures us, in the first place, that whatever Christ has done or
suffered, was for the purpose of giving life to us; and, in the next
place, that this life will never end. For as Christ would never have
been the bread of life to us, if he had not been born, and died, and
risen again for us, so now he would by no means continue so, if the
efficacy and benefit of his nativity, death, and resurrection, were not
permanent and immortal. All this Christ has beautifully expressed in
these words: “The bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give
for the life of the world;”[1240] in which he clearly signifies, that
his body would be as bread to us, for the spiritual life of the soul,
because it was to be exposed to death for our salvation; and that it is
given to us to feed upon it, when he makes us partakers of it by faith.
He gave it once, therefore, to be made bread, when he surrendered it to
be crucified for the redemption of the world; he gives it daily, when,
by the word of the gospel, he presents it to us, that we may partake of
it as crucified; when he confirms that presentation by the sacred
mystery of the supper; when he accomplishes within that which he
signifies without. Here it behoves us to guard against two errors; that,
on the one hand, we may not, by undervaluing the signs, disjoin them
from the mysteries with which they are connected; nor, on the other
hand, by extolling them beyond measure, obscure the glory of the
mysteries themselves. That Christ is the bread of life, by which
believers are nourished to eternal salvation, there is no man, not
entirely destitute of religion, who hesitates to acknowledge; but all
are not equally agreed respecting the manner of partaking of him. For
there are some who define in a word, that to eat the flesh of Christ,
and to drink his blood, is no other than to believe in Christ himself.
But I conceive that, in that remarkable discourse, in which Christ
recommends us to feed upon his body, he intended to teach us something
more striking and sublime; namely, that we are quickened by a real
participation of him, which he designates by the terms of _eating_ and
_drinking_, that no person might suppose the life which we receive from
him to consist in simple knowledge. For as it is not _seeing_, but
_eating_ bread, that administers nourishment to the body, so it is
necessary for the soul to have a true and complete participation of
Christ, that by his power it may be quickened to spiritual life. At the
same time, we confess that there is no other eating than by faith, as it
is impossible to imagine any other; but the difference between me and
the persons whose sentiment I am opposing, is this; they consider eating
to be the very same as believing; I say, that in believing we eat the
flesh of Christ, because he is actually made ours by faith, and that
this eating is the fruit and effect of faith; or, to express it more
plainly, they consider the eating to be faith itself; but I apprehend it
to be rather a consequence of faith. The difference is small in words,
but in the thing itself it is considerable. For though the apostle
teaches that “Christ dwelleth in our hearts by faith,”[1241] yet no one
will explain this inhabitation to be faith itself. Every one must
perceive that the apostle intended to express a peculiar advantage
arising from faith, of which the residence of Christ in the hearts of
believers is one of the effects. In the same manner, when the Lord
called himself “the bread of life,”[1242] he intended not only to teach
that salvation is laid up for us in the faith of his death and
resurrection, but also that, by our real participation of him, his life
is transferred to us, and becomes ours; just as bread, when it is taken
for food, communicates vigour to the body.

VI. When Augustine, whom they bring forward as their advocate, said that
we eat the body of Christ by believing in him, it was with no other
meaning than to show that this eating is not of a corporeal nature, but
solely by faith. This I admit; but at the same time I add, that we
embrace Christ by faith, not as appearing at a distance, but as uniting
himself with us, to become our head, and to make us his members. I do
not altogether disapprove, however, such a mode of expression, but if
they mean to define what it is to eat the flesh of Christ, I deny this
to be a complete explanation. Otherwise, I see that Augustine has
frequently used this phrase; as when he says, “Except ye eat the flesh
of the Son of man, ye have no life in you;[1243] this is a figure which
enjoins a participation of the sufferings of our Lord, and a sweet and
useful recollection in the memory, that his flesh was wounded and
crucified for us:” and again, when he says, “That the three thousand,
who were converted by the preaching of Peter,[1244] drank the blood of
Christ by believing in him, which they had shed in persecuting him.” But
in many other passages he highly celebrates that beneficial consequence
of faith, and states our souls to be as much refreshed by the communion
of the body of Christ, as our bodies are by the bread which we eat. And
the very same idea is conveyed by Chrysostom, when he says, “That Christ
makes us his body, not only by faith, but also in reality.” For he does
not mean that this benefit is obtained any otherwise than by faith; he
only intends to preclude a supposition from being entertained by any
one, that this faith is nothing more than a speculative apprehension. I
say nothing at present of those who maintain the Lord’s supper to be a
mere mark of external profession, because I think I have sufficiently
refuted their error, when treating of the sacraments in general. Only
let it be observed, that when Christ says, “This cup is the new
testament, or covenant, in my blood,”[1245] this is the expression of a
promise calculated for the confirmation of faith; whence it follows,
that unless we direct our views to God, and embrace what he offers us,
we never properly celebrate the sacred supper.

VII. Nor am I satisfied with those persons, who, after having
acknowledged that we have some communion with Christ, when they mean to
describe it, represent us merely as partakers of his Spirit, but make no
mention of his flesh and blood; as though there were no meaning in these
and other similar expressions: “That his flesh is meat indeed; that his
blood is drink indeed; that except we eat his flesh, and drink his
blood, we have no life in us.” Wherefore, if it be evident that the full
communion of Christ goes beyond their too confined description of it, I
will endeavour to state, in few words, how far it extends, before I
speak of the contrary error of carrying it to excess. For I shall have a
longer controversy with the hyperbolical doctors, who, while in their
folly they imagine an absurd and extravagant way of eating the flesh of
Christ, and drinking his blood, deprive him of his real body, and
metamorphose him into a mere phantom; if, however, it be possible, in
any words, to unfold so great a mystery, which I find myself incapable
of properly comprehending, even in my mind; and this I am ready to
acknowledge, that no person may measure the sublimity of the subject by
my inadequate representation of it. On the contrary, I exhort my readers
not to confine their thoughts within such narrow and insufficient
limits, but to endeavour to rise much higher than I am able to conduct
them; for as to myself, whenever I handle this subject, after having
endeavoured to say every thing, I am conscious of having said but very
little, in comparison of its excellence. And though the conceptions of
the mind can far exceed the expressions of the tongue, yet, with the
magnitude of the subject, the mind itself is oppressed and overwhelmed.
Nothing remains for me, therefore, but to break forth in admiration of
that mystery, which the mind is unable clearly to understand, or the
tongue to express. I will nevertheless state the substance of my
opinion, which, as I have no doubt of its truth, I trust will also be
received with approbation by godly minds.

VIII. In the first place, we learn from the Scriptures, that Christ was
from the beginning that life-giving Word of the Father, the fountain and
origin of life, from which all things have ever derived their existence.
Therefore John in one place calls him “The Word of life,” and in another
says, that “in him was life;”[1246] signifying, that even then he
diffused his energy over all the creatures, and endued them with life
and breath. Yet the same apostle immediately adds, that “the life was
manifested” then, and not before, when the Son of God, by assuming our
flesh, rendered himself visible to the eyes, and palpable to the hands
of men. For though he diffused his influence over all the creatures
before that period, yet, because man was alienated from God by sin, had
lost the participation of life, and saw nothing on every side but
impending death, it was necessary to his recovery of any hope of
immortality, that he should be received into the communion of that word.
For what slender hopes shall we form, if we hear that the Word of God
contains in himself all the plenitude of life, while we are at an
infinite distance from him, and, withersoever we turn our eyes, see
nothing but death presenting itself on every side? But since he who is
the fountain of life has taken up his residence in our flesh, he remains
no longer concealed at a distance from us, but openly exhibits himself
to our participation. He also makes the very flesh in which he resides
the means of giving life to us, that, by a participation of it, we may
be nourished to immortality. “I am the living bread,” says he, “which
came down from heaven. And the bread that I will give is my flesh, which
I will give for the life of the world.”[1247] In these words, he shows,
not only that he is life, as he is the eternal Word who descended from
heaven to us, but that in descending he imparted that power to the flesh
which he assumed, in order that it might communicate life to us. Hence
follow these declarations: “That his flesh is meat indeed, and that his
blood is drink indeed;”[1248] meat and drink by which believers are
nourished to eternal life. Here, then, we enjoy peculiar consolation,
that we find life in our own flesh. For in this manner we not only have
an easy access to it, but it freely discovers and offers itself to our
acceptance; we have only to open our hearts to its reception, and we
shall obtain it.

IX. Now, though the power of giving life to us is not an essential
attribute of the body of Christ, which, in its original condition, was
subject to mortality, and now lives by an immortality not its own, yet
it is justly represented as the source of life, because it is endued
with a plenitude of life to communicate to us. In this I agree with
Cyril, in understanding that declaration of Christ, “As the Father hath
life in himself, so hath he given to the Son to have life in
himself.”[1249] For in this passage, he is not speaking of the
attributes which he possessed with the Father from the beginning, but of
the gifts with which he was adorned in the flesh in which he appeared;
therefore he showed that the fulness of life dwelt in his humanity, that
whoever partook of his flesh and blood might, at the same time, enjoy a
participation of life. For, as the water of a fountain is sometimes
drunk, sometimes drawn, and sometimes conveyed in furrows for the
irrigation of lands, yet the fountain does not derive such an abundance
for so many uses from itself, but from the spring which is perpetually
flowing to furnish it with fresh supplies, so the flesh of Christ is
like a rich and inexhaustible fountain, which receives the life flowing
from the Divinity, and conveys it to us. Now, who does not see that a
participation of the body and blood of Christ is necessary to all who
aspire to heavenly life? This is implied in those passages of the
apostle, that the Church is the body of Christ, and his fulness;[1250]
that he is “the head, from whom the whole body, joined together and
compacted by that which every joint supplieth, maketh increase of the
body;”[1251] that our bodies are “the members of Christ;”[1252] things
which we know can no otherwise be effected than by his entire union both
of body and spirit with us. But that most intimate fellowship, by which
we are united with his flesh, the apostle has illustrated in a still
more striking representation, when he says, “We are members of his body,
of his flesh, and of his bones.”[1253] At length, to declare the subject
to be above all description, he concludes his discourse by exclaiming,
“This is a great mystery.”[1254] It would be extreme stupidity,
therefore, to acknowledge no communion of believers with the body and
blood of the Lord, which the apostle declares to be so great, that he
would rather admire than express it.

X. We conclude, that our souls are fed by the flesh and blood of Christ,
just as our corporeal life is preserved and sustained by bread and wine.
For otherwise there would be no suitableness in the analogy of the sign,
if our souls did not find their food in Christ; which cannot be the case
unless Christ truly becomes one with us, and refreshes us by the eating
of his flesh and the drinking of his blood. Though it appears incredible
for the flesh of Christ, from such an immense local distance, to reach
us, so as to become our food, we should remember how much the secret
power of the Holy Spirit transcends all our senses, and what folly it is
to apply any measure of ours to his immensity. Let our faith receive,
therefore, what our understanding is not able to comprehend, that the
Spirit really unites things which are separated by local distance. Now,
that holy participation of his flesh and blood, by which Christ
communicates his life to us, just as if he actually penetrated every
part of our frame, in the sacred supper he also testifies and seals; and
that not by the exhibition of a vain or ineffectual sign, but by the
exertion of the energy of his Spirit, by which he accomplishes that
which he promises. And the thing signified he exhibits and offers to all
who come to that spiritual banquet; though it is advantageously enjoyed
by believers alone, who receive such great goodness with true faith and
gratitude of mind. For which reason the apostle said, “The cup of
blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ?
The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of
Christ?”[1255] Nor is there any cause to object, that it is a figurative
expression, by which the name of the thing signified is given to the
sign. I grant, indeed, that the breaking of the bread is symbolical, and
not the substance itself: yet, this being admitted, from the exhibition
of the symbol we may justly infer the exhibition of the substance; for,
unless any one would call God a deceiver, he can never presume to affirm
that he sets before us an empty sign. Therefore, if, by the breaking of
the bread, the Lord truly represents the participation of his body, it
ought not to be doubted that he truly presents and communicates it. And
it must always be a rule with believers, whenever they see the signs
instituted by the Lord, to assure and persuade themselves that they are
also accompanied with the truth of the thing signified. For to what end
would the Lord deliver into our hands the symbol of his body, except to
assure us of a real participation of it? If it be true that the visible
sign is given to us to seal the donation of the invisible substance, we
ought to entertain a confident assurance, that in receiving the symbol
of his body, we at the same time truly receive the body itself.

XI. In harmony, therefore, with the doctrine which has always been
received in the Church, and which is maintained in the present day by
all who hold right sentiments, I say, that the sacred mystery of the
supper consists of two parts: the corporeal signs, which, being placed
before our eyes, represent to us invisible things in a manner adapted to
the weakness of our capacities; and the spiritual truth, which is at the
same time typified and exhibited by those symbols. When I intend to give
a familiar view of this truth, I am accustomed to state three
particulars which it includes: the signification; the matter, or
substance, which depends on the signification; and the virtue, or
effect, which follows from both. The signification consists in the
promises which are interwoven with the sign. What I call the matter or
substance, is Christ, with his death and resurrection. By the effect, I
mean redemption, righteousness, sanctification, eternal life, and all
the other benefits which Christ confers upon us. Now, though all these
things are connected with faith, yet I leave no room for this cavil; as
though, when I say that Christ is received by faith, I intended that he
is received merely in the understanding and imagination; for the
promises present him to us, not that we may rest in mere contemplation
and simple knowledge, but that we may enjoy a real participation of him.
And, in fact, I see not how any man can attain a solid confidence that
he has redemption and righteousness in the cross of Christ, and life in
his death, unless he first has a real communion with Christ himself; for
those blessings would never be imparted to us, if Christ did not first
make himself ours. I say, therefore, that in the mystery of the supper,
under the symbols of bread and wine, Christ is truly exhibited to us,
even his body and blood, in which he has fulfilled all obedience to
procure our justification. And the design of this exhibition is, first,
that we may be united into one body with him, and, secondly, that being
made partakers of his substance, we may experience his power in the
communication of all blessings.

XII. I now proceed to the hyperbolical additions which superstition has
made to this sacrament. For here Satan has exerted amazing subtlety to
withdraw the minds of men from heaven, and involve them in a
preposterous error, by persuading them that Christ is attached to the
element of bread. In the first place, we must be careful not to dream of
such a presence of Christ in the sacrament as the ingenuity of the
Romanists has invented; as if the body of Christ were exhibited, by a
local presence, to be felt by the hand, bruised by the teeth, and
swallowed by the throat. For this was the form of recantation which Pope
Nicolas directed to Berengarius as a declaration of his repentance; the
language of which is so monstrous, that the scholiast exclaims, that
there is danger, unless the readers be very prudent and cautious, of
their imbibing from it a worse heresy than that of Berengarius; and
Peter Lombard, though he takes great pains to defend it from the charge
of absurdity, yet rather inclines to a different opinion. For, as we
have not the least doubt that Christ’s body is finite, according to the
invariable condition of a human body, and is contained in heaven, where
it was once received, till it shall return to judgment, so we esteem it
utterly unlawful to bring it back under these corruptible elements, or
to imagine it to be present every where. Nor is there any need of this,
in order to our enjoying the participation of it; since the Lord by his
Spirit gives us the privilege of being united with himself in body,
soul, and spirit. The bond of this union, therefore, is the Spirit of
Christ, by whom we are conjoined, and who is, as it were, the channel by
which all that Christ himself is and has is conveyed to us. For, if we
behold the sun darting his rays and transmitting his substance, as it
were, in them, to generate, nourish, and mature the roots of the earth,
why should the irradiation of the Spirit of Christ be less effectual to
convey to us the communication of his body and blood? Wherefore, the
Scripture, when it speaks of our participation of Christ, attributes all
the power of it to the Spirit. One passage shall suffice instead of
many. In the eighth chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, Paul
represents Christ as dwelling in us no otherwise than by his
Spirit.[1256] By this representation, the apostle does not destroy that
communion of the body and blood of Christ of which we are now treating,
but teaches that it is solely owing to the agency of the Spirit that we
possess Christ with all his benefits, and have him dwelling within us.

XIII. Deterred by a horror of such barbarous impiety, the schoolmen have
expressed themselves in more modest language, yet they only trifle with
equal fallacy and greater subtlety. They admit that Christ is not
contained in the bread and wine in a local or corporeal manner; but they
afterwards invent a manner which they neither understand themselves nor
can explain to others; which, however, amounts to this, that Christ is
to be sought, as they express it, in the form of bread. When they say
that the substance of bread is transmuted into Christ, do they not
attach his substance to the whiteness, which they pretend is all that
remains of the bread? But, they say, he is so contained in the
sacrament, that he remains in heaven, and we maintain no other presence
than that of _habitude_. But whatever words they employ to gloss over
their notions, they all terminate in this, that, by the consecration,
that which was before bread becomes Christ, so that the substance of
Christ is concealed under the colour of bread. This they are not ashamed
to express in plain terms; for Lombard says, “That the body of Christ,
which is visible in itself, is hidden and concealed, after the
consecration, under the form of bread.” Thus the figure of the bread is
nothing but a veil, which prevents the flesh from being seen. Nor is
there any need of many conjectures, to discover what snares they
intended to lay in these words, which the thing itself plainly evinces.
For it is evident in what profound superstition not only the people in
general, but even the principal men, have now for several ages been
involved, and are involved, at the present day, in the Papal churches.
True faith, which is the sole medium of our union and communion with
Christ, being an object of little solicitude to them, provided they have
that carnal presence which they have fabricated without any authority
from the Divine word, they consider him as sufficiently present with
them. The consequence of this ingenious subtlety, therefore, we find to
be this, that bread has been taken for God.

XIV. Hence proceeded that pretended transubstantiation, for which they
now contend with more earnestness than for all the other articles of
their faith. For the first inventors of the local presence were unable
to explain how the body of Christ could be mixed with the substance of
the bread, without being immediately embarrassed by many absurdities.
Therefore they found it necessary to have recourse to this fiction, that
the bread is transmuted into the body of Christ; not that his body is
properly made of the bread, but that Christ annihilates the substance of
the bread, and conceals himself under its form. It is astonishing that
they could fall into such ignorance, and even stupidity, as to
promulgate such a monstrous notion, in direct opposition to the
Scripture and to the doctrine of the primitive Church. I confess,
indeed, that some of the ancient writers sometimes used the word
_conversion_, not with a view to destroy the substance of the external
signs, but to signify that the bread dedicated to that sacrament is
unlike common bread, and different from what it was before. But they all
constantly and expressly declare, that the sacred supper consists of two
parts, earthly and heavenly; and the earthly part they explain, without
the least hesitation, to be bread and wine. Whatever the Romanists may
pretend, it is very clear that the authority of the ancients, which they
frequently presume to oppose to the plain word of God, affords them no
assistance in the support of this dogma; and, indeed, it is
comparatively but of recent invention, for it was not only unknown to
those better times, when the doctrine of religion still flourished in
its purity, but even when that purity had already been much corrupted.
There is not one of the ancient writers who does not acknowledge in
express terms that the consecrated symbols of the supper are bread and
wine; though, as we have observed, they sometimes distinguish them with
various titles, to celebrate the dignity of the mystery. For when they
say, that a secret _conversion_ takes place in the consecration, so that
they are something different from bread and wine, I have already stated
their meaning to be, not that the bread and wine are annihilated, but
that they are to be considered in a different light from common
aliments, which are merely designed for the nourishment of the body;
because, in those elements, we are presented with the spiritual meat and
drink of the soul. In this we also coincide. But, say our opponents, if
there be a conversion, one thing must be changed into another. If they
mean that something is made what it was not before, I agree with them.
If they wish to apply this to their absurd notion, let them tell me what
change they think takes place in baptism. For in that also the fathers
state a wonderful conversion, when they say, that from the corruptible
element proceeds a spiritual ablution of the soul, yet not one of them
denies that it retains the substance of water. But there is no such
declaration, they say, respecting baptism as there is respecting the
supper: “This is my body.” As though the question related to those
words, which have a meaning obvious enough, and not rather to the
conversion or change spoken of, which ought to signify no more in the
supper than in baptism. Let them cease their verbal subtleties,
therefore, which only betray their own absurdity. Indeed, there would be
no consistency in the signification, if the external sign were not a
living image of the truth which is represented in it. By the external
sign, Christ intended to declare that his flesh is meat. If he were to
set before us a mere spectre of bread, and not real bread, where would
be the analogy or similitude, which ought to lead us from the visible
emblem to the invisible substance? For, to preserve the correspondence
complete, the signification would extend no further than that we should
be fed with an appearance of the flesh of Christ. As in baptism, if
there were nothing but an appearance of water to deceive our eyes, we
should have no certain pledge of our ablution; and such an illusive
representation we should find a source of painful uncertainty. The
nature of the sacrament, therefore, is subverted, unless the earthly
sign correspond in its signification to the heavenly substance; and,
consequently, we lose the truth of this mystery, unless the true body of
Christ be represented by real bread. I repeat it again; since the sacred
supper is nothing but a visible attestation of the promise, that Christ
is “the bread of life which cometh down from heaven,”[1257] it requires
the use of visible and material bread to represent that which is
spiritual; unless we are determined that the means which God kindly
affords to support our weakness shall be altogether unavailing to us.
With what reason could Paul conclude that “we, being many, are one
bread, for we are all partakers of that one bread,”[1258] if there were
nothing but a mere phantom of bread, and not the true and real substance
of it?

XV. They would never have been so shamefully deluded by the fallacies of
Satan, if they had not been previously fascinated with this error—that
the body of Christ contained in the bread was received in a corporeal
manner into the mouth, and actually swallowed. The cause of such a
stupid notion was, that they considered the consecration as a kind of
magical incantation. But they were unacquainted with this principle,
that the bread is a sacrament only to those to whom the word is
addressed; as the water of baptism is not changed in itself, but on the
annexation of the promise, begins to be to us that which it was not
before. This will be further elucidated by the example of a similar
sacrament. The water which flowed from the rock in the wilderness, was
to the fathers a token and sign of the same thing which is represented
to us by the wine in the sacred supper; for Paul says, “They did drink
the same spiritual drink.”[1259] But the same water served also for
their flocks and herds. Hence it is easily inferred, that when earthly
elements are applied to a spiritual use, no other change takes place in
them than with regard to _men_, to whom they become seals of the
promises. Besides, since the design of God is, as I have often repeated,
by suitable vehicles to elevate us to himself, this object is impiously
frustrated by the obstinacy of those who invite us to Christ indeed, but
invisibly concealed under the form of bread. It is not possible for the
human mind to overcome the immensity of local distance, and to penetrate
to Christ in the highest heavens. What nature denied them, they
attempted to correct by a remedy yet more pernicious, that while
remaining on the earth, they might attain a proximity to Christ without
any need of ascending to heaven. This is all the necessity which
constrained them to metamorphose the body of Christ. In the time of
Bernard, though a harsh mode of expression had been adopted, still
transubstantiation was yet unknown; and in all preceding ages it was a
common similitude, in the mouths of all, that in this sacrament the body
and blood of Christ were spiritually united with the bread and wine.
They argue respecting the terms, in their own apprehension, with great
acuteness, but without adducing any thing applicable to the present
subject. The rod of Moses, they say, though it took the form of a
serpent, still retained its original name, and was called a rod.[1260]
So they think it equally probable, that though the bread be changed into
another substance, yet it may by a catachresis, without any violation of
propriety, be denominated according to its visible appearance. But what
similitude or connection can they discover between that illustrious
miracle and their fictitious illusion, which no eye on earth witnesses?
The magicians had practised their sorceries, so that the Egyptians
believed them to possess a Divine power to effect changes in the
creatures above the order of nature. Moses confronted them, and
defeating all their enchantments, showed the invincible power of God to
be on his side; because his one rod swallowed up all the rest. But that
being a transmutation visible to the eye, makes nothing to the present
argument, as we have already observed; and the rod soon after visibly
returned to its original form. Moreover, it is not known whether that
was in reality a temporary transmutation of substance or not. The
allusion to the rods of the magicians deserves also to be observed; for
Moses says, that “Aaron’s rod swallowed up their _rods_:” he would not
call them serpents, lest he might appear to imply a transmutation which
did not exist; for those impostors had done nothing but dazzle the eyes
of the spectators. What resemblance has this to the following and other
similar expressions: “The bread which we break;”[1261] “As often as ye
eat this bread;”[1262] “They continued in breaking of bread?”[1263] It
is certain that their eyes were only deceived by the incantations of the
magicians. There is greater uncertainty with respect to Moses, by whose
hand it was no more difficult for God to make a rod into a serpent, and
afterwards to make the serpent into a rod again, than to invest angels
with material bodies, and soon after to disembody them again. If the
nature of this sacrament were the same, or bore any affinity to the case
we have mentioned, our opponents would have some colour for their
solution. We must, therefore, consider it as a fixed principle, that the
flesh of Christ is not truly promised to us for food in the sacred
supper, unless the true substance of the external symbol corresponds to
it. And as one error gives birth to another, a passage of Jeremiah is so
stupidly perverted, in order to prove transubstantiation, that I am
ashamed to recite it. The prophet complains that wood was put into his
bread;[1264] signifying that his enemies by their cruelty had taken away
all the relish of his food; as David in a similar figure utters the
following complaint: “They gave me also gall for my meat, and in my
thirst they gave me vinegar to drink.”[1265] These disputants explain it
as an allegory, that the body of Christ was affixed to the wood of the
cross; and this, they say, was the opinion of some of the fathers. I
reply, we ought rather to pardon their ignorance, and bury their
disgrace in oblivion, than to add the effrontery of constraining them
continually to combat the genuine meaning of the prophet.

XVI. Others, who perceive it to be impossible to destroy the analogy of
the sign and the thing signified, without subverting the truth of the
mystery, acknowledge that the bread in the sacred supper is the true
substance of that earthly and corruptible element, and undergoes no
change in itself; but they maintain that it has the body of Christ
included under it. If they explained their meaning to be, that when the
bread is presented in the sacrament, it is attended with an exhibition
of the body of Christ, because the truth represented is inseparable from
its sign, I should make little objection; but as, by placing the body
itself in the bread, they attribute ubiquity to it, which is
incompatible with its nature, and by stating it to be _under the bread_,
represent it as lying concealed in it; it is necessary to unmask such
subtleties: not that it is my intention to enter on a professed
examination of the whole of this subject at present; I shall only lay
the foundations of the discussion, which will follow in its proper
place. They maintain the body of Christ, therefore, to be invisible and
infinite, that it may be concealed under the bread; because they suppose
it to be impossible for them to partake of him, any otherwise than by
his descending into the bread; but they know nothing of that descent of
which we have spoken, by which he elevates us to himself. They bring
forward every plausible pretext that they can; but when they have said
all, it is evident that they are contending for a local presence of
Christ. And what is the reason of it? It is because they cannot conceive
of any other participation of his flesh and blood, except what would
consist in local conjunction and contact, or in some gross enclosure.

XVII. And to defend with obstinacy the error which they have once
embraced, some of them hesitate not to affirm that the body of Christ
never had any other dimensions than the whole extent of heaven and
earth. His birth as an infant, his growth to maturity, his extension on
the cross, his incarceration in the sepulchre,—all this, they say, took
place in consequence of a kind of dispensation, that he might as a man
accomplish every thing necessary to our salvation. His appearance in the
same corporeal form after his resurrection, his ascension to heaven, his
subsequent appearances to Stephen and to Paul,—all this also resulted
from a similar dispensation, that he might manifest himself to the view
of man as appointed King in heaven. Now, what is this but to raise
Marcion from the dead? For if such were the condition of Christ’s body,
every one must perceive it to have been a mere phantom or visionary
form, without any real substance. Some plead, with a little more
subtlety, that the body of Christ, which is given in the sacrament, is
glorious and immortal, and that therefore it involves no absurdity, if
it be contained under the sacrament in various places, or in no place,
or without any form. But I ask what kind of body did Jesus Christ give
to his disciples, the night before he suffered? Do not the words imply,
that he gave them the same mortal body which was just about to be
betrayed? They reply, that he had already manifested his glory in the
eyes of three of his disciples, on the mount. That is true; but his
design was, in that splendour, to give them a transient glimpse of his
immortality. They will not find there a twofold body, but the very same
which Christ was accustomed to carry about with him, adorned with
unusual glory, from which it speedily returned to its natural condition.
When he distributed his body at the institution of the sacred supper,
the hour was approaching, in which, “stricken and smitten of God,” he
was to lie down like a leper “without form or comeliness:”[1266] he was
then far from intending to display the glory of his resurrection. What a
door does this open to the error of Marcion, if the body of Christ
appeared in one place mortal and mean, and in another was received as
immortal and glorious? On their principle, however, this happens every
day; for they are constrained to confess that the body of Christ is
visible in itself, while at the same time they say that it is invisibly
concealed under the symbol of bread. And yet the promulgators of such
monstrous absurdities are so far from being ashamed of their disgrace,
that they stigmatize us with unprovoked and enormous calumnies, because
we refuse to subscribe to them.

XVIII. If they are determined to fasten the body and blood of the Lord
to the bread and wine, one must of necessity be severed from the other.
For as the bread is presented separately from the cup, the body, being
united to the bread, must consequently be divided from the blood
contained in the cup. For when they affirm that the body is in the
bread, and the blood in the cup, while the bread and the wine are at
some distance from each other, no sophistry will enable them to evade
this conclusion—that the body is separated from the blood. Their usual
pretence, that the blood is in the body, and the body in the blood, by
what they call _concomitance_, is perfectly frivolous, while the symbols
in which they are contained are so divided. But if we elevate our views
and thoughts towards heaven, to seek Christ there in the glory of his
kingdom, as the symbols invite us to him entire, under the symbol of
bread we shall eat his body, under the symbol of wine we shall
distinctly drink his blood, so that we shall thus enjoy him entire. For
though he has removed his flesh from us, and in his body is ascended to
heaven, yet he sits at the Father’s right hand, that is, he reigns in
the power, and majesty, and glory of the Father. This kingdom is neither
limited to any local space, nor circumscribed by any dimensions; Christ
exerts his power wherever he pleases in heaven and earth, exhibits
himself present in his energetic influence, is constantly with his
people, inspiring his life into them, lives in them, sustains them,
strengthens and invigorates them, just as if he were corporeally
present; in short, he feeds them with his own body, of which he gives
them a participation by the influence of his Spirit. This is the way in
which the body and blood of Christ are exhibited to us in the sacrament.

XIX. It is necessary for us to establish such a presence of Christ in
the sacred supper, as neither, on the one hand, to fasten him to the
element of bread, or to enclose him in it, or in any way to circumscribe
him, which would derogate from his celestial glory; nor, on the other
hand, to deprive him of his corporeal dimensions, or to represent his
body as in different places at once, or to assign it an immensity
diffused through heaven and earth, which would be clearly inconsistent
with the reality of his human nature. Let us never suffer ourselves to
be driven from these two exceptions; that nothing be maintained
derogatory to Christ’s celestial glory; which is the case when he is
represented as brought under the corruptible elements of this world, or
fastened to any earthly objects; and that nothing be attributed to his
body incompatible with the human nature; which is the case when it is
represented as infinite, or is said to be in more places than one at the
same time. These absurdities being disclaimed, I readily admit whatever
may serve to express the true and substantial communication of the body
and blood of the Lord, which is given to believers under the sacred
symbols of the supper; and to express it in a manner implying not a mere
reception of it in the imagination or apprehension of their mind, but a
real enjoyment of it as the food of eternal life. Nor can any cause be
assigned, why this opinion is so odious to the world, and the minds of
multitudes are so unjustly prejudiced against any defence of it, but
that they have been awfully infatuated with the delusions of Satan. It
is certain that the doctrine we advance is in all respects in perfect
harmony with the Scriptures; it contains nothing absurd, ambiguous, or
obscure; it is not at all inimical to true piety, or solid edification;
in short, it includes nothing that can offend, except that for several
ages, while the ignorance and barbarism of the sophists prevailed over
the Church, this very clear light and obvious truth was shamefully
suppressed. Yet, as, in the present age also, Satan is making the most
powerful exertions to oppose it, and is employing turbulent spirits to
endeavour to blacken it by every possible calumny and reproach, it is
necessary to be the more diligent in asserting and defending it.

XX. Now, before we proceed any further, it is requisite to discuss the
institution itself; because the most plausible objection of our
adversaries is, that we depart from the words of Christ. To exonerate
ourselves from the false charge which they bring against us, it is
highly proper, therefore, to begin with an exposition of the words. The
account given by three of the evangelists, and by Paul, informs us, that
“Jesus took bread, and gave thanks, and blessed it, and brake it, and
gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body, which is
given or broken for you. And he took the cup, and said, This cup is my
blood of the new testament, or the new testament in my blood, which is
shed for you, and for many, for the remission of sins.”[1267] The
advocates of transubstantiation contend that the pronoun _this_ denotes
the appearance of the bread, because the consecration is made by the
whole of the sentence, and there is no visible substance, according to
them, which can be indicated by it. But if they are guided by a
scrupulous attention to the words, because Christ declared that which he
gave into the hands of his disciples to be his body, nothing can be more
at variance with a just interpretation of them, than the notion that
what before was bread had now become the body of Christ. For it was that
which Christ took into his hands to deliver to his disciples, that he
asserts to be his body; but he took “_bread_.” Who does not perceive,
then, that that to which this pronoun referred was bread still? and
therefore nothing would be more absurd than to transfer to a mere
appearance or visionary form that which was spoken of real bread.
Others, when they explain the word _is_ to denote transubstantiation,
have recourse to an interpretation still more violently perverted and
unnatural. They have not the least colour, therefore, for a pretence
that they are influenced by a scrupulous reverence for the words of
Christ. For to use the word _is_ to signify a transmutation into another
substance, is a thing never heard of, in any country or in any language.
Those who acknowledge the continuance of bread in the supper, and affirm
that it is accompanied with the real body of Christ, differ considerably
among themselves. Those of them who express themselves more modestly,
though they strenuously insist on the literal meaning of these words,
“_This is my body_,” yet afterwards depart from their literal precision,
and explain them to import that the body of Christ is with the bread, in
the bread, and under the bread. Of the opinion maintained by them, we
have already spoken, and shall soon have occasion to take further
notice; at present I am only arguing respecting the words, by which they
consider themselves bound, so that they cannot admit the bread to be
called _his body_, because it is a sign of it. But if they object to
every trope, and insist on taking the words in a sense strictly literal,
why do they forsake the language of Christ, and adopt a phraseology of
their own so very dissimilar? For there is a wide difference between
these two assertions, that “the bread is the body,” and that “the body
is with the bread.” But because they perceived the impossibility of
supporting this simple proposition, “that the bread is the body,” they
have endeavoured to escape from their embarrassment by those evasions.
Others, more daring, hesitate not to assert, that, in strict propriety
of speech, the bread _is_ the body; and thereby prove themselves to be
advocates for a truly literal interpretation. If it be objected, that
then the bread is Christ, and Christ is God, they will deny this,
because it is not expressed in the words of Christ. But they will gain
nothing by their denial of it, for it is universally admitted that the
whole person of Christ is offered to us in the sacrament. Now, it would
be intolerable blasphemy to affirm of a frail and corruptible element,
without any figure, that it is Christ. I ask them whether these two
propositions are equivalent to each other—_Christ is the Son of God_,
and _Bread is the body of Christ_. If they confess them to be
different,—a confession which, if they hesitated, it would be easy to
extort from them,—let them say wherein the difference consists. I
suppose they will adduce no other point of difference, than that the
bread is called _the body_ in a sacramental sense. Whence it follows,
that the words of Christ are not subject to any common rule, and ought
not to be examined on the principles of grammar. I would likewise
inquire of the inflexible champions of a literal interpretation, whether
the words attributed to Christ, by Luke and Paul, “This cup _is_ the new
testament in my blood,” do not express the same idea as the former
clause, in which the bread is called his body. Surely the same reverence
ought to be shown to one part of the sacrament as to the other; and
because brevity is obscure, the sense is elucidated by a fuller
statement. Whenever, therefore, they shall argue, from that one word,
that the bread is the body of Christ, I shall adduce the interpretation
furnished by the fuller account, that it is the _testament_ in his body.
For shall we seek for an expositor of greater fidelity or accuracy than
Paul and Luke? Nor is it my design to diminish in the smallest degree
that participation of the body of Christ, which I have acknowledged is
enjoyed; my only object is, to silence that foolish obstinacy which
displays itself in violent contentions about words. From the authority
of Paul and Luke, I understand the bread to be the body of Christ,
because it is the covenant in his body. If they resist this, their
contention is not with me, but with the Spirit of God. Notwithstanding
they profess to be influenced by such reverence for the words of Christ,
that they dare not understand an explicit declaration of his in a
figurative sense, yet this pretext is not sufficient to justify their
pertinacious rejection of all the reasons which we allege to the
contrary. At the same time, as I have already suggested, it is necessary
to understand what is meant by “the testament in the body and blood of
Christ;” because we should derive no benefit from the covenant ratified
by the sacrifice of his death, if it were not followed by that secret
communication by which we become one with him.

XXI. It remains for us, therefore, to acknowledge that, on account of
the affinity which the things signified have with their symbols, the
name of the substance has been given to the sign, in a figurative sense
indeed, but by a most apt analogy. I forbear to introduce any thing of
allegories and parables, lest any one should accuse me of having
recourse to subterfuges, and travelling out of the present subject. I
observe that this is a metonymical form of expression, which is commonly
used in the Scripture in reference to sacraments. For in no other sense
is it possible to understand such passages as these; when of
circumcision it is said, “This is my covenant;”[1268] of the paschal
lamb, “It is the Lord’s passover;”[1269] of the legal sacrifices, that
they were expiations, or atonements;[1270] of the rock, from which the
water issued in the desert, “That Rock was Christ.”[1271] And not only
is the name of something superior transferred to that which is inferior,
but, on the contrary, the name of the visible sign is likewise given to
the thing signified; as when God is said to have appeared to Moses in
the bush,[1272] when the ark of the covenant is called God,[1273] and
the Holy Spirit, a dove.[1274] For, though there is an essential
difference between the symbol and the thing signified, the former being
corporeal, terrestrial, and visible, and the latter spiritual,
celestial, and invisible, yet, as the symbol is not a vain and useless
memorial, a mere adumbration of the thing which it has been consecrated
to represent, but also a true and real exhibition of it, why may not the
name of that which it signifies be justly applied to it? If symbols
invented by man, which are rather emblems of things absent, than tokens
of things present, of which also they very frequently give a delusive
representation, are, nevertheless, sometimes distinguished by the names
of the things which they signify, there is far greater reason why the
symbols instituted by God should borrow the names of those things of
which they always exhibit a correct and faithful representation, and by
the truth of which they are always accompanied. So great, therefore, is
the similitude and affinity of the one to the other, that there is
nothing at all unnatural in such a mutual interchange of appellations.
Let our adversaries cease, then, to assail us with their ridiculous wit,
by calling us Tropologists, because we explain the sacramental
phraseology according to the common usage of the Scripture. For as there
is a great similarity in many respects between the various sacraments,
so this metonymical transfer of names is common to them all. As the
apostle, therefore, states, that “the Rock” from which flowed “spiritual
drink” for the Israelites, “was Christ,”[1275] because it was a visible
symbol, under which “that spiritual drink” was received, though not in a
manner discernible by the corporeal eye, so bread is now called the body
of Christ, because it is the symbol under which the Lord truly offers us
his body to eat. And that no one may despise this as a novel sentiment,
we shall show that the same was entertained by Augustine. He says, “If
the sacraments had not some similitude to those things of which they are
sacraments, they would be no sacraments at all. On account of this
similitude, they frequently take the names even of the things which they
represent. Therefore, as the sacrament of the body of Christ is in some
sense that body itself, and the sacrament of the blood of Christ, is
that blood itself, so the sacrament of faith is called faith.” His works
contain many similar passages, which it would be useless to collect, as
this one is sufficient; only the reader ought to be apprized that this
holy father repeats and confirms the same observation in an epistle to
Euodius. It is a frivolous subterfuge to plead, that when Augustine
speaks of metonymical expressions, as frequently and commonly used
respecting the sacraments, he makes no mention of the Lord’s supper;
for, if this were admitted, we could no longer reason from the genus to
the species, or from the whole to a part; it would not be a good
argument to say, that every animal is endued with the power of motion,
therefore oxen and horses are endued with the power of motion. All
further dispute on this point, however, is precluded by the language of
the same writer on another occasion—“that Christ did not hesitate to
call it his body, when he gave it as the sign of his body.” Again: “It
was wonderful patience in Christ, to admit Judas to the feast, in which
he instituted and gave to his disciples the emblem of his body and of
his blood.”

XXII. But if some obstinate man, shutting his eyes against every other
consideration, should insist on this single expression, “_This is_ my
body,” as though it made a distinction between the supper and all other
sacraments, the answer is easy. They allege that the verb substantive is
too emphatical to admit of any figure. If we grant this, the verb
substantive is also used by Paul, where he says, “The bread which we
break, _is_ it not the _communion_ of the body of Christ?”[1276] But the
communion of the body is something different from the body itself. In
almost all cases of sacraments, we find the same word used—“This _is_ my
covenant.” “It _is_ the Lord’s passover.”[1277] And to mention no more,
when Paul says, “That Rock _was_ Christ,”[1278] why do they consider the
verb substantive less emphatical in that passage than in the speech of
Christ? Let them also explain the force of the verb substantive in that
place where John says, “The Holy Ghost _was_ not yet, because that Jesus
was not yet glorified.”[1279] For if they obstinately adhere to their
rule, they will destroy the eternal existence of the Spirit, as if it
commenced at the ascension of Christ. Let them answer, in the last
place, what is the meaning of Paul, when he calls baptism “the washing
of regeneration, and renewing,”[1280] though it is evidently useless to
many. But nothing is more conclusive against them than that passage
where Paul says, that the Church is Christ. For having drawn a
similitude from the human body, he adds, “So also is Christ;”[1281] by
which he means not the only begotten Son of God, in himself, but in his
members. I think I have so far succeeded, that all men of sense and
integrity must be disgusted with the foul calumnies of our adversaries,
when they charge us with giving no credit to the words of Christ, which
we receive with as much submission as themselves, and consider with
greater reverence. Indeed, their supine negligence is a proof that it is
a subject of little concern to them, what was the will or meaning of
Christ, provided they can use him as a shield to defend their obstinacy;
as our diligence in inquiring into Christ’s true meaning is a sufficient
proof of our high regard to his authority. They maliciously represent,
that human reason prevents us from believing what Christ himself has
declared with his sacred mouth; but how unjustly they stigmatize us with
this reproach, I have explained, in a great measure, already, and shall
presently make still more evident. Nothing prevents us, therefore, from
believing Christ when he speaks, and immediately acquiescing in every
word he utters. The only question is, whether it be criminal to inquire
into his genuine meaning.

XXIII. To show themselves men of letters, these good doctors prohibit
even the least departure from the literal signification. I reply, When
the Scripture calls God “a man of war,” because this language would be
too harsh, unless it be explained in a figurative sense, I hesitate not
to consider it as a comparison borrowed from men. And indeed it was upon
no other pretext that the ancient Anthropomorphites molested the
orthodox fathers, than by laying hold of such expressions as these: “The
eyes of the Lord behold; It entereth into the ears of the Lord; His hand
is stretched out; The earth is his footstool;” and accusing them of
depriving God of his body, which the Scripture ascribes to him. If this
canon of interpretation be admitted, all the light of faith will be
overwhelmed in the crudest barbarism. For what monstrous absurdities
will not fanatics be able to elicit from the Scripture, if they are
permitted to allege every detached and ill-understood word and syllable
in confirmation of their notions? The objection which they urge, from
the improbability that Christ, when he was preparing peculiar
consolation for his disciples in seasons of adversity, should express
himself in enigmatical or obscure language, is completely in our favour.
For if it had not been understood by the apostles, that the bread was
called his body in a figurative sense, because it was a symbol of his
body, they would undoubtedly have been disturbed about so monstrous a
declaration. Almost at the same moment, John states that they were
embarrassed and perplexed with every minute difficulty. They who debated
among themselves how Christ was to go to the Father, and were at a loss
to know how he would depart from this world; who could understand
nothing that was said of a heavenly Father, because they had not seen
him; how could they have been so ready to believe any thing so entirely
repugnant to every dictate of reason, as that Christ was sitting at the
table before their eyes, and yet was invisibly enclosed in the bread? By
eating the bread without any hesitation, they testified their consent,
and hence it appears that they understood the words of Christ in the
same sense that we do, considering that it is common in all sacraments
for the name of the sign to be transferred to the thing signified. To
the disciples, therefore, it was, as it is to us, a certain and clear
consolation, involved in no enigma; nor is there any other cause to be
assigned why some reject our interpretation, except that the devil has
blinded them by his delusions, in consequence of which they imagine
enigmatical obscurities, where a beautiful figure furnishes such an
obvious and natural meaning. Besides, if we rigidly adhere to the
letter, what Christ said of the bread would be inconsistent with what he
said of the cup. He calls the bread _his body_, he calls the wine _his
blood_: either this must be a vain repetition, or a distinction which
separates the body from the blood. It might be said of the cup, This is
my body, as truly as of the bread; and the converse of this proposition
would be equally correct, that the bread is his blood. If they reply,
that we ought to consider for what end or use the symbols were
instituted,—this I acknowledge; but it is impossible to free their error
from this absurd consequence, that the bread is the blood, and the wine
the body. Now I am at a loss how to understand them, when they admit the
bread and the body to be different things, and yet assert that the bread
is properly and without any figure called the body; as if any one should
say that a garment is different from a man, and yet that it is properly
called a man. At the same time, as if their victory consisted in
obstinacy and calumny, they charge us with accusing Christ of falsehood,
if we inquire into the true meaning of his words. Now it will be easy
for the readers to judge how unjustly we are treated by these
syllable-hunters, when they persuade the simple to believe that we
derogate from the authority due to the words of Christ, which we have
proved to be outrageously perverted and confounded by them, but to be
faithfully and accurately explained by us.

XXIV. But the infamy of this falsehood cannot be entirely effaced,
without repelling another calumny; for they accuse us of being so
devoted to human reason, as to limit the power of God by the order of
nature, and to allow him no more than our own understanding teaches us
to ascribe to him. Against such iniquitous aspersions I appeal to the
doctrine which I have maintained; which will sufficiently evince that I
am far from measuring this mystery by the capacity of human reason, or
subjecting it to the laws of nature. Is it from natural philosophy that
we have learned that Christ feeds our souls with his flesh from heaven,
just as our bodies are nourished with bread and wine? Whence is it that
flesh has the power of giving life to our souls? Every one will
pronounce it not to be from nature. No more will it accord with human
reason that the flesh of Christ descends to us to become nourishment to
us. In short, whoever shall understand our doctrine, will be enraptured
with admiration of the secret power of God. But these good zealots
contrive a miracle, without which God himself, with all his power,
disappears from their view. I would again request of my readers a
diligent consideration of the nature and tendency of our doctrine,
whether it depends on human reason, or on the wings of faith rises above
the world and ascends to heaven. We say that Christ descends to us both
by the external symbol and by his Spirit, that he may truly vivify our
souls with the substance of his flesh and blood. He who perceives not
that many miracles are comprehended in these few words, is more than
stupid; for there is nothing more preternatural than for souls to derive
spiritual and heavenly life from the flesh, which had its origin from
the earth, and was subject to death; nothing is more incredible than for
things separated from each other by all the distance of heaven and
earth, notwithstanding that immense local distance, to be not only
connected, but united, so that our souls receive nourishment from the
flesh of Christ. Let these fanatics, then, no longer attempt to render
us odious by such a foul calumny, as though we, in any respect, limited
the infinite power of God; which is either a most stupid mistake, or an
impudent falsehood. For the question here respects not what God could
do, but what he has chosen to do. We affirm that what pleased him, came
to pass. It pleased him for Christ to become in all respects like his
brethren, sin excepted.[1282] What is the nature of our body? Has it not
its proper and certain dimensions? is it not contained in some
particular place, and capable of being felt and seen? And why, say they,
may not God cause the same flesh to occupy many different places, to be
contained in no particular place, and to have no form or dimensions? But
how can they be so senseless as to require the power of God to cause a
body to be a body, and not to be a body, at the same time? It is like
demanding of him to cause light to be at once both light and darkness.
But he wills light to be light, darkness to be darkness, and flesh to be
flesh. Whenever it shall be his pleasure, indeed, he will turn darkness
into light, and light into darkness; but to require that light and
darkness shall no longer be different, is to aim at perverting the order
of Divine wisdom. Therefore body must be body, spirit must be spirit,
every thing must be subject to that law, and retain that condition,
which was fixed by God at its creation. And the condition of a body is
such, that it must occupy one particular place, and have its proper form
and dimensions. In this condition did Christ assume a body, to which, as
Augustine observes, “he gave incorruption and glory, but without
depriving it of its nature and reality.” The testimony of the Scripture
is clear—that he ascended to heaven, whence he will come again, in like
manner as he was seen to ascend.[1283]

XXV. They reply, that they have the word in which the will of God is
clearly revealed; that is, if they be allowed to banish from the Church
the gift of interpretation which elucidates the word. I confess that
they have the word and quote the letter of Scripture; but just as did
the Anthropomorphites in past ages, who represented God to be corporeal;
just as did Marcion and the Manichæans, who attributed to Christ a
celestial or visionary body. For they quoted these texts: “The first man
is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven.”[1284]
“Christ made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a
servant, and was made in the likeness of man.”[1285] These groveling
souls imagine that God can have no power, unless the whole order of
nature be reversed by the monster which they have fabricated in their
own brains; but this is an attempt to circumscribe God, and to measure
his power by the fancies of men. For from what word have they learned
that the body of Christ is visible in heaven, and yet is on earth,
concealed in an invisible manner under innumerable pieces of bread? They
will say that necessity requires this, in order to the body of Christ
being given in the supper. The truth is, that when they had determined
to conclude, from the language of Christ, that his body was eaten in a
carnal manner, carried away with this prejudice, they found it necessary
to invent that subtlety, which the whole tenor of the Scripture
contradicts. That we derogate any thing from the power of God, is so far
from being true, that our doctrine peculiarly tends to magnify it. But
as they never cease to accuse us of defrauding God of his due honour, by
a rejection of every thing which natural reason finds it difficult to
believe, though promised by the mouth of Christ himself, I repeat the
answer which I have lately given, that we consult not natural reason
respecting the mysteries of faith, but that, with the placid docility
and gentleness of spirit recommended by James,[1286] we receive the
doctrine which comes down from heaven. Yet, in a point in which they run
into a pernicious error, I admit that we pursue a useful moderation. On
hearing the words of Christ, “This is my body,” they imagine a miracle
the most distant from his intention. This notion gives birth to
prodigious absurdities; but, having already embarrassed themselves by
their foolish precipitation, they plunge themselves into the abyss of
the Divine omnipotence, in order to extinguish the light of truth. Hence
the haughty presumption, with which they profess to have no wish to know
how Christ is concealed under the bread, being content with that
declaration, “This is my body.” We, on the contrary, with equal
obedience and care, endeavour to ascertain the true meaning of this
passage, as we do of all others; nor do we, with preposterous eagerness,
temerity, and indiscretion, seize the first thought which presents
itself to our minds, but after diligent meditation we embrace that sense
which the Spirit of God suggests; established in which, we look down
with contempt on every opposition made to it by the wisdom of this
world; we even impose restraints on our own minds, that they may not
dare to utter a word of cavil, and keep them humble to prevent their
murmuring against the authority of God. Hence has proceeded that
exposition of the words of Christ, which all, who are but moderately
versed in the Scripture, know to be agreeable to its invariable usage
respecting sacraments. Nor do we esteem it unlawful, in a difficult
case, after the example of the holy virgin, to inquire how it can
be.[1287]

XXVI. But as nothing will be more effectual to confirm the faith of true
believers, than a knowledge that the doctrine which we have advanced is
drawn from the pure word of God, and rests upon its authority, I will
demonstrate this with all possible brevity. It is not from Aristotle,
but from the Holy Spirit, that we have learned that the body of Christ,
since its resurrection, is limited, and received into heaven till the
last day. I am fully aware that our adversaries contemptuously elude the
passages which are adduced for this purpose.[1288] Whenever Christ
speaks of his approaching departure from the world, they reply that this
departure was nothing more than a change of his mortal state. But if
this were correct, Christ would not substitute the Holy Spirit to supply
the defect of his absence, as they express it, since the Spirit does not
succeed to his place, nor does Christ himself descend again from the
glory of heaven to assume the condition of this mortal life. The advent
of the Spirit, and the ascension of Christ, are clearly opposed to each
other; and, therefore, it is impossible for Christ to dwell with us,
according to his flesh, in the same manner in which he sends his Spirit.
Besides, he expressly declares that he shall not always be with his
disciples in the world.[1289] This declaration also they think they have
completely explained away, by saying that Christ merely intended that he
should not always be poor and mean, and exposed to the necessities of
this transitory life. But they are evidently contradicted by the
context, which relates, not to his poverty, or indigence, or any of the
miseries of this life, but to his reception of respect and honour. The
unction performed by the woman displeased the disciples, because they
thought it an unnecessary and useless expense, bordering on luxury; and,
therefore, they wished that the value of the ointment, which they
considered as improperly lavished, had been distributed to the poor.
Christ said, that he should not always be present to receive such
honour. Augustine has given the same explanation of this passage, in the
following explicit language:—“When Christ said, Me ye have not always
with you, he spoke of the presence of his body. For according to his
majesty, his providence, and his ineffable and invisible grace, is
accomplished what he said on another occasion—Lo, I am with you always,
even to the end of the world; but, with respect to the body, which the
Word assumed, which was born of the virgin, which was apprehended by the
Jews, which was affixed to the tree, which was taken down from the
cross, which was wrapped in linen clothes, which was laid in the
sepulchre, which was manifested at the resurrection, this declaration is
fulfilled—Me ye have not always with you. Why? Because in his corporeal
presence he conversed with his disciples for forty days, and while they
were attending him, seen, but not followed by them, he ascended to
heaven. He is not here; for he sits at the right hand of the Father: and
yet he is here; for he has not withdrawn the presence of his majesty:
otherwise, according to the presence of his majesty, we have Christ
always with us; but, with respect to his corporeal presence, he said
with truth, Me ye have not always with you. For the Church had his
bodily presence for a few days; now it retains him by faith, but does
not behold him with corporeal eyes.” Here let us briefly remark, this
father represents Christ as present with us in three respects—in his
majesty, his providence, and his ineffable grace; under the last of
which I comprehend the wonderful communion of his body and blood; only
we must understand this to be effected by the power of the Holy Spirit,
and not by a fictitious enclosure of his body under the bread. For our
Lord has declared that he has flesh and bones, capable of being felt and
seen; and _to go away_ and _to ascend_ import not a mere appearance of
ascent and departure, but an actual performance of that which the words
express. Shall we, then, it will be said by some, assign to Christ a
particular district of heaven? I reply, with Augustine, that this
question is too curious, and altogether unnecessary; provided we believe
that he is in heaven, that is enough.

XXVII. Does not the term _ascension_, which is so frequently repeated,
signify a removal from one place to another? This they deny, because
they consider his exaltation as only denoting the majesty of his empire.
But I ask, What was the manner of his ascent? Was he not carried up on
high in the view of his disciples? Do not the evangelists expressly
state that he was received up into heaven?[1290] These acute sophists
reply that he was concealed from their sight by an interposing cloud, to
teach believers that thenceforward he would not be visible in the world.
As though, to produce a belief of his invisible presence, he ought not
rather to have vanished in a moment, or to have been enveloped in the
cloud without moving from where he stood. But as he was carried up into
the air, and, by the interposition of a cloud between him and his
disciples, showed that he was no longer to be sought for on earth, we
confidently conclude that his residence is now in heaven. This also is
affirmed by Paul, who teaches us to expect him from thence.[1291] For
this reason the angels admonished the disciples—“Why stand ye gazing up
into heaven? This same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven,
shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.”[1292]
Here also the adversaries of sound doctrine have recourse to what they
think an ingenious evasion—that he will then become visible who has
never departed from the world, but remained invisible with his people.
As though the angels, in that address, insinuated a twofold presence,
and did not simply make the disciples ocular witnesses of his ascension,
with a view to preclude every doubt; just as if they had said, Received
up into heaven in your sight, he has taken possession of the celestial
empire; it remains for you to wait with patience till he shall come
again as the judge of the world; for he is now entered into heaven, not
to occupy it alone, but to assemble you and all the godly to enjoy it
with him.

XXVIII. As the advocates of this spurious doctrine are not ashamed to
defend it by the suffrages of the fathers, and particularly of
Augustine, I will briefly expose the disingenuousness of this attempt.
Their testimonies having been collected by learned and pious writers, I
have no inclination to go over the same ground; any one who wishes may
consult their writings. Nor even from Augustine shall I adduce every
passage which would serve the argument; but shall content myself with
showing, by a few extracts, that he is, beyond all doubt, perfectly in
harmony with us. In order to deprive us of him, our adversaries allege
that, in various parts of his works, he states the flesh and blood of
Christ, even the victim once offered on the cross, to be dispensed in
the sacred supper; but this is altogether frivolous; since he also calls
the consecrated symbols either “the eucharist,” or “the sacrament of
Christ’s body and blood.” But in what sense he uses the words _flesh_
and _blood_, it is unnecessary to make any long or circuitous inquiry;
for he explains himself by saying, “that sacraments take their names
from the similitude of those things which they signify, and, therefore,
in some sense, the sacrament of the body is _the body_.” With this
corresponds another well known passage: “The Lord hesitated not to say,
This is my body, when he delivered the sign of it.” They object again,
that Augustine expressly says, that the body of Christ falls to the
earth, and enters into the mouth. I reply, that he says this in the same
sense in which he affirms it to be consumed; because he connects both
these things together. Nor does any objection arise from his saying,
that when the mystery is finished, the bread is consumed; because he had
just before said, “As these things are known to man, being done by man,
they may have honour as holy things, but not as miracles.” And to the
same effect is another expression, which our adversaries, without
sufficient consideration, represent as in their favour; that, “when
Christ presented the mystical bread to his disciples, he, in a certain
sense, held himself in his own hands.” For, by introducing this
qualifying phrase _in a certain sense_, he sufficiently declares that
the body of Christ was not truly or really enclosed in the bread. Nor
ought this to be thought strange, for in another place he expressly
maintains, “That if bodies be deprived of their local spaces, they will
be nowhere, and consequently will cease to have any existence.” It is a
poor cavil, to say that this passage does not relate to the sacred
supper, in which God exerts a special power; because the question had
been agitated respecting the body of Christ, and this holy father,
professedly answering it, says, “Christ has given immortality to his
body, but has not deprived it of its nature. In a corporeal form,
therefore, he is not to be considered as universally diffused; for we
must beware of asserting his Divinity in such a way as to destroy the
truth of his body. It does not follow, that, because God is every where,
all that is in him is every where also.” The reason is immediately
added—“For one person is God and man, and both constitute one Christ; as
God, he is every where; as man, he is in heaven.” What stupidity would
it have betrayed not to except the mystery of the supper, a thing so
serious and important, if it contained any thing inconsistent with the
doctrine he was maintaining! Yet, if any one will attentively read what
follows, he will find, that under that general doctrine, the Lord’s
supper is also comprehended. He says, that Christ, who is, in one
person, the only begotten Son of God and the Son of man, is every where
present as God; that, as God, he resides in the temple of God, that is,
in the Church; and yet that he occupies some particular place in heaven,
according to the dimensions of a real body. To unite Christ with his
Church, we see he does not bring down his body from heaven; which he
certainly would have done, if that body could not become our food
without being enclosed under the bread. In another place, describing how
Christ is now possessed by believers, he says, “You have him by the sign
of the cross, by the sacrament of baptism, by the food and drink of the
altar.” Whether he is correct in placing a superstitious ceremony among
the symbols of Christ’s presence, I am not now discussing; but in
comparing the presence of the flesh to the sign of the cross, he
sufficiently shows that he does not imagine Christ to have two bodies,
one visibly seated in heaven, and the other invisibly concealed under
the bread. If any further explication be necessary, it is soon after
added, “That we always have Christ, according to the presence of his
majesty; but that, according to the presence of his flesh, it is rightly
said, Me ye have not always.” Our adversaries reply, that it is also
observed, at the same time, “that according to his ineffable and
invisible grace, his declaration is fulfilled—Lo, I am with you always,
even to the end of the world.” But this is nothing in their favour,
because, after all, it is restricted to that majesty which is always
opposed to the body, and his flesh is expressly distinguished from his
power and grace. In another passage of this author, we find the same
antithesis, or contrast, “that Christ left his disciples in his
corporeal presence, that he might be with them by his spiritual
presence;” which clearly distinguishes the substance of the flesh from
the power of the Spirit, which conjoins us with Christ, notwithstanding
we are widely separated from him by local distance. He frequently uses
the same mode of expression, as when he says, “Christ will come again,
in his corporeal presence, to judge the living and the dead, according
to the rule of faith and sound doctrine. For in his spiritual presence,
he was to come to his disciples, and to be with his whole Church on
earth, to the end of time. This discourse, therefore, was addressed to
the believers, whom he had already begun to keep with his corporeal
presence, and whom he was about to leave by his corporeal absence, that
with the Father he might keep them by his spiritual presence.” To
explain _corporeal_ to mean _visible_, is mere trifling; for he opposes
the body of Christ to his Divine power; and by adding, “that _with the
Father he might keep them_,” clearly expresses that the Saviour
communicates his grace to us from heaven by the Holy Spirit.

XXIX. As they place so much confidence in this subterfuge of an
invisible presence, let us see how far it serves their cause. In the
first place, they cannot produce a single syllable from the Scriptures
to prove that Christ is invisible; but they take for granted, what no
man of sound judgment will concede to them, that the body of Christ
cannot be given in the supper, without being concealed under the form of
bread. Now, so far is this from being an admitted axiom, that it is the
very point in dispute between them and us. And while they talk in this
way, they are constrained to attribute to Christ a double body, because,
upon their principle, he is visible in heaven, and at the same time, by
a special dispensation, is invisible in the sacred supper. Whether this
is correct or not, it is easy to judge from various passages of
Scripture, and particularly from the testimony of Peter; who says of
Christ, that “the heavens must receive him, until the times of
restitution of all things.”[1293] These men maintain that he is in all
places, but without any form. They object that it is unreasonable to
subject the nature of a glorified body to the laws of common nature. But
this objection leads to the extravagant notion of Servetus, which justly
deserves the detestation of all believers, that the body of Christ,
after his ascension, was absorbed in his Divinity. I will not assert,
that they hold this opinion; but if it be considered as one of the
attributes of the glorified body, to fill all places in an invisible
manner, it is evident that the corporeal substance must be destroyed,
and no difference will be left between the Divinity and the humanity.
Besides, if the body of Christ be multiform and variable, so as to
appear in one place, and to be invisible in another, what becomes of the
nature of a body which consists in having its proper dimensions? and
where is its unity? With far greater propriety Tertullian argues, that
the body of Christ was a true and natural body, because the emblem of it
is presented to us in the mystery of the supper, as a pledge and
assurance of spiritual life. And, indeed, it was of his glorified body,
that Christ said, “Handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and
bones, as ye see me have.”[1294] We see how the truth of his body is
proved by the lips of Christ himself, because it can be felt and seen;
deprive it of these qualities, and it will cease to be a body. They are
always recurring to their subterfuge of the dispensation which they have
invented. But it is our duty to receive what Christ absolutely declares,
in such a manner, as to admit, without any exception, whatever he is
pleased to affirm. He proved that he was not a phantom, because he was
visible in his flesh. If that be taken away which he asserts to belong
to the nature of his body, will it not be necessary to frame a new
definition of a body? Now, with all their sophistry, they can extract
nothing to support their imaginary _dispensation_ from that passage of
Paul, where he says, that “From heaven we look for the Saviour, who
shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his
glorious body.”[1295] For we cannot hope for a conformity to Christ in
those qualities which they attribute to him, which would make all our
bodies invisible and infinite; nor will they find a man foolish enough
to be persuaded to believe so great an absurdity. Let them, then, no
longer ascribe to the glorified body of Christ the property of being in
many places at once, or of being contained within no particular space.
In short, let them either deny the resurrection of the flesh, or admit
that Christ, though clothed with celestial glory, has not divested
himself of his flesh; for he will make us, in our flesh, partakers of
the same glory, as we shall enjoy a resurrection similar to his. For
what is there more clearly stated in any part of the Scripture, than
that as Christ really assumed our flesh when he was born of the virgin,
and suffered in our flesh to atone for our sins, so he resumed the same
flesh, at his resurrection, and carried it up into heaven? For all the
hope that we have of our resurrection and ascension to heaven, is
founded on the resurrection and ascension of Christ; who, as Tertullian
says, “has taken the pledge of our resurrection into heaven with him.”
Now, how weak and faint would this hope be, if the real flesh of Christ
had not truly risen from the dead, and entered into the kingdom of
heaven! But it is essential to a real body, to have its particular form
and dimensions, and to be contained within some certain space. Let us
hear no more, then, of this ridiculous notion, which fastens the minds
of men, and Christ himself, to the bread. For what is the use of this
invisible presence concealed under the bread, but to lead those who
desire to be united to Christ, to confine their attention to that
symbol? But the Lord intended to withdraw, not only our eyes, but all
our senses, from the earth, when he forbade the woman to touch him,
because he was not yet ascended to his Father.[1296] When he saw Mary,
with pious affection and reverence, hastening to kiss his feet, there
was no reason for his disapprobation and prohibition of such an act,
before his ascension to heaven, except that heaven was the only place
where he chose to be sought. It is objected, that he was afterwards seen
by Stephen;[1297] but the answer is easy; for, in order to this, no
change of place was necessary to Christ, who could impart to the eyes of
his servant a supernatural perspicacity, capable of penetrating into
heaven. The same observation is applicable to his appearance to
Paul.[1298] They allege that Christ came out of the sepulchre, while the
sepulchre remained closed, and entered into the room where his disciples
were assembled, while the doors continued shut; but this contributes no
support to their error. For as the water was like a solid pavement,
forming a road for Christ when he walked on the lake, so it is no wonder
if the hardness of the stone gave way, to make him a passage; though it
is more probable that the stone removed at his command, and after his
departure returned to its place. And to enter while the doors remained
shut, does not imply his penetrating through the solid matter, but his
opening an entrance for himself by his Divine power, so that, in a
miraculous manner, he instantaneously stood in the midst of his
disciples, though the doors were shut. What they adduce from Luke, that
“he vanished out of the sight” of his two disciples, with whom he had
walked to Emmaus,[1299] is of no service to their cause, but is in
favour of ours; for, according to the testimony of the same evangelist,
when he joined these disciples, he assumed no new appearance in order to
conceal himself; but “their eyes were holden, that they should not know
him.”[1300] Our adversaries, however, not only transform Christ, to keep
him in the world, but they represent him as unlike himself, and
altogether different on earth from what he is in heaven. By such
extravagances, in short, they turn the body of Christ into a spirit,
though not by positive assertion, yet by direct implication; and not
content with this, they attribute to it qualities utterly incompatible
with each other; whence it follows, of necessity, that he must have two
bodies.

XXX. Though we should grant them what they contend for, respecting its
invisible presence, still this would be no proof of its infinity,
without which it will be a vain attempt to enclose Christ under the
bread. Unless the body of Christ be capable of being every where at
once, without any limitation of place, it will not be credible that it
is concealed under the bread in the sacred supper. It was this necessity
which caused them to introduce their monstrous notion of its ubiquity.
But it has been shown, by clear and strong testimonies of Scripture,
that the body of Christ was, like other human bodies, circumscribed by
certain dimensions; and its ascension to heaven made it evident that it
was not in all places, but that it left one place, when it removed to
another. Nor is the promise, “I am with you always, even unto the end of
the world,”[1301] to be applied, as they suppose it should be, to his
body. In the first place, on this supposition, there will be no such
perpetual connection, unless Christ dwells in us in a corporeal manner,
without the use of the sacramental supper; and therefore they have no
sufficient cause for contending so fiercely respecting the words of
Christ, in order to enclose Christ under the bread. In the next place,
the context evinces, that Christ there has not the most distant
reference to his flesh, but promises his disciples invincible aid to
sustain and defend them against all the assaults of Satan and the world.
For having assigned them a difficult province, to encourage them to
undertake it without hesitation, and to discharge it with undaunted
resolution, he supports them with the assurance of his presence; as
though he had said, they should never want his aid, which nothing could
overcome. Unless these men wished to involve every thing in confusion,
ought they not to distinguish the nature of this presence? It is evident
that some persons would rather incur the greatest disgrace by betraying
their ignorance, than relinquish even the least particle of their error.
I speak not of the Romanists, whose doctrine is more tolerable, or at
least more modest; but some are so carried away with the heat of
contention, as to affirm that, on account of the union of the two
natures in Christ, wherever his Divinity is, his flesh, which cannot be
separated from it, is there also; as if that union had mingled the two
natures so as to form some intermediate kind of being, which is neither
God nor man. This notion was maintained by Eutyches, and since his time
by Servetus. But it is clearly ascertained from the Scriptures, that in
the one person of Christ the two natures are united in such a manner,
that each retains its peculiar properties undiminished. That Eutyches
was justly condemned as a heretic, our adversaries will not deny; it is
surprising that they overlook the cause of his condemnation, which was,
that by taking away the difference between the two natures, and
insisting on the unity of the person, he made the Divinity human, and
deified the humanity. What absurdity, therefore, is it to mingle heaven
and earth together, rather than not to draw the body down from the
celestial sanctuary! They endeavour to justify themselves by adducing
these texts: “No man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down
from heaven, even the Son of man, which is in heaven;” and, “The only
begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared
him.”[1302] But it argues the same stupidity to disregard the
communication of properties, a term which was with good reason adopted
by the holy fathers in the early ages. When Paul says that “The Lord of
glory” was “crucified,”[1303] he certainly does not intend that Christ
suffered any thing in his Divinity, but that the same person, who
suffered as an abject and despised man, was also, as God, the Lord of
glory. In the same sense, the Son of man was in heaven; because the same
Christ, who, according to the flesh, dwelt on earth as the Son of man,
as God, was always in heaven. For this reason, in the same passage, he
represents himself as having descended from heaven, according to his
Divinity; not that his Divinity quitted heaven to confine itself in the
prison of the body; but because, though it filled all space, yet it
dwelt corporeally, or naturally, and in a certain ineffable manner, in
the humanity. It is a distinction common in the schools, and which I am
not ashamed to repeat, that though Christ is every where entire, yet all
that is in him is not every where. And I sincerely wish that the
schoolmen themselves had duly considered the meaning of this
observation; for then we should never have heard of their stupid notion
of the corporeal presence of Christ in the sacrament. Therefore, our
Mediator, as he is every where entire, is always near to his people; and
in the sacred supper exhibits himself present in a peculiar manner, yet
not with all that belongs to him; because, as we have stated, his body
has been received into heaven, and remains there till he shall come to
judgment.

XXXI. They are exceedingly deceived, who cannot conceive of any presence
of the flesh of Christ in the supper, except it be attached to the
bread. For on this principle they leave nothing to the secret operation
of the Spirit, which unites us to Christ. They suppose Christ not to be
present, unless he descends to us; as though we cannot equally enjoy his
presence, if he elevates us to himself. The only question between us,
therefore, respects the manner of this presence; because they place
Christ in the bread, and we think it unlawful for us to bring him down
from heaven. Let the readers judge on which side the truth lies. Only
let us hear no more of that calumny, that Christ is excluded from the
sacrament, unless he be concealed under the bread. For as this is a
heavenly mystery, there is no necessity to bring Christ down to the
earth, in order to be united to us.

XXXII. If any one inquire of me respecting the manner, I shall not be
ashamed to acknowledge, that it is a mystery too sublime for me to be
able to express, or even to comprehend; and, to be still more explicit,
I rather experience it, than understand it. Here, therefore, without any
controversy, I embrace the truth of God, on which I can safely rely. He
pronounces his flesh to be the food, and his blood the drink, of my
soul. I offer him my soul, to be nourished with such aliment. In his
sacred supper, he commands me, under the symbols of bread and wine, to
take, and eat, and drink, his body and blood. I doubt not that he truly
presents, and that I receive them. Only I reject the absurdities which
appear to be either degrading to his majesty, or inconsistent with the
reality of his human nature, and are at the same time repugnant to the
word of God, which informs us that Christ has been received into the
glory of the celestial kingdom, where he is exalted above every
condition of the world, and which is equally careful to attribute to his
human nature the properties of real humanity. Nor ought this to seem
incredible or unreasonable, because, as the kingdom of Christ is wholly
spiritual, so his communications with his Church are not at all to be
regulated by the order of the present world; or, to use the words of
Augustine, “This mystery, as well as others, is celebrated by man, but
in a Divine manner; it is administered on earth, but in a heavenly
manner.” The presence of Christ’s body, I say, is such as the nature of
the sacrament requires; where we affirm that it appears with so much
virtue and efficacy, as not only to afford our minds an undoubted
confidence of eternal life, but also to give us an assurance of the
resurrection and immortality of our bodies. For they are vivified by his
immortal flesh, and in some degree participate his immortality. Those
who go beyond this in their hyperbolical representations, merely obscure
the simple and obvious truth by such intricacies. If any person be not
yet satisfied, I would request him to consider, that we are now treating
of a sacrament, every part of which ought to be referred to faith. Now,
we feed our faith by this participation of the body of Christ which we
have mentioned, as fully as they do, who bring him down from heaven. At
the same time, I candidly confess, that I reject that mixture of the
flesh of Christ with our souls, or that transfusion of it into us, which
they teach; because it is sufficient for us that Christ inspires life
into our souls from the substance of his flesh, and even infuses his own
life into us, though his flesh never actually enters into us. I may also
remark, that the analogy of faith, to which Paul directs us to conform
every interpretation of the Scripture, is in this case, beyond all
doubt, eminently in our favour. Let the adversaries of so clear a truth
examine by what rule of faith they regulate themselves. “He that
confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is not of
God.”[1304] Such persons, though they may conceal it, or may not observe
it, do, in effect, deny the reality of his flesh.

XXXIII. The same judgment is to be formed of our participation, which
they suppose not to be enjoyed at all, unless the flesh of Christ be
swallowed in the bread. But we do no small injury to the Holy Spirit,
unless we believe that our communion with the flesh and blood of Christ
is the effect of his incomprehensible influence. Even if the virtue of
this mystery, such as we have represented it, and as it was understood
by the ancient Church, had received the consideration justly due to it,
for four hundred years past, there would have been quite enough to
satisfy us, and the door would have been shut against many pernicious
errors, which have kindled dreadful dissensions, by which the Church has
been miserably agitated in the present, as well as past ages. But
sophistical men insist on a hyperbolical kind of presence, which is
never taught in the Scripture; and they contend as eagerly for this
foolish and absurd imagination, as if the whole of religion consisted in
the enclosure of Christ in the bread. It principally concerns us to know
how the body of Christ, which was once delivered for us, is made ours,
and how we are made partakers of his blood which was shed; for the
entire possession of Christ crucified consists in an enjoyment of all
his benefits. Now, leaving these things, which are of such great
importance, and even neglecting and forgetting them, these sophists take
no pleasure but in this thorny question; how the body of Christ is
concealed under the bread, or under the form of the bread. They falsely
pretend that all that we teach respecting a spiritual participation, is
contrary to what they call the true and real participation; because we
regard nothing but the manner, which, in their opinion, is corporeal, as
they enclose Christ in the bread, but in ours is spiritual, because the
secret influence of the Spirit is the bond which unites us to Christ.
Nor is there any more truth in their other objection, that we attend to
nothing but the fruit or effect which believers experience from feeding
on the flesh of Christ. For we have already said, that Christ himself is
the matter or substance of the sacred supper, and that it is in
consequence of this, that we are absolved from our sins by the sacrifice
of his death, are washed in his blood, and by his resurrection are
raised to the hope of the heavenly life. But the foolish imagination, of
which Lombard was the author, has perverted their minds, while they have
supposed the sacrament to consist in eating the flesh of Christ. For
these are his words: “The sacrament, without the thing, consists in the
forms of bread and wine; the sacrament and the thing are the flesh and
blood of Christ; the thing, without the sacrament, is his mystical
flesh.” Again, a little after: “The thing signified and contained is the
proper flesh of Christ; the thing signified and not contained, is his
mystical body.” With his distinction between the flesh of Christ, and
the power which it has to nourish, I fully agree; but his notion, of
what is a sacrament, and as contained under the bread, is an error not
to be endured. Hence proceeded a false idea of sacramental eating,
because they supposed the body of Christ to be eaten by impious and
profane persons, notwithstanding they were strangers to him. But the
flesh of Christ itself, in the mystery of the supper, is as much a
spiritual thing, as our eternal salvation. Whence we conclude, that
persons who are destitute of the Spirit of Christ, can no more eat the
flesh of Christ, than drink wine which has no taste. It is certainly
offering an insult, and doing violence to Christ, to attribute to him a
body all feeble and dead, which is promiscuously distributed to
unbelievers; and it is expressly contradicted by his own words: “He that
eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in
him.”[1305] They reply, that the discourse from which this text is
quoted does not treat of sacramental eating; and this I concede to them;
only let them not be perpetually striking on the same rock, that the
flesh of Christ may be eaten without any benefit. But I would wish them
to inform me how long they retain it after they have eaten it. Here I
believe they will find it impossible to escape. But they object, that
the truth of the promises of God can sustain no diminution or failure
from the ingratitude of men. This I admit; and I also maintain, that the
virtue of this mystery remains unimpaired, notwithstanding wicked men
exert their utmost efforts to destroy it. It is one thing, however, for
the body of Christ to be offered, and another for it to be received.
Christ presents this spiritual meat and spiritual drink to all; some
receive them with avidity, others fastidiously reject them; shall their
rejection cause the meat and drink to lose their nature? They will
plead, that their sentiment is supported by this similitude—that the
flesh of Christ, though it be not relished by unbelievers, nevertheless
still continues to be flesh. But I deny that it can ever be eaten
without the taste of faith; or, if the language of Augustine be
preferred, I deny that men carry away from the sacrament any more than
they collect in the vessel of faith. Thus, nothing is taken from the
sacrament, but its truth and efficacy remain unimpaired, notwithstanding
the wicked depart empty from its external participation. If our
adversaries object again, that it derogates from these words, “This is
my body,” if the wicked receive corruptible bread, and nothing more, the
answer is easy—That God will have his veracity discovered, not in the
reception itself, but in the constancy of his goodness, since he is
ready to impart to the unworthy, and even liberally offers to them, that
which they reject. And this is the perfection of the sacrament, which
the whole world cannot violate, that the flesh and blood of Christ are
as truly given to the unworthy, as to the elect and faithful people of
God; but it is likewise true, that as rain, falling upon a hard rock,
runs off from it without penetrating into the stone, thus the wicked, by
their obduracy, repel the grace of God, so that it does not enter into
their hearts. Besides, a reception of Christ, without faith, is as great
an absurdity, as for seed to germinate in the fire. Their inquiry, how
Christ came for condemnation to some, unless they receive him
unworthily, is a groundless cavil; for we nowhere read that the
perdition of man is owing to an unworthy reception of Christ, but rather
to a rejection of him. Nor can they derive any assistance from the
parable in which Christ speaks of some seed springing up among thorns,
and being afterwards choked and destroyed; for he is there showing what
value belongs to that temporary faith, which our adversaries suppose to
be unnecessary to a participation of the flesh and blood of Christ,
placing Judas, in this respect, on an equality with Peter. Their error
is rather refuted by another part of the same parable, in which Christ
speaks of some seed as having fallen by the way-side, and some on stony
ground, neither of which took any root.[1306] Whence it follows, that
the obduracy of unbelievers is such an obstacle, that Christ does not
reach them. Whoever desires our salvation to be promoted by this
mystery, will find nothing more proper than that believers, conducted to
the fountain should derive life from the Son of God. But the dignity of
it is sufficiently magnified, when we remember, that it is a medium by
which we are incorporated into Christ; or by which, after our
incorporation into him, the connection is more and more strengthened,
till he perfectly unites us with himself, in the heavenly life. They
object, that Paul ought not to have made unbelievers “guilty of the body
and blood of the

Lord,”[1307] unless they had been partakers of them. But I answer, that
they are not condemned for having eaten and drunk his body and blood,
but only for having profaned the mystery, by trampling under foot the
pledge of our holy union with God, which ought to have been received by
them with reverence.

XXXIV. Now, because Augustine is the principal among the ancient fathers
who has asserted this point of doctrine, that the sacraments sustain no
diminution, and that the grace which they represent is not frustrated by
the unbelief or wickedness of men, it will be useful to adduce his own
words, which will clearly prove that those who expose the body of Christ
to be eaten by dogs,[1308] are chargeable with an injudicious and
culpable perversion of his meaning, in applying it to the present
argument. Sacramental eating, according to them, is that by which the
wicked receive the body and blood of Christ without any influence of his
Spirit, or any effect of his grace. Augustine, on the contrary,
carefully examining these words, “Whoso eateth my flesh and drinketh my
blood hath eternal life,”[1309] says, “This is the virtue of the
sacrament, not the mere visible sacrament; and that internally, not
externally; he who eats with his heart, and not with his teeth;” from
which he concludes that the sacrament of the union which we have with
the body and blood of Christ, is presented in the sacred supper, to some
to life, to others to perdition; but that the thing signified by the
sacrament is only given to life to all who partake of it, and in no case
to perdition. To preclude any cavil here, that the thing signified is
not the body, but the grace of the Spirit, which may be separated from
the body, he obviates such misrepresentations by the use of the
contrasted epithets of _visible_ and _invisible_; for the body of Christ
cannot be comprehended under the former. Hence it follows, that
unbelievers receive nothing but the visible symbol. And, for the more
complete removal of every doubt, after having said that this bread
requires the hunger of the inner man, he adds, “Moses, and Aaron, and
Phinehas, and many others who ate the manna, were acceptable to God.
Why? Because they spiritually understood the visible food, they
spiritually hungered, they spiritually ate, that they might be
spiritually satisfied. For we also, in the present day, have received
visible food; but the sacrament is one thing, and the virtue of the
sacrament is another.” A little after he says, “Therefore he who abides
not in Christ, and in whom Christ does not abide, spiritually neither
eats his flesh nor drinks his blood, though he may carnally and visibly
press the sign of the body and blood with his teeth.” Here, again, we
find the visible sign opposed to the spiritual eating; which contradicts
that error, that the invisible body of Christ is really eaten
sacramentally, though it be not eaten spiritually. We are informed also
that nothing is granted to the profane and impure, beyond the visible
reception of the sign. Hence that well known observation of his, that
the other disciples ate _the bread which was the Lord_, but that Judas
merely ate _the Lord’s bread_; by which he clearly excludes unbelievers
from the participation of the body and blood. And to the same purpose is
what he says in another place: “Why do you wonder if the bread of Christ
was given to Judas to enslave him to the devil, when you see, on the
other hand, that the messenger of Satan was given to Paul to make him
perfect in Christ?”[1310] He says, indeed, in another place, “That the
sacramental bread was the body of Christ to those to whom Paul said, He
that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to
himself;[1311] and that they could not, therefore, be affirmed to have
received nothing, because they had received amiss.” But his meaning is
more fully explained in another passage. For professedly undertaking to
describe how the body of Christ is eaten by the wicked and profligate,
who confess the Christian faith with their lips while they deny it in
their actions, and that in opposition to the opinion of some who
supposed them to eat not only the sacramental symbol, but the substance
itself, he says, “They must not be considered as eating the body of
Christ, because they are not to be numbered among the members of Christ.
For, to mention nothing else, they cannot, at the same time, be the
members of Christ and the members of a harlot. And where the Lord
himself says, He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth
in me, and I in him;[1312] he shows what it is to eat his body, not
merely in a sacramental way, but in truth; for this is to dwell in
Christ, that Christ may dwell in us. This is the same as if he had said,
Whoever dwelleth not in me, and in whom I dwell not, let him not say or
think he eateth my body or drinketh my blood.” Let the readers consider
the opposition here stated between eating _merely in a sacramental way_,
and _in truth_, and there will remain no doubt respecting his meaning.
He confirms the same with equal perspicuity in the following passage:
“Prepare not your jaws, but your heart; it is for this that the supper
is enjoined. Behold, we believe in Christ when we receive him by faith;
in receiving him, we know what we think; we take a bit of bread, and our
hearts are satisfied. We are fed, therefore, not by what we see, but by
what we believe.” Here, also, what the wicked partake of he restricts to
the visible sign, and pronounces that Christ is only received by faith.
So, in another place, he expressly remarks that the good and the wicked
partake of the elements in common, and excludes the latter from the true
participation of the body of Christ. For, if they had enjoyed the
substance itself, he would not have been entirely silent on that which
would have strengthened his argument. In another place also, treating of
the eating, and the benefit of it, he concludes thus: “Then will the
body and blood of Christ be life to every one, if that which is visibly
received in the sacrament, be, in the truth which is signified,
spiritually eaten and spiritually drunk.” Let those, therefore, who, in
order to agree with Augustine, make unbelievers partakers of the flesh
and blood of Christ, exhibit to us the body of Christ in a visible
manner, since he pronounces the whole truth of the sacrament to be
spiritual. And the evident conclusion from his language is, that the
sacramental eating is nothing more than eating the visible and external
sign, when unbelief precludes the entrance of the substance. If the body
of Christ could be eaten truly, without being eaten spiritually, what
could be the meaning of Augustine, when he said, “You are not to eat
this body which you see, and to drink the blood which will be shed by
those who shall crucify me. I have appointed a sacrament for you;
spiritually understood, it shall vivify you.” He certainly did not mean
to deny that the same body which Christ offered in sacrifice is
exhibited in the supper; but he designates the mode of participating in
it—that though it has been received into celestial glory, it inspires us
with life by the secret influence of the Holy Spirit. I acknowledge that
he frequently speaks of the body of Christ as eaten by unbelievers, but
he explains his meaning by adding that it is done sacramentally; and, in
another place, he describes the spiritual eating as not consisting in a
corporeal swallowing of the grace of God. And that my adversaries may
not charge me with a wish to overwhelm them by an accumulation of
passages, I would request them to inform me how they can evade that one
declaration of his, where he says, “that the sacraments realize what
they represent in the elect alone.” Surely they will not dare to deny
that the bread represents the body of Christ. Hence it follows, that the
reprobate are excluded from the participation of it. The following
passage of Cyril also shows him to have been of the same opinion: “As
when any one pours melted wax upon other wax, the whole will be mingled
together into one mass, so it is necessary to any person’s reception of
the body and blood of Christ, for him to be united with Christ, so that
Christ may be found in him, and he in Christ.” These words, I think,
sufficiently prove, that those who eat the body of Christ merely in a
sacramental way are deprived of the true and real participation of it,
as the body itself cannot be separated from its efficacious power; and
yet that this is no impeachment of the truth of the promises of God, who
still continues to send us rain from heaven, though rocks and stones
imbibe none of the moisture.

XXXV. This knowledge will also easily dissuade us from the carnal
adoration which has been introduced into the sacrament by the perverse
temerity of some, who reasoned in this manner: If the body be there,
consequently the soul and the Divinity are there together with the body,
for they cannot be separated from it; therefore Christ ought to be
adored there. In the first place, what will they do, if we refuse to
admit what they call _concomitance_? For, however they may urge the
absurdity of separating the soul and the Divinity from the body, what
man in his senses can be persuaded that the body of Christ is Christ?
They consider it, indeed, as fully demonstrated by their arguments. But
as Christ speaks distinctly of his body and blood, without specifying
the nature of the presence, how can they establish what they wish by
that which is itself doubtful? What then? If their consciences happen to
be exercised with any peculiar affliction, will they not, with all their
syllogisms, be confounded and overwhelmed; when they shall perceive
themselves to be destitute of the certain word of God, which furnishes
the only support for our souls when they are called to give an account,
and without which they sink in a moment; when they shall reflect that
the doctrine and examples of the apostles are against them, and that
they are themselves the sole authors of their error? To such reflections
will be added other sentiments of compunction, and those by no means
inconsiderable. What! was it a thing of no consequence to adore God in
this form, without any such thing being enjoined upon us? In a case
where the true worship of God was concerned, ought that to have been so
lightly undertaken, which not a word in the Scripture could be found to
sanction? But if, with becoming humility, they had kept all their
thoughts in subjection to the word of God, they would certainly have
listened to what Christ said, “Take, eat, drink,” and would have obeyed
this command, which enjoins the sacrament to be taken, not to be adored.
Those who, as the Lord has commanded, receive it without adoration, are
assured that they do not deviate from the Divine command; and such an
assurance is the best satisfaction we can have in any thing in which we
engage. They have the example of the apostles, of whom we read, not that
they prostrated themselves in adoration, but that, as they were sitting
at the table, they took, and did eat. They have the practice of the
apostolic Church, in which Luke states that the communion of believers
consisted, not in adoration, but in “the breaking of bread.”[1313] They
have the apostolic doctrine with which Paul instructed the Church of the
Corinthians, accompanying it with this declaration: “I have received of
the Lord that which also I delivered unto you.”[1314]

XXXVI. All these things lead the pious reader to consider how unsafe it
is, in matters of such importance, to leave the pure word of God for the
reveries of our own brains. The remarks which have already been made,
ought to relieve our minds from every difficulty on this subject. For,
in order to a due reception of Christ in the sacrament, it is necessary
for pious souls to be elevated to heaven. If it be the design of the
sacrament to assist the mind of man, which is otherwise weak, that it
may be enabled to rise to discover the sublimity of spiritual
mysteries,—those who confine themselves to the external sign, wander
from the right way of seeking Christ. What, then, shall we deny it to be
a superstitious worship, when men prostrate themselves before a piece of
bread, to adore Christ in it? There is no doubt that the Council of Nice
intended to guard against this evil, when it prohibited Christians from
having their attention humbly fixed on the visible signs. And this was
the only reason for that custom in the ancient Church, that, before the
consecration, one of the deacons should, with an audible voice, admonish
the people to have their _hearts above_. The Scripture itself, also, in
addition to the particular account which it gives us of the ascension of
Christ, by which he removed his corporeal presence from the view and
society of men, in order to divest us of every carnal idea respecting
him, whenever it mentions him, calls us to lift our minds upwards, and
to seek for him seated “at the right hand of God.”[1315] According to
this rule, it was our duty to adore him spiritually in the glory of
heaven, rather than to invent such a dangerous kind of adoration,
involving such gross and carnal conceptions of God. Wherefore, those who
have invented the adoration of the sacrament, have not only dreamed it
of themselves, without the sanction of the Scripture, in which not the
least mention of it can be found, though, if it had been agreeable to
God, it would not have been omitted; but even in direct opposition to
the Scripture, forsaking the living God, they have fabricated a new
deity, according to their own wayward inclinations. For what is
idolatry, if it be not to worship the gifts instead of the giver
himself? In which they have fallen into a double sin; for the honour has
been taken away from God, to be transferred to the creature; and God
himself has also been dishonoured by the pollution and profanation of
his gift, when his holy sacrament has been made an execrable idol. Let
us, on the contrary, lest we fall into the same danger, fix our ears,
our eyes, our minds, and our tongues, entirely on the sacred doctrine of
God. For that is the school of the Holy Spirit, the best of all
teachers; whose instructions require nothing to be added from any other
quarter, and omit nothing of which we ought not to be willing to remain
in ignorance.

XXXVII. Now, as superstition, when it has once gone beyond the proper
limits, proceeds in sinning without end, they have wandered still
further; they have invented ceremonies altogether incompatible with the
institution of the sacred supper, for the sole purpose of giving divine
honours to the sign. When we remonstrate with them, they reply, that
they pay this veneration to Christ. In the first place, if this were
done in the supper, I would still say that that is the only legitimate
adoration, which terminates not in the sign, but is directed to Christ
enthroned in heaven. Now, what pretence have they for alleging that they
worship Christ in the bread, when they have no promise of such a thing?
They consecrate their _host_, as they call it, to carry it about in
procession, to display it in pomp, and to exhibit it in a box, to be
seen, adored, and invoked by the people. I inquire how they consider it
to be rightly consecrated. They immediately adduce these words: “This is
my body.” I object, that it was said at the same time. “Take and eat.”
And I have sufficient reason for this; for when a promise is annexed to
a precept, it is so included in the precept, that, separated from it, it
ceases to be a promise at all. This shall be further elucidated by a
similar example. The Lord gave a command, when he said, “Call upon me;”
he added a promise, “I will deliver thee.”[1316] If any one should
invoke Peter or Paul, and boast of this promise, will not his conduct be
universally condemned? And wherein would this differ from the conduct of
those who suppress the command to eat, and lay hold of the mutilated
promise, “This is my body,” in order to misapply it to ceremonies
foreign from the institution of Christ? Let us remember, then, that this
promise is given to those who observe the commandment connected with it,
but that they are entirely unsupported by the word of God, who transfer
the sacrament to any other usage. We have already shown how the mystery
of the supper promotes our faith before God. But as God here not only
recalls to our remembrance the vast exuberance of his goodness, but
delivers it, as it were, into our hands, as we have already declared,
and excites us to acknowledge it, so he also admonishes us not to be
ungrateful for such a profusion of beneficence, but, on the contrary, to
magnify it with the praises it deserves, and to celebrate it with
thanksgivings. Therefore, when he gave the institution of this sacrament
to the apostles, he said to them, “This do in remembrance of me;”[1317]
which Paul explains to be “showing the Lord’s death;”[1318] that is,
publicly, and all together, as with one mouth, to confess that all our
confidence of life and salvation rests on the death of the Lord; that we
may glorify him by our confession, and by our example may exhort others
to give him the same glory. Here, again, we see the object to which the
sacrament tends, which is, to exercise us in a remembrance of the death
of Christ. For the command which we have received, to “show the Lord’s
death till he come” to judgment, is no other than to declare, by the
confession of our lips, what our faith has acknowledged in the
sacrament, that the death of Christ is our life. This is the second use
of the sacrament, which relates to external confession.

XXXVIII. In the third place, the Lord intended it to serve us as an
exhortation, and no other could be better adapted to animate and
influence us in the most powerful manner to purity and sanctity of life,
as well as to charity, peace, and concord. For there the Lord
communicates his body to us in such a manner that he becomes completely
one with us, and we become one with him. Now, as he has only one body,
of which he makes us all partakers, it follows, of necessity, that, by
such participation, we also are all made one body; and this union is
represented by the bread which is exhibited in the sacrament. For as it
is composed of many grains, mixed together in such a manner that one
cannot be separated or distinguished from another,—in the same manner we
ought, likewise, to be connected and united together, by such an
agreement of minds, as to admit of no dissension or division between us.
This I prefer expressing in the language of Paul: “The cup of blessing
which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The
bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For
we, being many, are one bread and one body; for we are all partakers of
that one bread.”[1319] We have derived considerable benefit from the
sacrament, if this thought be impressed and engraven upon our minds,
that it is impossible for us to wound, despise, reject, injure, or in
any way to offend one of our brethren, but we, at the same time, wound,
despise, reject, injure, and offend Christ in him; that we have no
discord with our brethren without being, at the same time, at variance
with Christ; that we cannot love Christ without loving him in our
brethren; that such care as we take of our own body, we ought to
exercise the same care of our brethren, who are members of our body;
that as no part of our body can be in any pain without every other part
feeling correspondent sensations, so we ought not to suffer our brother
to be afflicted with any calamity without our sympathizing in the same.
Wherefore, it is not without reason that Augustine so frequently calls
this sacrament “the bond of charity.” For what more powerful stimulus
could be employed to excite mutual charity among us, than when Christ,
giving himself to us, not only invites us by his example mutually to
devote ourselves to the promotion of one another’s welfare, but also, by
making himself common to all, makes us all to be one with himself?

XXXIX. This furnishes the best confirmation of what I have stated
before, that there is no true administration of the sacrament without
the word. For whatever advantage accrues to us from the sacred supper
requires the word; whether we are to be confirmed in faith, exercised in
confession, or excited to duty, there is need of preaching. Nothing more
preposterous, therefore, can be done with respect to the supper, than to
convert it into a mute action, as we have seen done under the tyranny of
the pope. For they have maintained that all the validity of the
consecration depends on the intention of the priests, as if it had
nothing to do with the people, to whom the mystery ought principally to
be explained. They fell into this error, for want of observing that
those promises on which the consecration rests, are not directed to the
elements themselves, but to the persons who receive them. Christ does
not address the bread, to command it to become his body; but enjoins his
disciples to eat, and promises them the communication of his body and
blood. Nor does Paul teach any other order than that the promises should
be offered to believers, together with the bread and the cup. And this
is the truth. We are not to imagine any magical incantation, or think it
sufficient to have muttered over the words, as if they were heard by the
elements; but we are to understand those words, by which the elements
are consecrated, to be a lively preaching, which edifies the hearers,
which penetrates their minds, which is deeply impressed upon their
hearts, which exerts its efficacy in the accomplishment of that which it
promises. These considerations clearly show that the reservation of the
sacrament, insisted upon by many persons, for the purpose of
extraordinary distribution to the sick, is perfectly useless. For either
they will receive it without any recital of the institution of Christ,
or the minister will accompany the sign with a true explication of the
mystery. If nothing be said, it is an abuse and corruption. If the
promises are repeated and the mystery declared, that those who are about
to receive it may communicate with advantage, we have no reason to doubt
that this is the true consecration. What end will be answered, then, by
the former consecration, which, having been pronounced when the sick
persons were not present, is of no avail to them? But it will be
alleged, that those who adopt this practice have the example of the
ancient Church in their favour. This I confess; but in a matter of such
great importance, and in which any error must be highly dangerous, there
is nothing so safe as to follow the truth itself.

XL. Now, as we perceive this sacred bread of the Lord’s supper to be
spiritual food, grateful and delicious as well as salutary to the
sincere worshippers of God, who, in the participation of it, experience
Christ to be their life, whom it stimulates to thanksgiving, whom it
exhorts to mutual charity among themselves; so, on the contrary, it is
changed into a most noxious poison to all whose faith it does not
nourish and confirm, and whom it does not excite to thanksgiving and
charity. For as corporeal food, when it offends a diseased stomach,
becoming itself corrupted, is found rather noxious than nutritious, so
this spiritual food, when it meets with a soul polluted by iniquity,
only precipitates it into a more dreadful ruin; not, indeed, from any
fault in the food, but because “unto them that are defiled and
unbelieving nothing is pure,”[1320] however it may be otherwise
sanctified by the blessing of the Lord. For, as Paul says, “He that
eateth and drinketh unworthily is guilty of the body and blood of the
Lord, and eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the
Lord’s body.”[1321] Persons of this description, who, without one
particle of faith, or the least feeling of charity, intrude themselves,
like so many swine, to seize the supper of the Lord, have no discernment
of the Lord’s body. For, as they do not believe that body to be their
life, they treat it with the utmost dishonour they are capable of
casting upon it, robbing it of its dignity, and receiving it in such a
manner as to pollute and profane it. And as, amidst their dissension and
alienation from their brethren, they presume to mingle the sacred symbol
of Christ’s body with their discords, it is not owing to them that the
body of Christ is not divided, and every member severed from the rest.
Therefore they are justly represented as guilty of the body and blood of
the Lord, which they so shamefully pollute with their sacrilegious
impiety. By this unworthy eating they receive their own condemnation.
For though they have no faith fixed on Christ, yet in their reception of
the sacrament they profess that there is no salvation for them any where
except in him, and renounce every other dependence. Wherefore they are
their own accusers; they give testimony against themselves; they seal
their own condemnation. Moreover, while divided and distracted from
their brethren, that is, from the members of Christ, they have no part
in Christ, yet they testify that the only way of salvation is to
participate of Christ, and to be united to him. For this reason, Paul
gave the following injunction: “Let a man examine himself, and so let
him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup;”[1322] by which, I
apprehend, he meant that every man should retire into himself, and
consider whether, with sincere confidence of heart, he relies on the
salvation procured by Christ; whether he acknowledges it by the
confession of his mouth; whether he aspires after an imitation of Christ
in the pursuit of integrity and holiness; whether, after the example of
Christ, he is ready to devote himself to his brethren, and to
communicate himself to them with whom he has a common interest in
Christ; whether, as he himself is acknowledged by Christ, he in like
manner considers all his brethren as members of his body; whether he
desires to cherish, preserve, and assist them as his own members. Not
that these duties of faith and charity can now be perfect in us; but
because this is the point which we ought to feel the most ardent desires
and exert the most strenuous efforts to attain, that our faith may be
more and more increased, and our charity strengthened from day to day.

XLI. In general, when they have intended to prepare persons for this
worthy participation of the sacrament, they have dreadfully harassed and
tortured miserable consciences, and yet have not mentioned a single
thing which the case required. They have said that those “eat worthily,”
who are in a state of grace. To be in a state of grace, they have
explained to consist in being pure and cleansed from all sin—a doctrine
which would exclude all the men who now live, or ever have lived upon
earth, from the benefit of this sacrament. For if it be necessary for us
to derive our worthiness from ourselves, we are undone; nothing awaits
us but ruin, confusion, and despair. Though we strive with all our
powers, we shall gain nothing, at last, but a discovery that we are most
unworthy, after having laboured to the utmost to find some worthiness.
To heal this wound, they have contrived a method of attaining
worthiness; which is, that having, as far as we can, examined our
consciences, and required from ourselves an account of all our actions,
we should purge ourselves from our unworthiness by contrition,
confession, and satisfaction; but what kind of purgation this is, we
have already stated in a place more suitable to the discussion of it. As
far as relates to the present subject, I observe that these consolations
are too poor and unsubstantial for consciences disturbed, distressed,
dejected, and overwhelmed with a sense of their sins. For if the Lord,
by his express interdiction, admits none to a participation of the
supper, but those who are righteous and innocent, it requires no little
care in any individual to attain an assurance of his possession of that
righteousness, which he finds to be required by God. Now, what ground of
assurance have we, that God is satisfied with persons who have done what
they could? And even if this were the case, when shall any man be found
who can venture to declare that he has done all that he could? Thus,
while no certain assurance of our worthiness can be obtained, the
entrance to the sacrament will always remain closed by that dreadful
interdiction, which denounces that “he that eateth and drinketh
unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself.”

XLII. Now, it is easy to judge what kind of doctrine this is which
prevails in the Papacy, and from what author it has proceeded; which by
its extreme austerity deprives and robs miserable sinners, who are
already afflicted with trepidation and sorrow, of the consolation of
this sacrament, in which all the comforts of the gospel were set before
them. It was certainly impossible for the devil to take a more
compendious method of ruining men, than by infatuating them in such a
manner as to deprive them of all taste and relish for such food which
their heavenly and most merciful Father had intended for their
nourishment. That we may not precipitate ourselves into this abyss,
therefore, let us remember that this sacred banquet is medicine to the
sick, comfort to the sinner, alms to the poor; but that it would confer
no advantage on the healthy, the righteous, and the rich, if any such
could be found. For as Christ is given to us in it for food, we
understand, that without him we pine, starve, and faint, as the body
loses its vigour from want of sustenance. Moreover, as he is given to us
for life, we understand that without him we are utterly dead in
ourselves. Wherefore the best and only worthiness that we can present to
God, is to offer him our vileness and unworthiness, that he may make us
worthy of his mercy; to despair in ourselves, that we may find
consolation in him; to humble ourselves, that we may be exalted by him;
to accuse ourselves, that we may be justified by him; likewise to aspire
to that unity which he enjoins upon us in his supper; and as he makes us
all to be one in himself, so it should be our desire that we may all
have one mind, one heart, and one tongue. If we have these things well
considered and digested in our minds, though we may be disturbed, we
shall never be subverted by such reflections as this: Needy and
destitute of every good, defiled with the pollution of sin, and half
dead, how could we worthily eat the Lord’s body? We shall rather
consider, that we come as paupers to the liberal Benefactor, as patients
to the Physician, as sinners to the Author of righteousness, as persons
dead to the fountain of life; that the worthiness which is required by
God consists principally in faith, which attributes every thing to
Christ, and places no dependence on ourselves, and, secondly, in
charity, even that charity which it is enough for us to present to God
in an imperfect state, that he may increase and improve it; for we
cannot produce it in a state of perfection. Others, who have agreed with
us that the worthiness which is enjoined consists in faith and charity,
have nevertheless fallen into a considerable error respecting the degree
of that worthiness, requiring a perfection of faith to which nothing can
ever approach, and a charity equal to that which Christ has manifested
toward us. But by this requisition they exclude all men from access to
this sacred supper, as much as the persons to whom we adverted before.
For if their opinion were admitted, no person could receive it, but
unworthily; since all, without a single exception, would be convinced of
their imperfection. And surely it must betray extreme ignorance, not to
say stupidity, to require in the reception of the sacrament, that
perfection which would render the sacrament unnecessary and useless; for
it was not instituted for the perfect, but for the imperfect and feeble,
to awaken, excite, stimulate, and exercise their graces of faith and
charity, and to correct the defects of both.

XLIII. With respect to the external ceremonial, whether believers take
the bread in their hands or not; whether they divide it between them, or
every individual eat that which is given to him; whether they return the
cup into the hand of the deacon, or deliver it to the person who is
next; whether the bread be leavened or unleavened; whether the wine be
red or white; is not of the least importance. These things are
indifferent, and left to the liberty of the Church. It is certain,
however, that the custom of the ancient Church was, that every one
should take the bread into his hand. And Christ said “Divide it among
yourselves.”[1323] History informs us, that leavened and common bread
was used before the time of Alexander, bishop of Rome, who was the first
advocate for unleavened bread; but for what reason I know not, unless it
was to dazzle the eyes of the people with admiration of a new spectacle,
rather than to instruct their minds in pure religion. I appeal to all
who feel the least concern for piety, whether they do not clearly
perceive, how much more conspicuously the glory of God appears in this
use of the sacrament, and how much greater abundance of spiritual
consolation and delight believers enjoy in it, than in those
insignificant and theatrical fooleries which only tend to deceive the
minds of the gazing multitude. This they call keeping the people in
religion, when they lead them into any thing they please, under the
stupefaction and infatuation of superstition. If any one be inclined to
defend such inventions by the plea of antiquity, I am equally aware how
early chrism and exorcism were used in baptism, and how soon after the
age of the apostles, corruptions were introduced into the Lord’s supper;
but this is the confidence of human presumption, which can never
restrain itself from trifling with the mysteries of God. But let us
remember, that God holds the obedience of his word in such high
estimation, that it is the standard by which he appoints us to judge
even his angels and the whole world. Now, leaving all this mass of
ceremonies, let us remark, that the Lord’s supper might be most properly
administered, if it were set before the Church very frequently, and at
least once in every week in the following manner: The service should
commence with public prayer; in the next place, a sermon should be
delivered; then, the bread and wine being placed upon the table, the
minister should recite the institution of the supper, should declare the
promises which are left to us in it, and, at the same time, should
excommunicate all those who are excluded from it by the prohibition of
the Lord; after this, prayer should be offered, that with the same
benignity with which our Lord has given us this sacred food, he would
also teach and enable us to receive it in faith and gratitude of heart,
and that, as of ourselves we are not worthy, he would, in his mercy,
make us worthy of such a feast. Then either some psalms should be sung,
or a portion of Scripture should be read, and believers, in a becoming
order, should participate of the sacred banquet, the ministers breaking
the bread and distributing it, and presenting the cup, to the people;
after the conclusion of the supper, an exhortation should be given to
sincere faith, and a confession of the same; to charity, and a
deportment worthy of Christians. Finally, thanksgivings should be
rendered, and praises sung, to God; and to close the whole, the Church
should be dismissed in peace.

XLIV. The observations which we have already made respecting the
sacrament, abundantly show that it was not instituted for the purpose of
being received once in a year, and that in a careless and formal manner,
as is now the general practice; but in order to be frequently celebrated
by all Christians, that they might often call to mind the sufferings of
Christ; the recollection of which would sustain and strengthen their
faith, would incite them to sing praises to God, and to confess and
celebrate his goodness, and would also cherish in their hearts, and
promote the mutual exercise of that charity, the bond of which they
would see in the unity of the body of Christ. For whenever we
communicate in the symbol of the Lord’s body, it is like the interchange
of a mutual pledge, by which we reciprocally bind ourselves to all the
duties of charity, that no one among us will do any thing by which he
may injure his brother, or will omit any thing by which he can assist
him, when necessity requires and opportunity admits. That such was the
practice of the apostolic Church, is mentioned by Luke, when he says
that believers “continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and
fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.”[1324] The
invariable custom, therefore, was, that no assembly of the Church should
be held without the word being preached, prayers being offered, the
Lord’s supper administered, and alms given. That this was the order
established among the Corinthians, may be fairly concluded from the
Epistles of Paul; and it is well known to have been followed for many
ages after. For hence those ancient canons, which are attributed to
Anacletus and Calixtus, “that, after the consecration is finished, all
shall communicate, on pain of expulsion from the Church.” And the
ancient canons which are ascribed to the apostles, say, “that those who
continue not to the end, and receive not the sacrament, ought to be
corrected as disturbers of the Church.” In the Council of Antioch, also,
it was decreed, that those who enter into the Church, hear the sermon,
and retire from the communion, be excluded from the Church till they
shall have corrected this fault. And though in the first Council of
Toledo, this decree was either mitigated, or at least enacted in a
milder form, yet there also it was ordained, that those who shall be
found never to communicate after having heard the sermon, be admonished;
and that, if they obey not the first admonition, they be excommunicated.

XLV. These decrees were evidently passed by the holy fathers with a view
to retain and perpetuate the frequent celebration of the communion,
which had been transmitted by the apostles themselves, and which they
perceived to be highly beneficial to believers, but by negligence to be
gradually falling into general disuse. Augustine testifies respecting
the age in which he lived, when he says, “The sacrament of this thing,
that is, of the unity of the body of our Lord, is prepared on the table
of the Lord, in some places daily, in other places on appointed days, at
stated intervals of time; and is thence received by some to life, by
others to destruction.” And in his first epistle to Januarius: “Some
receive the body and blood of the Lord every day, and others receive
them on certain days; in some Churches, not a day passes without the
administration of the sacrament; in others, it is administered only on
Saturday and Sunday; and in others only on Sunday.” But the people in
general, being, as we have observed, sometimes too remiss, the holy
fathers stimulated them with severe reproofs, that they might not appear
to connive at such negligence. Of this we have an example in a homily of
Chrysostom, on the Epistle to the Ephesians: “To him who dishonoured the
feast, it is not said, Wherefore didst thou sit down? but, How camest
thou in hither?[1325] Whoever is present here, and is not a partaker of
the mysteries, is wicked and impudent. I appeal to you, if any one be
invited to a feast, and come, wash his hands, sit down, and apparently
make every preparation for partaking of it, and after all taste
nothing,—will he not offer an insult both to the feast and to him who
has provided it? So you, who appear among them who, by prayer prepare
themselves to receive the sacred food, who by the very circumstance of
not departing, confess yourself to be one of their number, and after all
do not participate with them, would it not have been better for you not
to have made your appearance among them? You will tell me you are
unworthy. Neither then were you worthy of the communion of prayer, which
is a preparation for the reception of the holy mystery.”

XLVI. Augustine and Ambrose unite in condemning the practice which in
their time had already been adopted in the Eastern Churches, for the
people to attend as spectators of the celebration of the sacrament, and
not to partake of it. And that custom, which enjoins believers to
communicate only once a year, is unquestionably an invention of the
devil, whoever were the persons by whom it was introduced. It is said
that Zepherinus, bishop of Rome, was the author of that decree; which
there is not the least reason for believing to have been such as is now
represented. It is probable that the regulation which he made was not
ill calculated for the interest of the Church under the circumstances of
those times. For there is no doubt that the sacred supper was then set
before the faithful whenever they assembled for worship; nor is there
any more doubt that the principal part of them used to communicate; but
as it would scarcely ever happen that all could communicate together,
and it was necessary that those who were mixed with unbelievers and
idolaters, should testify their faith by some external sign,—that holy
man, for the sake of order and discipline, appointed that day for all
the Christians at Rome to make a public confession of their faith by a
participation of the Lord’s supper. The regulation of Zepherinus was
good in itself, but was grossly perverted by his successors, when they
made a certain law that there should be one communion in a year; the
consequence of which has been, that almost all men, when they have
communicated once, resign themselves to lethargic repose, as if they had
fairly excused themselves for all the rest of the year. A very different
practice ought to have been pursued. At least once in every week the
table of the Lord ought to have been spread before each congregation of
Christians, and the promises to have been declared for their spiritual
nourishment; no person ought to have been compelled to partake, but all
ought to have been exhorted and stimulated, and those who were
negligent, to have been reproved. Then all, like persons famished, would
have assembled in crowds to such a banquet. I have sufficient reason for
complaining that it was the artifice of the devil that introduced this
custom, which, by prescribing one day in a year, renders men slothful
and careless all the rest of the time. We see that this abuse had
already begun to prevail in the time of Chrysostom, but we see at the
same time how greatly it displeased him. For in the place which I have
just quoted, he severely complains of a great inequality in this matter,
that oftentimes people would not come to the sacrament all the rest of
the year, notwithstanding they were prepared, but that they would come
at Easter even without preparation. Then he exclaims, “O custom! O
presumption! In vain, then, is the daily oblation; in vain do we stand
at the altar. There is no one to partake with us.” So far is such a
practice from being sanctioned by the authority of Chrysostom.

XLVII. From the same source proceeded another regulation, which has
robbed or deprived the principal part of the people of God of one half
of the sacred supper; I mean the symbol of the blood, which has been
interdicted to the laity and the profane,—for by these titles they
distinguish the Lord’s heritage,—and has become the peculiar privilege
of the few who have received ecclesiastical unction and tonsure. The
ordinance of the eternal God is, “Drink ye all of it;” which man has
repealed and abrogated by a new and contrary law, ordaining that all
shall not drink of it. And these legislators, that they may not appear
to resist their God without reason, plead the dangers which might result
if this sacred cup were indiscriminately presented to all; as though
those dangers had not been foreseen and considered by the eternal wisdom
of God. In the next place, they argue with great subtlety, that one is
sufficient for both. For, if it be the body, they say, it is the whole
of Christ, who cannot now be separated from his body. The body,
therefore, contains the blood. See how human reason is at variance with
God, when it has once been left to its own vagaries. Exhibiting the
bread, our Lord says, “This is my body;” exhibiting the cup, he says,
“This is my blood.” The audacity of human reason contradicts this, and
affirms that the bread is the blood, and that the wine is the body; as
if the Lord had distinguished his body from his blood, both by words and
by signs, without any cause, and as if it had ever been heard that the
body or blood of Christ was called God and man. Certainly, if he had
intended to designate his whole person, he might have said, “It is I,”
as the Scripture tells us he did on other occasions; and not, “This is
my body; this is my blood.” But, with a view to aid the weakness of our
faith, he exhibits the bread and the cup separately, to teach us that he
is sufficient for drink as well as for food. Now, let one of these parts
be taken away, and we shall find only half of our nourishment in him.
Though it were true, then, as they pretend, that the blood is in the
bread, and the body in the cup, yet they defraud the souls of believers
of that confirmation which Christ has delivered as necessary for them.
Therefore, leaving their subtleties, let us hold fast the benefit which
arises from the double pledge which Christ has ordained.

XLVIII. I am aware of the cavils advanced on this subject by the
ministers of Satan, who are accustomed to treat the Scripture with
contempt. In the first place, they plead, that a simple act affords no
sufficient ground from which to deduce a rule of perpetual obligation on
the observance of the Church. But it is false to call it a simple act;
for Christ not only gave the cup to his apostles, but also commanded
them to do the same in time to come. For it is the language of command,
“Drink ye all of it.” And Paul mentions its having been practised in
such a way as fully implies its being a positive ordinance. The second
subterfuge is, that Christ admitted none but the apostles to a
participation of this supper, whom he had already chosen and admitted
into the order of sacrificing priests. But I would wish them to give me
answers to five questions, from which they will not be able to escape,
but their misrepresentations will be easily refuted. First; By what
oracle have they obtained this solution, so inconsistent with the word
of God? The Scripture mentions twelve who sat down with Jesus; but it
does not obscure the dignity of Christ so as to call them sacrificing
priests—a name which I shall notice in the proper place. Though he then
gave the sacrament to the twelve, yet he commanded that they should do
the same; that is, that they should distribute it among them in a
similar manner. Secondly; why, in that purer period, for almost a
thousand years after the apostles, were all, without exception, admitted
to the participation of both symbols? Was the ancient Church ignorant
what guests Christ had admitted to his supper? Any hesitation or evasion
would betray the most consummate impudence. Ecclesiastical histories and
works of the fathers are still extant, which furnish clear testimonies
of this fact. Tertullian says, “The flesh is fed with the body and blood
of Christ, that the soul may be nourished by God.” Ambrose said to
Theodosius, “With such hands how will you receive the sacred body of the
Lord? With what audacity will you drink his sacred blood?” Jerome says,
“The priests consecrate the eucharist and distribute the Lord’s blood to
the people.” Chrysostom says, “It is not as it was under the ancient
law, when the priest ate one part, and the people another; but to all is
presented one body and one cup. Every thing in the eucharist is common
to the priest and to the people.” And the same is attested in various
places by Augustine.

XLIX. But why do I dispute about a thing that is so evident? Let any one
read all the Greek and Latin fathers, and he will find them abound with
such testimonies. Nor did this custom fall into disuse while a particle
of purity remained in the Church. Gregory, who may be justly called the
last bishop of Rome, shows that it was observed in his time. He says,
“You have now learned what the blood of the Lamb is, not by hearing, but
by drinking. His blood is drunk by the faithful.” And it even continued
for four hundred years after his death, notwithstanding the universal
degeneracy which had taken place. Nor was it considered merely as a
custom, but as an inviolable law. For the Divine institution was then
reverenced, and no doubt was entertained of the criminality of
separating things which the Lord had united. For Gelasius, bishop of
Rome, speaks in the following manner: “We have understood that some,
only receiving the Lord’s body, abstain from the cup; who, as they
appear to be enslaved by an unaccountable superstition, should, without
doubt, either receive the sacrament entire, or entirely abstain from it.
For no division of this mystery can be made without great sacrilege.”
Attention was paid to those reasons of Cyprian, which surely ought to be
sufficient to influence a Christian mind. He says, “How do we teach or
stimulate them to shed their blood in the confession of Christ, if we
refuse his blood to them who are about to engage in the conflict? Or how
do we prepare them for the cup of martyrdom, if we do not first admit
them, by the right of communion, to drink the cup of the Lord in the
Church?” The canonists restrict the decree of Gelasius to the priests,
but this is too puerile a cavil to need any refutation.

L. Thirdly; Why did Christ, when he presented the bread, simply say,
“Take, eat;” but when he presented the cup, “Drink ye _all_ of it;” as
if he expressly intended to guard against the subtlety of Satan?
Fourthly; If, as our adversaries pretend, our Lord admitted to his
supper none but sacrificing priests, what man can be found so
presumptuous as to invite to a participation of it strangers whom the
Lord has excluded? and to a participation of that gift, over which they
could have no power, without any command from him who alone could give
it? And with what confidence do they now take upon them to distribute to
the people the symbol of the body of Christ, if they have neither the
command nor example of the Lord? Fifthly; Did Paul affirm what was
false, when he said to the Corinthians, “I have received of the Lord
that which also I delivered to you?”[1326] For he afterwards declares
what he had delivered, which was, that all, without any distinction,
should communicate in both symbols. If Paul had “received of the Lord,”
that all were to be admitted without any distinction, let them consider
from whom they have received, who exclude almost all the people of God;
for they cannot now pretend their doctrine to have originated from God,
with whom is “not yea and nay.”[1327] And yet they dare to shelter such
abominations under the name of the Church, and to defend them under that
pretext; as if the Church could consist of those antichrists, who so
easily trample under foot, mutilate, and abolish the doctrine and
institutions of Christ; or as if the apostolic Church, in which true
religion displayed all its influence, were not the true Church.

Footnote 1238:

Matt. xxvi. 26, 28. Mark xiv. 22, 24. Luke xxii. 19, 20. 1 Cor. xi.
24, 25.

Footnote 1239:

John vi. 35, 55-58.

Footnote 1240:

John vi. 51.

Footnote 1241:

Eph. iii. 17.

Footnote 1242:

John vi. 35.

Footnote 1243:

John vi. 53.

Footnote 1244:

Acts ii. 41.

Footnote 1245:

Luke xxii. 20.

Footnote 1246:

1 John i. 1-4.

Footnote 1247:

John vi. 51.

Footnote 1248:

John vi. 55.

Footnote 1249:

John v. 26.

Footnote 1250:

Eph. i. 23.

Footnote 1251:

Eph. iv. 15, 16.

Footnote 1252:

1 Cor. vi. 15.

Footnote 1253:

Eph. v. 30.

Footnote 1254:

Eph. v. 32.

Footnote 1255:

1 Cor. x. 16.

Footnote 1256:

Rom. viii. 9, 11.

Footnote 1257:

John vi. 35, 50.

Footnote 1258:

1 Cor. x. 17.

Footnote 1259:

1 Cor. x. 4.

Footnote 1260:

Exod. iv. 2-4; vii. 10, 12.

Footnote 1261:

1 Cor. x. 16.

Footnote 1262:

1 Cor. xi. 26.

Footnote 1263:

Acts ii. 42.

Footnote 1264:

Jer. xi. 19, (according to the Vulgate and Septuagint.)

Footnote 1265:

Psalm lxix. 21.

Footnote 1266:

Isaiah liii. 2, 4.

Footnote 1267:

Matt. xxvi. 26-28. Mark xiv. 22-24. Luke xxii. 19, 20. 1 Cor. xi.
23-25.

Footnote 1268:

Gen. xvii. 10.

Footnote 1269:

Exod. xii. 11.

Footnote 1270:

Exod. et Lev. passim.

Footnote 1271:

1 Cor. x. 4.

Footnote 1272:

Exod. iii. 2.

Footnote 1273:

Psalm lxxxiv. 7; xlii. 2.

Footnote 1274:

Matt. iii. 16.

Footnote 1275:

1 Cor. x. 4.

Footnote 1276:

1 Cor. x. 16.

Footnote 1277:

Gen. xvii. 10. Exod. xii. 11.

Footnote 1278:

1 Cor. x. 4.

Footnote 1279:

John vii. 39.

Footnote 1280:

Titus iii. 2.

Footnote 1281:

1 Cor. xii. 12.

Footnote 1282:

Heb. ii. 14; iv. 15.

Footnote 1283:

Acts i. 11.

Footnote 1284:

1 Cor. xv. 47.

Footnote 1285:

Phil. ii. 7.

Footnote 1286:

James i. 21.

Footnote 1287:

Luke i. 34.

Footnote 1288:

John xiv. 2, 3, 28.

Footnote 1289:

Matt. xxvi. 11.

Footnote 1290:

Mark xvi. 19. Luke xxiv. 51. Acts i. 9.

Footnote 1291:

Phil. iii. 20.

Footnote 1292:

Acts i. 11.

Footnote 1293:

Acts iii. 21.

Footnote 1294:

Luke xxiv. 39.

Footnote 1295:

Phil. iii. 20, 21.

Footnote 1296:

John xx. 17.

Footnote 1297:

Acts vii. 55.

Footnote 1298:

Acts xxii. 18. 1 Cor. xv. 8.

Footnote 1299:

Luke xxiv. 31.

Footnote 1300:

Luke xxiv. 16.

Footnote 1301:

Matt. xxviii. 20.

Footnote 1302:

John iii. 13; i. 18.

Footnote 1303:

1 Cor. ii. 8.

Footnote 1304:

1 John iv. 3.

Footnote 1305:

John vi. 56.

Footnote 1306:

Matt. xiii. 4-7.

Footnote 1307:

1 Cor. xi. 27.

Footnote 1308:

Matt. vii. 6.

Footnote 1309:

John vi. 54.

Footnote 1310:

2 Cor. xii. 7.

Footnote 1311:

1 Cor. xi. 29.

Footnote 1312:

John vi. 56.

Footnote 1313:

Acts ii. 42.

Footnote 1314:

1 Cor. xi. 23.

Footnote 1315:

Col. iii. 1.

Footnote 1316:

Psalm l. 15.

Footnote 1317:

Luke xxii. 10.

Footnote 1318:

1 Cor. xi. 26.

Footnote 1319:

1 Cor. x. 16, 17.

Footnote 1320:

Titus i. 15.

Footnote 1321:

1 Cor. xi. 27, 29.

Footnote 1322:

1 Cor. xi. 28.

Footnote 1323:

Luke xxii. 17.

Footnote 1324:

Acts ii. 42.

Footnote 1325:

Matt. xxii. 12.

Footnote 1326:

1 Cor. xi. 23.

Footnote 1327:

2 Cor. i. 18.

CHAPTER XVIII.
THE PAPAL MASS NOT ONLY A SACRILEGIOUS PROFANATION OF THE LORD’S SUPPER,
BUT A TOTAL ANNIHILATION OF IT.

With these, and similar inventions, Satan has endeavoured to obscure,
corrupt, and adulterate the sacred supper of Christ, that, at least, its
purity might not be preserved in the Church. But the perfection of the
dreadful abomination was his establishment of a sign, by which it might
be not only obscured and perverted, but altogether obliterated and
abolished, so as to disappear from the view, and to depart from the
remembrance of men. I refer to that most pestilent error with which he
has blinded almost the whole world, persuading it to believe that the
mass is a sacrifice and oblation to procure the remission of sins. How
this dogma was at first understood by the sounder schoolmen, who did not
fall into all the absurdities of their successors, I shall not stay to
inquire, but shall take leave of them and their thorny subtleties;
which, however they may be defended by subterfuges and cavils, ought to
be rejected by all good men, because they merely serve to obscure the
lustre of the sacred supper. Leaving them, therefore, I wish the readers
to understand that I am now combating that opinion with which the Roman
antichrist and his agents have infected the whole world; namely, that
the mass is an act by which the priest who offers Christ, and others who
participate in the oblation, merit the favour of God; or that it is an
expiatory victim by which they reconcile God to them. Nor has this been
merely an opinion generally received by the multitude; but the act
itself is so ordered, as to be a kind of expiation, to make satisfaction
to God for the sins of the living and the dead. This is fully expressed
also in the words which they use; nor can any thing else be concluded
from its daily observance. I know how deeply this pest has stricken its
roots, what a plausible appearance of goodness it assumes, how it
shelters itself under the name of Christ, and how multitudes believe the
whole substance of faith to be comprehended under the single word
_mass_. But when it shall have been most clearly demonstrated by the
word of God, that this mass, however it may be varnished and adorned,
offers the greatest insult to Christ, suppresses and conceals his cross,
consigns his death to oblivion, deprives us of the benefit resulting
from it, and invalidates and destroys the sacrament which was left as a
memorial of that death,—will there be any roots too deep for this most
powerful axe—I mean the word of God—to cut in pieces and eradicate? Will
there be any varnish too specious for this light to detect the evil
which lurks behind it?

II. Let us proceed, therefore, to establish what we have asserted; in
the first place, that the mass offers an intolerable blasphemy and
insult to Christ. For he was constituted by his Father a priest and a
high-priest, not for a limited time, like those who are recorded to have
been consecrated priests under the Old Testament, who, having a mortal
life, could not have an immortal priesthood; wherefore, there was need
of successors, from time to time, to fill the places of those who died;
but Christ, who is immortal, requires no vicar to be substituted in his
place. Therefore he was designated by the Father as “a priest for ever,
after the order of Melchisedec;” that he might for ever execute a
permanent priesthood. This mystery had long before been prefigured in
Melchisedec, whom the Scripture has introduced once as “the priest of
the Most High God,” but never mentions him afterwards, as if there had
been no end to his life. From this resemblance Christ is called a priest
after his order.[1328] Now, those who sacrifice every day must
necessarily appoint priests to conduct the oblations, and those priests
must be substituted in the room of Christ, as his successors and vicars.
By this substitution they not only despoil Christ of his due honour, and
rob him of the prerogative of an eternal priesthood, but endeavour to
degrade him from the right hand of the Father, where he cannot sit in
the enjoyment of immortality, unless he also remain an eternal priest.
Nor let them plead that their sacrificing priests are not substituted in
the place of Christ, as though he were dead, but are merely assistants
in his eternal priesthood, which does not, on this account, cease to
remain; for the language of the apostle is too precise for them to avail
themselves of such an evasion; when he says that “they truly were many
priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of
death.”[1329] Christ, therefore, whose continuance is not prevented by
death, is only one, and needs no companions. Yet they have the
effrontery to arm themselves with the example of Melchisedec in defence
of their impiety. For, because he is said to have “brought forth bread
and wine,” they conclude this to have been a prefiguration of their
mass, as though the resemblance between him and Christ consisted in the
oblation of bread and wine; which is too unsubstantial and frivolous to
need any refutation. Melchisedec gave bread and wine to Abraham and his
companions, to refresh them when they were fatigued on their return from
battle. What has this to do with a sacrifice? Moses praises the humanity
and liberality of the pious king; these men presumptuously fabricate a
mystery, of which the Scripture makes no mention. Yet they varnish their
error with another pretext, because the historian immediately afterwards
says, “And he was the priest of the Most High God.” I answer, that they
misapply to the bread and wine what the apostle refers to the
benediction, “For this Melchisedec, priest of the Most High God, met
Abraham and blessed him;” from which the same apostle, than whom it is
unnecessary to seek for a better expositor, argues his superior dignity;
“for without all contradiction, the less is blessed of the
better.”[1330] But, if the offering of Melchisedec had been a figure of
the sacrifice of the mass, is it credible that the apostle, who
discusses all the minutest circumstances, would have forgotten a thing
of such high importance? It will be in vain for them, with all their
sophistry, to attempt to overturn the argument which the apostle himself
adduces, that the right and dignity of priesthood ceases among mortal
men, because Christ, who is immortal, is the alone and perpetual priest.

III. A second property of the mass we have stated to be, that it
suppresses and conceals the cross and passion of Christ. It is beyond
all contradiction, that the cross of Christ is subverted as soon as ever
an altar is erected; for if Christ offered up himself a sacrifice on the
cross, to sanctify us for ever, and to obtain eternal redemption for us,
the virtue and efficacy of that sacrifice must certainly continue
without any end.[1331] Otherwise, we should have no more honourable
ideas of Christ, than of the animal victims which were sacrificed under
the law, the oblations of which are proved to have been weak and
inefficacious, by the circumstance of their frequent repetition.
Wherefore, it must be acknowledged, either that the sacrifice which
Christ accomplished on the cross wanted the virtue of eternal
purification, or that Christ has offered up one perfect sacrifice, once
for all ages. This is what the apostle says that this great high-priest,
even Christ, “now once in the end of the world, hath appeared to put
away sin by the sacrifice of himself.” Again: “By the will of God we are
sanctified, through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ, once for
all.” Again: “That by one offering Christ hath perfected for ever them
that are sanctified.” To which he subjoins this remarkable observation:
“That where remission of iniquities is, there is no more offering for
sin.”[1332] This was likewise signified by the last words of Christ,
when, with his expiring breath he said, “It is finished.”[1333] We are
accustomed to consider the last words of dying persons as oracular.
Christ, at the moment of his death, declared that by his own sacrifice
every thing necessary to our salvation had been accomplished and
finished. To such a sacrifice, the perfection of which he so explicitly
declares, shall it be lawful for us to make innumerable additions every
day, as though it were imperfect? While God’s most holy word not only
affirms, but proclaims and protests, that this sacrifice was once
perfect, and that its virtue is eternal,—do not they who require another
sacrifice charge this with imperfection and inefficacy? But what is the
tendency of the mass, which admits of a hundred thousand sacrifices
being offered every day, except it be to obscure and suppress the
passion of Christ, by which he offered himself as the alone sacrifice to
the Father? Who, that is not blind, does not see that such an opposition
to the clear and manifest truth must have arisen from the audacity of
Satan? I am aware of the fallacies with which that father of falsehood
is accustomed to varnish over this fraud; as, that these are not various
or different sacrifices, but only a repetition of that one sacrifice.
But such illusions are easily dissipated. For, through the whole
argument, the apostle is contending, not only that there are no other
sacrifices, but that that one sacrifice was offered once, and is never
to be repeated. The more artful sophisters have recourse to a deeper
subterfuge; that the mass is not a repetition of that sacrifice, but an
application of it. This sophistry also may be confuted, without any more
difficulty than the former. For Christ once offered up himself, not that
his sacrifice might be daily ratified by new oblations, but that the
benefit of it might be communicated to us by the preaching of the
gospel, and the administration of the sacred supper. Thus Paul says that
“Christ our passover is sacrificed for us,” and commands us to feast on
him.[1334] This, I say, is the way in which the sacrifice of the cross
of our Lord Jesus Christ is rightly applied to us, when it is
communicated to us for our enjoyment, and we receive it with true faith.

IV. But it is worth while to hear on what other foundation they rest the
sacrifice of the mass. They apply to this purpose the prophecy of
Malachi, in which the Lord promises, that “from the rising of the sun
even unto the going down of the same, incense shall be offered unto” his
“name, and a pure offering.”[1335] As though it were a new or unusual
thing for the prophets, when they speak of the calling of the Gentiles,
to designate the spiritual worship of God, to which they exhort them, by
the external ceremonies of the law; in order to show, in a more familiar
manner, to the men of their own times, that the Gentiles were to be
introduced to a participation of the true religion; as it is their
invariable practice, on all occasions, to describe the realities which
have been exhibited in the gospel, under the types and figures of the
dispensation under which they lived. Thus, conversion to the Lord they
express by going up to Jerusalem; adoration of God, by oblations of
various gifts; the more extensive knowledge to be bestowed on believers,
in the kingdom of Christ, by dreams and visions.[1336] The prophecy
which they adduce, therefore, is similar to another prediction of
Isaiah, where he foretells the erection of three altars, in Assyria,
Egypt, and Judea.[1337] I ask the Romanists, first, whether they do not
admit this prediction to have been accomplished in the kingdom of
Christ; secondly, where are these altars, or when were they ever
erected; thirdly, whether they think that those two kingdoms were
destined to have their respective temples, like that at Jerusalem. A due
consideration of these things, I think, will induce them to acknowledge,
that the prophet, under types adapted to his own time, was predicting
the spiritual worship of God, which was to be propagated all over the
world. This is our solution of the passage which they adduce from
Malachi; but as examples of this mode of expression are of such frequent
occurrence, I shall not employ myself in a further enumeration of them.
Here, also, they are miserably deceived, in acknowledging no sacrifice
but that of the mass; whereas, believers do in reality now sacrifice to
the Lord, and offer a pure oblation, of which we shall presently treat.

V. I now proceed to the third view of the mass, under which I am to show
how it obliterates and expunges from the memory of mankind the true and
alone death of Jesus Christ. For as among men the confirmation of a
testament depends on the death of the testator, so also our Lord, by his
death, has confirmed the testament in which he has given us remission of
sins, and everlasting righteousness. Those who dare to attempt any
variation or innovation in this testament, thereby deny his death, and
represent it as of no value. Now, what is the mass, but a new and
totally different testament? For does not every separate mass promise a
new remission of sins, and a new acquisition of righteousness; so that
there are now as many testaments as masses? Let Christ, therefore, come
again, and by another death ratify this new testament, or rather, by
innumerable deaths, confirm these innumerable testaments of masses. Have
I not truly said, then, at the beginning, that the true and alone death
of Christ is obliterated and consigned to oblivion by the masses? And is
not the direct tendency of the mass, to cause Christ, if it were
possible, to be put to death again? “For where a testament is,” says the
apostle, “there must also, of necessity, be the death of the
testator.”[1338] The mass pretends to exhibit a new testament of Christ;
therefore it requires his death. Moreover the victim which is offered
must, of necessity, be slain and immolated. If Christ be sacrificed in
every mass, he must be cruelly murdered in a thousand separate places at
once. This is not _my_ argument; it is the reasoning of the apostle: “It
was not necessary that he should offer himself often; for then must he
often have suffered since the foundation of the world.”[1339] In reply
to this, I confess, they are ready to charge us with calumny; alleging
that we impute to them sentiments which they never have held, nor ever
can hold. We know, indeed, that the life and death of Christ are not in
their power; and whether they intend to murder him, we do not inquire;
we only mean to show the absurdities which follow from their impious and
abominable doctrine, and this we have proved from the mouth of the
apostle. They may reply a hundred times, if they please, that this
sacrifice is without blood; but I shall deny that sacrifices can change
their nature, at the caprice of men; for thus the sacred and inviolable
institution of God would fall to the ground. Hence it follows, that this
principle of the apostle can never be shaken, that “without shedding of
blood is no remission.”[1340]

VI. We are now to treat of the fourth property of the mass, which is, to
prevent us from perceiving and reflecting on the death of Christ, and
thereby to deprive us of the benefit resulting from it. For who can
consider himself as redeemed by the death of Christ, when he sees a new
redemption in the mass? Who can be assured that his sins are remitted,
when he sees another remission? It is not a sufficient answer, to say,
that we obtain remission of sins in the mass, only because it has been
already procured by the death of Christ. For this is no other than
pretending that Christ has redeemed us in order that we may redeem
ourselves. For this is the doctrine which has been disseminated by the
ministers of Satan, and which they now defend by clamours, and fire, and
sword; that when we offer up Christ to his Father, in the sacrifice of
the mass, we, by that act of oblation, obtain remission of sins, and
become partakers of the passion of Christ. What remains, then, to the
passion of Christ, but to be an example of redemption, by which we may
learn to be our own redeemers? Christ himself, when he seals the
assurance of pardon in the sacred supper, does not command his disciples
to rest in this act, but refers them to the sacrifice of his death;
signifying that the supper is a monument, or memorial, appointed to
teach us that the expiatory victim by which God was to be appeased ought
to be offered but once. Nor is it sufficient to know that Christ is the
sole victim, unless we also know that there is only one oblation, so
that our faith may be fixed upon his cross.

VII. I come now to the concluding observation; that the sacred supper,
in which our Lord had left us the memorial of his passion impressed and
engraven, has, by the erection of the mass, been removed, abolished, and
destroyed. For the supper itself is a gift of God, which ought to be
received with thanksgiving. The sacrifice of the mass is pretended to be
a price given to God, and received by him as a satisfaction. As far as
_giving_ differs from _receiving_, so far does the sacrifice of the mass
differ from the sacrament of the supper. And this is the most miserable
ingratitude of man, that where the profusion of the Divine goodness
ought to have been acknowledged with thanksgivings, there he makes God
his debtor. The sacrament promised, that by the death of Christ we are
not only restored to life, but are perpetually vivified, because every
part of our salvation was then accomplished. The sacrifice of the mass
proclaims a very different doctrine; that it is necessary for Christ to
be sacrificed every day, in order to be of any advantage to us. The
supper ought to be distributed in the public congregation of the Church,
to instruct us in the communion by which we are all connected together
in Christ Jesus. The sacrifice of the mass dissolves and destroys this
communion. For the reception of this error rendered it necessary that
there should be priests to sacrifice for the people; and the supper, as
if it had been resigned to them, ceased to be administered to the Church
of believers, according to the commandment of the Lord. A way was opened
for the admission of private masses, which represented a kind of
excommunication, rather than that communion which had been instituted by
our Lord, when the mass-priest separates himself from the whole
congregation of believers, to devour his sacrifice alone. That no person
may be deceived, I call it a private mass, wherever there is no
participation of the Lord’s supper among believers, whatever number of
persons may be present as spectators of it.

VIII. With respect to the word _mass_ itself, I have never been able
certainly to determine whence it originated; only I think it may
probably have been derived from the oblations which used to be made at
the sacrament. Hence the ancient fathers generally use it in the plural
number. But to forbear all controversy respecting the term, I say that
private masses are diametrically repugnant to the institution of Christ,
and are consequently an impious profanation of the sacred supper. For
what has the Lord commanded us? Is it not to take and divide it among
us?[1341] What observance of the command does Paul inculcate? Is it not
the breaking of the bread, which is the communion of the body of
Christ?[1342] When one man takes it, therefore, without any
distribution, what resemblance does this bear to the command? But it is
alleged, that this one man does it in the name of the whole Church. I
ask, by what authority? Is not this an open mockery of God, when one
person does separately, by himself, that which ought not to have been
done but among many? The words of Christ, and of Paul, are sufficiently
clear to authorize the conclusion, that wherever there is no breaking of
the bread for common distribution among believers, there is not the
supper of the Lord, but a false and preposterous imitation of it. But a
false imitation is a corruption; and the corruption of so great a
mystery cannot take place without impiety. Private masses, therefore,
are an impious abuse. And as one abuse in religion soon produces
another, after the introduction of this custom of offering without
communicating, they began by degrees to have innumerable masses in all
the corners of the temples, and thus to divide the people from each
other, who ought to have united in one assembly, to celebrate the
mystery of their union. Now, let the Romanists deny, if they can, that
they are guilty of idolatry in exhibiting bread in their masses, to be
worshipped instead of Christ. In vain do they boast of those promises of
the presence of Christ; for however they may be understood, they
certainly were not given in order that impure and profane men, whenever
they please, and for whatever improper use, may transmute bread into the
body of Christ; but in order that believers, religiously observing the
command of Christ, in celebrating the supper, may enjoy a true
participation of him in it.

IX. In the purer times of the Church, this corruption was unknown. For,
however the more impudent of our adversaries endeavour to misrepresent
this matter, yet it is beyond all doubt that all antiquity is against
them, as we have already evinced in other points, and may be more fully
determined by a diligent perusal of the ancient fathers. But before I
conclude this subject, I will ask our advocates for masses, since they
know that “the Lord hath” not “as great delight in sacrifices, as in
obeying the voice of the Lord,” and that “to obey is better than
sacrifice,”[1343] how they can believe this kind of sacrificing to be
acceptable to God, for which they have no command, and which they do not
find to be sanctioned by a single syllable of the Scripture. Moreover,
since they hear the apostle say, that “no man taketh” the name and
“honour” of the priesthood “unto himself, but he that is called of God,
as was Aaron,” and that even “Christ glorified not himself to be made a
high-priest,” but obeyed the call of his Father;[1344] either they must
prove God to be the author and institutor of their priesthood, or they
must confess the honour not to be of God, into which they have
presumptuously and wickedly obtruded themselves, without any call. But
they cannot produce a tittle which affords the least support to their
priesthood. What, then, will become of their sacrifices, since no
sacrifices can be offered without a priest?

X. If any one should bring forward mutilated passages, extracted from
different parts of the writings of the fathers, and contend, on their
authority, that the sacrifice which is offered in the supper ought to be
understood in a different manner from the representation we have given
of it, he shall receive the following brief reply: If the question
relate to an approbation of this notion of a sacrifice which the Papists
have invented in the mass, the ancient fathers are very far from
countenancing such a sacrilege. They do, indeed, use the word
_sacrifice_, but they at the same time fully declare, that they mean
nothing more than the commemoration of that true and only sacrifice
which Christ, whom they invariably speak of as our only Priest,
completed on the cross. Augustine says, “The Hebrews, in the animal
victims which they offered to God, celebrated the prophecy of the future
victim which Christ has since offered; Christians, by the holy oblation
and participation of the body of Christ, celebrate the remembrance of
the sacrifice which is already completed.” Here he evidently inculcates
the same sentiment that is expressed more at large in the Treatise, on
Faith, which has been attributed to him, though it is doubtful who was
the author, addressed to Peter the Deacon; in which we find the
following passage: “Hold this most firmly, and admit not the least
doubt, that the only begotten Son of God himself, being made flesh for
us, hath offered himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a
sweet-smelling savour; to whom, with the Father and the Holy Spirit,
animals were sacrificed in the time of the Old Testament; and to whom
now, with the Father and the Holy Spirit, (with whom he has one and the
same Divinity,) the holy Church, throughout the world, ceases not to
offer the sacrifice of bread and wine. For in those carnal victims there
was a prefiguration of the flesh of Christ, which he himself was to
offer for our sins, and of his blood, which he was to shed for the
remission of our sins. But in the present sacrifice, there is a
thanksgiving and commemoration of the flesh of Christ, which he has
offered, and of his blood, which he has shed for us.” Hence Augustine
himself, in various passages, explains it to be nothing more than a
sacrifice of praise. And it is a remark often found in his writings,
that the Lord’s supper is called a sacrifice, for no other reason than
because it is a memorial, image, and attestation, of that singular,
true, and only sacrifice, by which Christ has redeemed us. There is also
a remarkable passage in his Treatise on the Trinity, where, after having
treated of the only sacrifice, he thus concludes: “In a sacrifice, four
things are to be considered—to whom it is offered, by whom it is
offered, what is offered, and for whom it is offered. The alone and true
Mediator, by a sacrifice of peace, reconciling us to God, remains one
with him to whom he has offered it; makes them for whom he has offered
it one in himself; is the one who alone has offered it; and is himself
the oblation which he has offered.” Chrysostom also speaks to the same
purpose. And they ascribe the honour of the priesthood so exclusively to
Christ, that Augustine declares, that if any one should set up a bishop
as an intercessor between God and man, it would be the language of
Antichrist.

XI. Yet we do not deny that the oblation of Christ is there exhibited to
us in such a manner, that the view of his cross is almost placed before
our eyes; as the apostle says, that by the preaching of the cross to the
Galatians, “Christ had been evidently set forth before their eyes,
crucified among them.”[1345] But as I perceive that those ancient
fathers misapplied this memorial to a purpose inconsistent with the
institution of the Lord, because the supper, as celebrated by them,
represented I know not what appearance of a reiterated, or at least
renewed oblation, the safest way for pious minds will be to acquiesce in
the pure and simple ordinance of the Lord, whose supper this sacrament
is called, because it ought to be regulated by his sole authority.
Finding them to have retained orthodox and pious sentiments of this
whole mystery, and not detecting them of having intended the least
derogation from the one and alone sacrifice of Christ, I dare not
condemn them for impiety; yet I think it impossible to exculpate them
from having committed some error in the external form. For they imitated
the Jewish mode of sacrificing, more than Christ had commanded, or the
nature of the gospel admitted. The censure which they have deserved,
therefore, is for this preposterous conformity to the Old Testament;
that, not content with the simple and genuine institution of Christ,
they have symbolized too much with the shadows of the law.

XII. If any person will attentively examine, he will observe this
distinction clearly marked by the word of the Lord, between the Mosaic
sacrifices and our eucharist; that though those sacrifices represented
to the Jewish people the same efficacy of the death of Christ which is
now exhibited to us in the Lord’s supper, yet the mode of representation
was different. For the Jewish priests were commanded to prefigure the
sacrifice which was to be accomplished by Christ; a victim was presented
in the place of Christ himself; there was an altar on which it was to be
immolated; in short, every thing was conducted in such a manner as to
set before the eyes of the people a representation of the sacrifice
which was to be offered to God as an atonement for sins. But since that
sacrifice has been accomplished, the Lord has prescribed to us a
different method, in order to communicate to believers the benefit of
the sacrifice which has been offered to him by his Son. Therefore he has
given us a table at which we are to feast, not an altar upon which any
victim is to be offered: he has not consecrated priests to offer
sacrifices, but ministers to distribute the sacred banquet. In
proportion to the superior sublimity and sanctity of the mystery, with
the greater care and reverence it ought to be treated. The safest
course, therefore, is to relinquish all the presumption of human reason,
and to adhere strictly to what the Scripture enjoins. And surely, if we
consider that it is the supper of the Lord, and not of men, there is no
cause why we should suffer ourselves to be moved a hair’s breadth from
the scriptural rule by any authority of men or prescription of years.
Therefore, when the apostle was desirous of purifying it from all the
faults which had already crept into the Church at Corinth, he adopted
the best and readiest method, by recalling it to the one original
institution, which he shows ought to be regarded as its perpetual rule.

XIII. That no wrangler may take occasion to oppose us from the terms
_sacrifice_ and _priest_, I will briefly state what I have meant by
these terms all through this argument. Some extend the word _sacrifice_
to all religions ceremonies and actions; but for this I see no reason.
We know that, by the constant usage of the Scripture, the word
_sacrifice_ is applied to what the Greeks call sometimes θυσια,
sometimes προσφορα, and sometimes τελετη, which, taken generally,
comprehends whatever is offered to God. Wherefore it is necessary for us
to make a distinction, but such a distinction as may be consistent with
the sacrifices of the Mosaic law; under the shadows of which the Lord
designed to represent to his people all the truth of spiritual
sacrifices. Though there were various kinds of them, yet they may all be
referred to two classes. For either they were oblations made for sin in
a way of satisfaction, by which guilt was expiated before God, or they
were symbols of Divine worship and attestations of devotion. This second
class comprehended three kinds of sacrifices: some were offered in a way
of supplication, to implore the favour of God; some in a way of
thanksgiving, to testify the gratitude of the mind for benefits
received; and some as simple expressions of piety, to renew the
confirmation of the covenant: to this class belonged burnt-offerings and
drink-offerings, first-fruits and peace-offerings. Therefore let _us_
also divide sacrifices into two kinds, and for the sake of distinction
call one the _sacrifice of worship_ and _piety_, because it consists in
the veneration and service of God, which he demands and receives from
believers; or it may be called, if you prefer it, the _sacrifice of
thanksgiving_; for it is presented to God by none but persons who,
loaded with his immense benefits, devote themselves and all their
actions to him in return. The other may be called the _sacrifice of
propitiation_ or _expiation_. A sacrifice of expiation is that which is
offered to appease the wrath of God, to satisfy his justice, and thereby
to purify and cleanse from sins, that the sinner, delivered from the
defilement of iniquity, and restored to the purity of righteousness, may
be re-admitted to the favour of God. This was the designation, under the
law, of those victims which were offered for the expiation of sins; not
that they were sufficient to effect the restoration of the favour of
God, or the obliteration of iniquity, but because they prefigured that
true sacrifice which at length was actually accomplished by Christ
alone; by him alone, because it could be made by no other; and once for
all, because the virtue and efficacy of that one sacrifice is eternal;
as Christ himself declared, when he said, “It is finished;”[1346] that
is to say, whatever was necessary to reconcile us to the Father, and to
obtain remission of sins, righteousness, and salvation, was all effected
and completed by that one oblation of himself, which was so perfect as
to leave no room for any other sacrifice afterwards.

XIV. Wherefore, I conclude, that it is a most criminal insult, and
intolerable blasphemy, both against Christ himself, and against the
sacrifice which he completed on our behalf by his death upon the cross,
for any man to repeat any oblation with a view to procure the pardon of
sins, propitiate God, and obtain righteousness. But what is the object
of the mass, except it be that by the merit of a new oblation we may be
made partakers of the passion of Christ? And that there might be no
limits to their folly, they have not been satisfied with affirming it to
be a common sacrifice offered equally for the whole Church, without
adding, that it was in their power to make a peculiar application of it
to any individual they chose, or rather to every one who was willing to
purchase such a commodity with ready money. Though they could not reach
the price of Judas, yet, to exemplify some characteristic of their
author, they have retained the resemblance of number. Judas sold Jesus
for thirty pieces of silver; these men, as far as in them lies, sell
him, in French money, for thirty pieces of copper; Judas sold him but
once; they sell him as often as they meet with a purchaser. In this
sense, we deny that they are priests; that they can intercede with God
on behalf of the people by such an oblation; that they can appease the
wrath of God, or obtain the remission of sins. For Christ is the sole
Priest and High-Priest of the New Testament, to whom all the ancient
priesthoods have been transferred, and in whom they are all terminated
and closed. And even if the Scripture had made no mention of the eternal
priesthood of Christ, yet as God, since the abrogation of the former
priesthoods, has instituted no other, the argument of the apostle is
irrefragable, that “no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that
is called of God.”[1347] With what effrontery, then, do these
sacrilegious mortals, who boast of being the executioners of Christ,
dare to call themselves priests of the living God!

XV. There is a beautiful passage in Plato, in which he treats of the
ancient expiations among the heathen, and ridicules the foolish
confidence of wicked and profligate men, who thought that such disguises
would conceal their crimes from the view of their gods, and, as if they
had made a compromise with their gods, indulged themselves in their
vices with the greater security. This passage almost seems as if it had
been written with a view to the missal expiation as it is now practised
in the world. To defraud and circumvent another person, every one knows
to be unlawful. To injure widows, to plunder orphans, to harass the
poor, to obtain the property of others by wicked arts, to seize any
one’s fortune by perjuries and frauds, to oppress a neighbour with
violence and tyrannical terror, are universally acknowledged to be
enormous crimes. How, then, do so many persons dare to commit all these
sins, as if they might perpetrate them with impunity? If we duly
consider, we shall find that they derive fresh encouragement from no
other cause than the confidence which they feel that they shall be able
to satisfy God by the sacrifice of the mass, as a complete discharge of
all their obligations to him, or at least that it affords them an easy
mode of compromising with him. Plato afterwards goes on to ridicule the
gross stupidity of those who expect by such expiations to be delivered
from the punishments which they would otherwise have to suffer in hell.
And what is the design of the obits, or anniversary obsequies, and the
greater part of the masses, but that those who all their lifetime have
been the most cruel of tyrants, the most rapacious of robbers, or
abandoned to every enormity, as if redeemed with this price, may escape
the fire of purgatory?

XVI. Under the other kind of sacrifices, which we have called _the
sacrifice of thanksgiving_, are included all the offices of charity,
which when we perform to our brethren, we honour the Lord himself in his
members; and likewise all our prayers, praises, thanksgivings, and every
thing that we do in the service of God; all which are dependent on a
greater sacrifice, by which we are consecrated in soul and body as holy
temples to the Lord. It is not enough for our external actions to be
employed in his service: it is necessary that first ourselves, and then
all our works, be consecrated and dedicated to him; that whatever
belongs to us may conduce to his glory, and discover a zeal for its
advancement. This kind of sacrifice has no tendency to appease the wrath
of God, to procure remission of sins, or to obtain righteousness: its
sole object is to magnify and exalt the glory of God. For it cannot be
acceptable and pleasing to God, except from the hands of those whom he
has already favoured with the remission of their sins, reconciled to
himself, and absolved from guilt; and it is so necessary to the Church
as to be altogether indispensable. Therefore it will continue to be
offered for ever, as long as the people of God shall exist; as we have
already seen from the prophet. For so far are we from wishing to abolish
it, that in that sense we are pleased to understand the following
prediction: “From the rising of the sun, even unto the going down of the
same, my name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place
incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering; for my name
shall be great among the heathen, saith the Lord of hosts.”[1348] So
Paul enjoins us to “present” our “bodies, a living sacrifice, holy,
acceptable unto God,” which is our “reasonable service.”[1349] He has
expressed himself with the strictest propriety, by adding that this is
our reasonable service; for he intended a spiritual kind of Divine
worship, which he tacitly opposed to the carnal sacrifices of the Mosaic
law. So “to do good, and to communicate,” are called “sacrifices with
which God is well pleased.”[1350] So the liberality of the Philippians
in supplying the wants of Paul was “an odour of a sweet smell, a
sacrifice acceptable and well pleasing to God.”[1351] So all the good
works of believers are spiritual sacrifices.

XVII. Why do I multiply quotations? This form of expression is
perpetually occurring in the Scriptures. And even while the people were
kept under the external discipline of the law, it was sufficiently
declared by the prophets that those carnal sacrifices contained a
reality and truth which is common to the Christian Church, as well as to
the nation of the Jews. For this reason David prayed, “Let my prayer be
set forth before thee as incense; and the lifting up of my hands as the
evening sacrifice.”[1352] And Hosea called thanksgivings “the calves of
our lips,”[1353] which David calls “offering thanksgiving” and “offering
praise.”[1354] In imitation of the Psalmist, the apostle himself says,
“Let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually;” and by way of
explanation adds, “that is, the fruit of our lips,” confessing or giving
“thanks to his name.”[1355] This kind of sacrifice is indispensable in
the supper of the Lord, in which, while we commemorate and declare his
death, and give thanks, we do no other than offer the sacrifice of
praise. From this sacrificial employment, all Christians are called “a
royal priesthood;”[1356] because, as the apostle says, “By Christ we
offer the sacrifice of praise to God, that is, the fruit of our lips,
giving thanks to his name.” For we do not appear in the presence of God
with our oblations without an intercessor; Christ is the Mediator, by
whom we offer ourselves and all that we have to the Father. He is our
High Priest, who, having entered into the celestial sanctuary, opens the
way of access for us. He is our altar, upon which we place our
oblations, that whatever we venture to do, we may attempt in him. In a
word, it is he that “hath made us kings and priests unto God.”[1357]

XVIII. What remains, then, but for the blind to see, the deaf to hear,
and even children to understand, this abomination of the mass? which,
being presented in a vessel of gold, has so inebriated and stupefied all
the kings and people of the earth, from the highest to the lowest, that,
more senseless than the brutes themselves, they have placed the whole of
their salvation in this fatal gulf. Surely Satan never employed a more
powerful engine to assail and conquer the kingdom of Christ. This is the
Helen, for which the enemies of the truth in the present day contend
with cruelty, rage, and fury; a Helen, indeed, with which they so
pollute themselves with spiritual fornication, which is the most
execrable of all. Here I touch not, even with my little finger, the
gross abuses which they might pretend to be profanations of the purity
of their holy mass; what a scandalous traffic they carry on, what sordid
gains they make by their masses, with what enormous rapacity they
gratify their avarice. I only point out, and that in few and plain
words, the true nature of the most sanctimonious sanctity of the mass,
on account of which it has attracted so much admiration and veneration
for so many ages. For an illustration of such great mysteries
proportioned to their dignity, would require a larger treatise; and I am
unwilling to introduce those disgusting corruptions which are
universally notorious; that all men may understand that the mass,
considered in its choicest and most estimable purity, without any of its
appendages, from the beginning to the end, is full of every species of
impiety, blasphemy, idolatry, and sacrilege.

XIX. The readers may now see, collected into a brief summary, almost
every thing that I have thought important to be known respecting these
two sacraments; the use of which has been enjoined on the Christian
Church from the commencement of the New Testament until the end of time;
that is to say, baptism, to be a kind of entrance into the Church, and
an initiatory profession of faith; and the Lord’s supper, to be a
continual nourishment, with which Christ spiritually feeds his family of
believers. Wherefore, as there is but “one God, one Christ, one faith,”
one Church, the body of Christ, so there is only “one baptism” and that
is never repeated; but the supper is frequently distributed, that those
who have once been admitted into the Church, may understand that they
are continually nourished by Christ. Beside these two, as no other
sacrament has been instituted by God, so no other ought to be
acknowledged by the Church of believers. For that it is not left to the
will of man to institute new sacraments, will be easily understood if we
remember what has already been very plainly stated—that sacraments are
appointed by God for the purpose of instructing us respecting some
promise of his, and assuring us of his good-will towards us; and if we
also consider, that no one has been the counsellor of God, capable of
affording us any certainty respecting his will,[1358] or furnishing us
any assurance of his disposition towards us, what he chooses to give or
to deny us. Hence it follows, that no one can institute a sign to be a
testimony respecting any determination or promise of his; he alone can
furnish us a testimony respecting himself by giving a sign. I will
express myself in terms more concise, and perhaps more homely, but more
explicit—that there can be no sacrament unaccompanied with a promise of
salvation. All mankind, collected in one assembly, can promise us
nothing respecting our salvation. Therefore they can never institute or
establish a sacrament.

XX. Let the Christian Church, therefore, be content with these two, and
not only neither admit nor acknowledge any other at present, but neither
desire nor expect any other to the end of the world. For as the Jews,
beside the ordinary sacraments given to them, had also several others,
differing according to the varying circumstances of different periods,
such as the manna, the water issuing from the rock, the brazen serpent,
and the like, they were admonished by this variation not to rest in such
figures, which were of short duration, but to expect from God something
better, which should undergo no change and come to no end. But our case
is very different: to us Christ has been revealed, “in whom are hid all
the treasures of wisdom and knowledge,”[1359] in such abundance and
profusion, that to hope or desire any new accession to these treasures
would really be to displease God, and provoke his wrath against us. We
must hunger after Christ, we must seek, contemplate, and learn him
alone, till the dawning of that great day, when our Lord will fully
manifest the glory of his kingdom, and reveal himself to us, so that “we
shall see him as he is.”[1360] And for this reason, the dispensation
under which we live is designated in the Scriptures as “the last time,”
“these last times,” “the last days,”[1361] that no one may deceive
himself with a vain expectation of any new doctrine or revelation. For
“God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto
the fathers by the prophets, hath, in these last days, spoken unto us by
his Son,”[1362] who alone is able to “reveal the Father,”[1363] and who,
indeed, “hath declared him”[1364] fully, as far as is necessary for our
happiness, while “now we see” him “through a glass darkly.”[1365] As men
are not left at liberty to institute new sacraments in the Church of
God, so it were to be wished that as little as possible of human
invention should be mixed with those which have been instituted by God.
For as wine is diluted and lost by an infusion of water, and as a whole
mass of meal contracts acidity from a sprinkling of leaven, so the
purity of Divine mysteries is only polluted when man makes any addition
of his own. And yet we see, as the sacraments are observed in the
present day, how very far they have degenerated from their original
purity. There is every where an excess of pageantries, ceremonies, and
gesticulations; but no consideration or mention of the word of God,
without which even the sacraments themselves cease to be sacraments. And
the very ceremonies which have been instituted by God are not to be
discerned among such a multitude of others, by which they are
overwhelmed. In baptism, how little is seen of that which ought to be
the only conspicuous object—I mean baptism itself? And the Lord’s supper
has been completely buried since it has been transformed into the mass;
except that it is exhibited once a year, but in a partial and mutilated
form.

Footnote 1328:

Gen. xiv. 18. Psalm cx. 4. Heb. v. 5, 6, 10; vii. 17, 21, 23, 24; ix.
11; x. 21.

Footnote 1329:

Heb. vii. 23.

Footnote 1330:

Heb. vii. 1, 7.

Footnote 1331:

Heb. vii. 27; x. 10, 14; ix. 12.

Footnote 1332:

Heb. ix. 26; x. 10; xiv. 18.

Footnote 1333:

John xix. 30.

Footnote 1334:

1 Cor. v. 7, 8.

Footnote 1335:

Mal. i. 11.

Footnote 1336:

Isaiah xix. 23. Joel ii. 28.

Footnote 1337:

Isaiah xix. 19, 23.

Footnote 1338:

Heb. ix. 16.

Footnote 1339:

Heb. ix. 23, 25, 26.

Footnote 1340:

Heb. ix. 22.

Footnote 1341:

Luke xxii. 17.

Footnote 1342:

1 Cor. x. 16.

Footnote 1343:

1 Sam. xv. 22.

Footnote 1344:

Heb. v. 4, 5.

Footnote 1345:

Gal. iii. 1.

Footnote 1346:

John xix. 30.

Footnote 1347:

Heb. v. 4.

Footnote 1348:

Mal. i. 11.

Footnote 1349:

Rom. xii. 1.

Footnote 1350:

Heb. xiii. 16.

Footnote 1351:

Phil. iv. 18.

Footnote 1352:

Psalm cxli. 2.

Footnote 1353:

Hosea xiv. 2.

Footnote 1354:

Psalm l. 14, 23.

Footnote 1355:

Heb. xiii. 15.

Footnote 1356:

1 Peter ii. 9.

Footnote 1357:

Rev. i. 6.

Footnote 1358:

Isaiah xl. 14. Rom. xi. 34.

Footnote 1359:

Col. ii. 3.

Footnote 1360:

1 John iii. 2.

Footnote 1361:

1 John ii. 18. 1 Peter i. 20. Acts ii. 17.

Footnote 1362:

Heb. i. 1, 2.

Footnote 1363:

Luke x. 22.

Footnote 1364:

John i. 18.

Footnote 1365:

1 Cor. xiii. 12.

CHAPTER XIX.
THE FIVE OTHER CEREMONIES, FALSELY CALLED SACRAMENTS, PROVED NOT TO BE
SACRAMENTS; THEIR NATURE EXPLAINED.

The preceding discussion respecting the sacraments might satisfy persons
of docile and sober minds, that they ought not to carry their curiosity
any further, or without the sanction of the word of God, to receive any
other sacraments beside those two which they know to have been
instituted by the Lord. But as the opinion of seven sacraments has been
so generally admitted in the common conversation of mankind, and
pervaded the controversies of the schools, and the sermons of the
pulpit,—as it has gathered strength from its antiquity, and still keeps
its hold on the minds of men,—I have thought I should perform a useful
service by entering into a closer and distinct examination of the five
ceremonies, which are commonly numbered among the true and genuine
sacraments of the Lord, by clearing away every fallacy, and exhibiting
to the view of plain Christians the real nature of those ceremonies, and
how falsely they have hitherto been considered as sacraments. Here, in
the first place, I wish to declare to all believers, that I am not
induced to enter on this controversy respecting the term, by the least
desire of contention, but that I am urged by important reasons to resist
the abuse of it. I am aware that Christians have power over names as
well as things, and may therefore apply words to things at their own
pleasure, provided they retain a pious meaning, even though there be
some impropriety of expression. All this I admit, though it would be
better for words to be subject to things, than for things to be subject
to words. The case of the term _sacrament_, however, is different. For
those who maintain seven sacraments, give them all the same
definition—that they are visible forms of invisible grace; they make
them all alike vessels of the Holy Spirit, instruments of communicating
righteousness, causes of obtaining grace. And the Master of the
Sentences, Lombard, denies that the sacraments of the Mosaic law are
properly designated by this appellation; because they did not
communicate that which they prefigured. Is it to be endured, that those
symbols, which the Lord consecrated with his own mouth, and which he
adorned with excellent promises, should not be acknowledged as
sacraments; and, at the same time, that this honour should be
transferred to those rites which are merely inventions of men, or, at
least, are observed without any express command of God? Either,
therefore, let them change their definition, or abstain from this abuse
of the term, which afterwards generates false and absurd opinions.
Extreme unction, they say, is a figure and cause of invisible grace,
because it is a sacrament. If we ought by no means to admit their
inference from the term, it certainly behoves us to lose no time in
resisting their application of the term itself, that we may not be
chargeable with giving any occasion to such an error. Again: to prove
that ceremony to be a sacrament, they allege this reason—that it
consists of the external sign and the word of God. If we find neither
command nor promise respecting it, can we do otherwise than oppose it?

II. Now, it appears that we are not debating about the word, but raising
a necessary and useful controversy respecting the thing itself. We must
strenuously maintain, therefore, what we have already established by
irrefragable argument that the power to institute sacraments belongs to
God alone; for a sacrament ought to exhibit the certain promise of God,
for the assurance and consolation of the consciences of believers; which
could never receive such assurance and consolation from man. A sacrament
ought to be a testimony to us of the good-will of God towards us—a
testimony which no man or angel can ever give, as none has been “his
counsellor.” It is he alone, therefore, who, with legitimate authority,
testifies to us concerning himself by means of his word. A sacrament is
a seal by which the testament or promise of God is sealed. But it could
not be sealed by corporeal things and the elements of this world, unless
they were marked out and appointed for this purpose by the power of God.
Therefore man cannot institute a sacrament; because it is not in human
power to cause such great and Divine mysteries to be concealed under
such mean symbols. “The word of God must precede,” as is excellently
remarked by Augustine, “in order to make a sacrament to be a sacrament.”
Moreover, if we would avoid falling into many absurdities, it is
requisite to preserve some distinction between a sacrament and other
ceremonies. The apostles prayed on bended knees; shall we, therefore,
never kneel without making it a sacrament? The early Christians are said
to have turned their faces towards the east when they prayed; shall
looking towards the east, then, be regarded as a sacrament? Paul says,
“I will that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands,”[1366] and the
prayers of the saints appear to have been often made with uplifted
hands; shall elevation of hands also be made a sacrament? On this
principle all the gestures of the saints would become sacraments. I
would not insist on these things, however, if they were not connected
with those greater inconveniences.

III. If they wish to press us with the authority of the ancient Church,
I assert that this is a groundless pretence. For the number of seven
sacraments can nowhere be found in the ecclesiastical writers, nor is it
clear when it was introduced. I grant, indeed, that the fathers
sometimes make too free a use of the word sacrament; but they use it
indifferently to signify all ceremonies and external rites, and all
exercises of piety. But, when they speak of those signs which we ought
to regard as testimonies of the grace of God, they are content with
these two, baptism and the eucharist. That this may not be supposed to
be a false allegation, I shall here cite a few testimonies from
Augustine. To Januarius he says, “First, I wish you to know what is the
principal point of this controversy—that our Lord Jesus Christ, as he
says in the gospel, has laid upon us an easy yoke and a light burden.
And, therefore, he has linked together the society of the Christian
Church by sacraments, very few in number, most easy to observe, and
excellent in signification. Such are baptism, consecrated in the name of
the Trinity, and the communion of the body and blood of the Lord, and if
there be any other enjoined in the canonical Scriptures.” Again, in his
treatise On the Christian Doctrine: “Since the resurrection of our Lord,
our Lord himself, and the practice of his apostles, instead of many
signs, have given us few, and those most easy in performance, most
excellent in signification, and most pure in observance; such are
baptism, and the celebration of the body and blood of the Lord.” Why
does he make no mention here of the sacred or septenary number? Is it
probable that he would have omitted it, if it had then been instituted
in the Church; especially as, in other cases, he was more curious in the
observation of numbers than was at all necessary? And, when he names
baptism and the Lord’s supper, and is silent respecting any others, does
he not sufficiently indicate, that these two mysteries possess superior
and peculiar dignity, and that all other ceremonies occupy an inferior
station? Wherefore I affirm that these advocates for seven sacraments
are not only unsupported by the word of the Lord, but also by the
consent of the ancient Church, however they may boast of such consent.
Let us now proceed to the particular ceremonies.

CONFIRMATION.

IV. It was an ancient custom in the Church for the children of
Christians, after they were come to years of discretion, to be presented
to the bishop in order to fulfil that duty which was required of adults
who offered themselves to baptism. For such persons were placed among
the catechumens, till, being duly instructed in the mysteries of
Christianity, they were enabled to make a confession of their faith
before the bishop and all the people. Therefore those who had been
baptized in their infancy, because they had not then made such a
confession of faith before the Church, at the close of childhood, or the
commencement of adolescence, were again presented by their parents, and
were examined by the bishop according to the form of the catechism which
was then in common use. That this exercise, which deserved to be
regarded as sacred and solemn, might have the greater dignity and
reverence, they also practised the ceremony of imposition of hands. Thus
the youth, after having given satisfaction respecting his faith, was
dismissed with a solemn benediction. This custom is frequently mentioned
by the ancient writers. Leo, the pope, says, “If any one be converted
from heresy, let him not be baptized again; but let the influence of the
Spirit, which he wanted among the heretics, be communicated to him by
the imposition of the hands of the bishop.” Here our adversaries will
exclaim that any ceremony, by which the Holy Spirit is conferred, is
properly denominated a sacrament. But the meaning of Leo in these words
is sufficiently unfolded by himself in another place: “Whoever is
baptized among heretics, let him not be rebaptized; but let him be
confirmed by imposition of hands with invocation of the Holy Spirit;
because he has received the mere form of baptism, without the
sanctification.” It is also mentioned by Jerome against the Luciferians.
And though I confess that Jerome is not altogether correct in stating it
to have been a custom of the apostles, yet he is very far from the
absurdities now maintained by the Romanists; and he even corrects that
very statement by adding, that this benediction was committed wholly to
the bishops, “rather in honour of the priesthood than from necessity
imposed by any law.” Such imposition of hands, therefore, as is simply
connected with benediction, I highly approve, and wish it were now
restored to its primitive use, uncorrupted by superstition.

V. Succeeding times have almost obliterated that ancient practice, and
introduced I know not what counterfeit confirmation as a sacrament of
God. They have pretended that the virtue of confirmation is to give the
Holy Spirit for the augmentation of grace, who in baptism is given for
innocence; to strengthen for warfare those who in baptism had been
regenerated to life. This confirmation is performed by unction and the
following form of words: “I sign thee with the sign of the 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 this sounds very
beautifully and pleasantly. But where is the word of God which promises
the presence of the Holy Spirit in this ceremony? They cannot allege a
single iota. How, then, will they assure us that their chrism is the
vessel of the Holy Spirit? We see oil, a thick and viscid liquid, and we
see nothing besides. Augustine says, “Let the word be added to the
element, and it will become a sacrament.” Let the Romanists produce this
word, if they wish us to contemplate in the oil any thing beyond the oil
itself. If they acknowledged themselves ministers of the sacraments, as
they ought to do, there would be no need of any further contention. The
first law of a minister is to undertake nothing without a command. Now,
let them produce any command for this service, and I will not add
another word on the subject. If they have no command, they can have no
excuse for such sacrilegious audacity. On the same principle, our Lord
interrogated the Pharisees: “The baptism of John, whence was it? from
heaven or of men?”[1367] If they had answered, From men, he would have
extorted a confession that it was vain and frivolous; if, From heaven,
they would be constrained to admit the doctrine of John. To avoid too
great an injury to John, therefore, they did not dare to confess it was
from men. So, if confirmation be “of men,” it is evinced to be vain and
frivolous; if they wish to persuade us that it is from heaven, let them
prove it.

VI. They defend themselves, indeed, by the example of the apostles, whom
they consider as having done nothing without sufficient reason. This
consideration is correct; nor would they receive any reprehension from
us, if they showed themselves imitators of the apostles. But what was
the practice of the apostles? Luke relates, that “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.”[1368] And this imposition of hands is mentioned by the
sacred historian on several occasions. I perceive what the apostles
did—that they faithfully executed their ministry. It was the Lord’s
will, that those visible and wonderful graces of the Holy Spirit, which
he then poured out upon his people, should be administered and
distributed by his apostles with imposition of hands. Now, I do not
conceive that the imposition of hands concealed any higher mystery, but
am of opinion that this ceremony was employed by them as an external
expression of their commending, and, as it were, presenting to God, the
person upon whom they laid their hands. If the ministry which was then
executed by the apostles were still continued in the Church, imposition
of hands ought also to be still observed; but since such grace is no
longer conferred, of what use is the imposition of hands? It is true
that the people of God still enjoy the presence of the Holy Spirit,
whose guidance and direction are indispensable to the existence of the
Church. For we have the eternal promise, which can never fail, and in
which Christ has said, “If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and
drink living water.”[1369] But those miraculous powers and manifest
operations, which were distributed by imposition of hands, have ceased;
and it was right that they should continue but for a time. For it was
necessary that the first preaching of the gospel, and the kingdom of
Christ, at its commencement, should be illustrated and magnified by
miracles never seen or heard before: the subsequent cessation of which
does not argue the Lord’s desertion of his Church, but is equivalent to
a declaration from him that the magnificence of his reign and the
dignity of his word had been sufficiently manifested. In what respect,
then, will these impostors affirm that they imitate the apostles? They
should have effected, by imposition of hands, that the evident power of
the Spirit might immediately show itself. This they do not practise.
Why, then, do they boast that they are countenanced by the imposition of
hands, which we find was used by the apostles, but for a totally
different purpose.

VII. This is just as reasonable as it would be for any one to affirm the
afflation, with which the Lord breathed upon his disciples, to be a
sacrament by which the Holy Spirit is conferred.[1370] But though the
Lord did this once, he has never directed it to be done by us. In the
same manner, the apostles practised imposition of hands during that
period in which the Lord was pleased to dispense the visible graces of
the Holy Spirit in compliance with their prayers; not in order that
persons in succeeding times might counterfeit a vain and useless sign,
as a mere piece of mimicry destitute of any reality. Besides, even if
they could prove themselves to imitate the apostles in the imposition of
hands, in which they have nothing similar to the apostles, except this
preposterous mimicry, whence do they derive their oil, which they call
the oil of salvation? Who has taught them to seek salvation in oil? Who
has taught them to attribute to it the property of imparting spiritual
strength? Is it Paul, who calls us off from the elements of this world,
and severely condemns an attachment to such observances?[1371] On the
contrary, I fearlessly pronounce, not of myself, but from the Lord, that
those who call oil the oil of salvation, abjure the salvation which is
in Christ, reject Christ, and have no part in the kingdom of God. For
oil is for the belly, and the belly for oil; the Lord shall destroy
both; all these weak elements “which perish with the using,”[1372] have
no connection with the kingdom of God, which is spiritual, and shall
never perish. What, then, it will be said, do you apply the same rule to
the water with which we are baptized, and to the bread and wine used in
the Lord’s supper? I answer, that in sacraments of Divine appointment,
two things are to be regarded—the substance of the corporeal symbol
which is proposed to us, and the character impressed upon it by the word
of God, in which consists all its virtue. Therefore, as the bread, and
wine, and water, which are presented to our view in the sacraments,
retain their natural substance, that observation of Paul is always
applicable: “Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats; but God shall
destroy both it and them;”[1373] for they pass and vanish away with the
fashion of this world. But as they are sanctified by the word of God to
be sacraments, they do not confine us to the flesh, but impart to us
true and spiritual instruction.

VIII. Let us examine still more narrowly how many monsters are fostered
by this oil. The dispensers of it say, that the Holy Spirit is given, in
baptism for innocence, in confirmation for an augmentation of grace;
that in baptism we are regenerated to life, and that by confirmation we
are armed for warfare; and they have so far lost all shame, as to deny
that baptism can be rightly performed without confirmation. What
corruption! Are we not, then, “in baptism buried with Christ, planted
together in the likeness of his death,” that we may be “also in the
likeness of his resurrection?” Now this fellowship with the death and
life of Christ, Paul explains to consist in the mortification of the
flesh, and the vivification of the Spirit; “that our old man is
crucified with him, that we should walk in newness of life.”[1374] What
is it to be armed for the spiritual warfare, if this be not? If they
deemed it of no importance to trample under foot the word of God, why
did they not at least reverence the Church, to which they wish to appear
so uniformly obsequious? But what can be produced more severe against
this doctrine of theirs, than the following decree of the Council of
Milevum? “Whoever asserts that baptism is only given for the remission
of sins, and not for assistance of future grace, let him be accursed.”
When Luke, in a passage which we have already cited, speaks of some as
having been “baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus,”[1375] who had not
received the Holy Ghost, he does not absolutely deny that any gift of
the Spirit had been imparted to those persons who had believed in Christ
with the heart, and had confessed him with the mouth; he intends that
gift of the Spirit which communicated his manifest powers and visible
graces. So the apostles are said to have received the Holy Spirit on the
day of Pentecost; though Christ had long before declared to them, “It is
not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father, which speaketh in
you.”[1376] Let all who are of God, here observe the malicious and
pestilent artifice of Satan. That which was truly given in baptism, he
falsely asserts to be given in his confirmation, with the crafty design
of seducing us unawares from baptism. Who can doubt, now, that this is
the doctrine of Satan, which severs from baptism the promises which
belong to that sacrament, and transfers them to something else? It is
now discovered on what kind of a foundation this famous unction rests.
The word of God is, that “as many as have been baptized into Christ,
have put on Christ,”[1377] with his gifts. The word of these anointers
is, That we have received no promise in baptism to arm us for the
spiritual warfare. The word of God is the voice of truth; consequently
the word of the anointers must be the voice of falsehood. I can,
therefore, give a more correct definition of this confirmation than they
have yet given of it; namely, that it is a manifest insult against
baptism, obscuring and even abolishing its use; that it is a deceitful
promise of the devil, seducing us from the truth of God; or, if the
following be preferred, that it is oil polluted with the falsehood of
the devil, to darken and deceive the minds of the simple.

IX. They further assert that all believers after baptism ought to
receive the Holy Spirit by imposition of hands, that they may be found
complete Christians; for that no one can be altogether a Christian who
is never anointed with episcopal confirmation. These are their own
words. But I thought that all things relating to Christianity had been
comprehended and declared in the Scriptures. Now, it seems, the true
form of religion is to be sought and learned from some other quarter.
The wisdom of God, therefore, celestial truth, all the doctrine of
Christ, only _begins_ to make Christians; oil _completes_ them. Such a
sentiment condemns all the apostles, and a number of martyrs who, it is
certain, had never received this unction. For the holy chrism, the
perfusion of which would complete their Christianity, or rather make
them Christians from being no Christians at all, had not then been
manufactured. But these chrismatics abundantly confute themselves,
without my saying a word. For how small a part of their people do they
anoint after baptism? Why, then, do they suffer such semi-Christians in
their own community, from an imperfection which they might easily
remedy? Why do they, with such supine negligence, suffer them to omit
that which cannot be omitted without great criminality? Why do they not
more rigidly insist upon a thing so necessary and indispensable to
salvation, unless any one be prevented by sudden death? Surely while
they suffer it to be so easily despised, they tacitly confess it not to
be of so much importance as they pretend it to be.

X. In the last place, they determine that this sacred unction ought to
be held in greater reverence than baptism; because it is only dispensed
by the hands of the greatest prelates, whereas baptism is commonly
administered by all priests. Must they not be considered as evidently
mad, who discover such fondness for their own inventions, that, in
comparison with them, they presume to undervalue the sacred institutions
of God? Sacrilegious mouth, dost thou dare to place an unction, which is
only defiled with thy fetid breath, and enchanted by the muttering of a
few words, on a level with the sacrament of Christ, and to compare it
with water sanctified by the word of God? But this would not satisfy thy
presumption; thou hast even given it the preference! These are the
responses of the Holy See; they are the oracles of the apostolic tripod.
But some of them have begun to moderate this infatuation, which even in
their opinion was carried beyond all due limits. Confirmation is to be
regarded, they say, with greater reverence than baptism; not, perhaps,
for the greater virtue and advantage that it confers, but because it is
dispensed by persons of superior dignity, and is applied to the nobler
part of the body, that is, the forehead; or because it contributes a
greater augmentation of virtues, though baptism is more available to
remission. But in the first reason, do they not betray themselves to be
Donatists, who estimate the virtue of the sacrament by the dignity or
worthiness of the minister? I will grant, however, that confirmation be
considered as more excellent from the dignity of episcopal hands. But if
any one inquire of them how such a prerogative has been conferred on
bishops, what reason will they assign but their own pleasure? They
allege, that the apostles alone exercised that right, being the sole
dispensers of the Holy Spirit. Are bishops the only apostles; or are
they apostles at all? Let us, however, grant that also; why do they not
on the same principle contend that none but bishops ought to touch the
sacrament of the blood in the Lord’s supper; which they refuse to the
laity, because the Lord, as they say, only gave it to the apostles? If
our Lord gave it to the apostles alone, why do they not infer, Therefore
it ought now to be given to bishops alone? But in this case they make
the apostles simple presbyters; now, they are hurried away with an
extravagant notion suddenly to create them bishops. Lastly, Ananias was
not an apostle; yet to him Paul was sent, that he might receive his
sight, be baptized, and be filled with the Holy Ghost.[1378] I will add
one question more: If this was the peculiar office of bishops by a
Divine right, why have they dared to transfer it to common presbyters,
as we read in one of the epistles of Gregory?

XI. How frivolous and foolish is the second reason, That they call their
confirmation more excellent than the baptism instituted by God, because
in confirmation the forehead is anointed with oil, and in baptism the
crown of the head; as though baptism were performed with oil, and not
with water! I appeal to all believers, whether these deceivers do not
direct all their efforts to this one object; to corrupt the purity of
the sacraments by the leaven of their false doctrine. I have already
remarked, in another part of this book, that in the sacraments it is
scarcely possible to discern that which is of Divine institution among
the multiplicity of human inventions. If any one did not give credit to
that observation of mine, let him now at least believe his own masters.
By their passing over the water without the least notice, it appears
that the only thing to which they attribute much importance in baptism,
is their own oil. We, therefore, on the contrary, affirm, that in
baptism the forehead also is laved with water. In comparison with this,
we esteem all their oil perfectly worthless, whether in baptism or in
confirmation. If any one allege that it is sold for more, this accession
of price would only corrupt the good, if it contained any; an imposture
of the foulest kind can never be legalized by robbery. In the third
reason, they expose their impiety, when they pretend that a greater
augmentation of virtues is conferred in confirmation than in baptism.
The apostles, by imposition of hands, dispensed the visible graces of
the Spirit. In what respect does their unction appear to be productive
of any advantage? Let us leave these moderators, therefore, who cover
one sacrilege with a number of others. It is a Gordian knot, which it is
better to cut asunder than to spend much labour to untie.

XII. Now, when they find themselves stripped of the word of God, and of
every probable argument, they resort to their usual pretext, that it is
a very ancient usage, and confirmed by the consent of many ages. Though
this allegation were true, it would not at all serve their cause. A
sacrament is not from earth, but from heaven; not of men, but of God
alone. If they wish their confirmation to be regarded as a sacrament,
they must prove God to be the Author of it. But why do they allege
antiquity, seeing that the ancient fathers, whenever they mean to
express themselves with strict propriety, nowhere enumerate more than
two sacraments? If it were necessary to fortify our faith by the
authority of men, we have an impregnable fortress, that those
ceremonies, which our adversaries falsely pretend to be sacraments, were
never acknowledged as sacraments by the ancients. The fathers speak of
imposition of hands; but do they call it a sacrament? Augustine
explicitly affirms that it is no other than prayer. Here let them not
oppose me with their foolish distinctions, that Augustine applied this
remark to imposition of hands, not as practised in confirmation, but as
used for the purpose of healing, or of reconciliation. The book is
extant, and is in many hands. If I pervert the passage to any meaning
different from that of Augustine himself, I am content to submit to
their severest censure and contempt. For he is speaking of schismatics,
who returned to the unity of the Church; and denies that they have any
need of the reiteration of baptism, for that imposition of hands was
sufficient, in order that, by the bond of peace, the Lord might give
them his Holy Spirit. And as it might appear unreasonable to repeat
imposition of hands rather than baptism, he shows the difference. “For
what,” he says, “is imposition of hands, but prayer over a man?” And
that this was his meaning, is evident from another passage, where he
says, “We lay hands upon reclaimed heretics, for the union of charity,
which is the principal gift of the Holy Spirit, and without which
whatever else may be holy in man is unavailing to salvation.”

XIII. I sincerely wish that we retained the custom, which I have stated
was practised among the ancients before this abortive image of a
sacrament made its appearance. For it was not such a confirmation as the
Romanists pretend, which cannot be mentioned without injury to baptism;
but a catechetical exercise, in which children or youths used to deliver
an account of their faith in the presence of the Church. Now, it would
be the best mode of catechetical instruction, if a formulary were
written for this purpose, containing and stating, in a familiar manner,
all the articles of our religion, in which the universal Church of
believers ought to agree, without any controversy: a boy of ten years of
age might present himself to make a confession of his faith; he might be
questioned on all the articles, and might give suitable answers: if he
were ignorant of any, or did not fully understand them, he should be
taught. Thus the Church would witness his profession of the only true
and pure faith, in which all the community of believers unanimously
worship the one God. If this discipline were observed in the present
day, it would certainly sharpen the inactivity of some parents, who
carelessly neglect the instruction of their children as a thing in which
they have no concern, but which, in that case, they could not omit
without public disgrace; there would be more harmony of faith among
Christian people, nor would many betray such great ignorance and want of
information; some would not be so easily carried away with novel and
strange tenets; in short, all would have a regular acquaintance with
Christian doctrine.

PENANCE.

XIV. In the next place, they add penance; of which they treat in such a
confused and disorderly manner, that the consciences of men can deduce
no certain or solid conclusion respecting their doctrine. In another
part of this treatise, we have stated at large what we learn from the
Scriptures respecting repentance, and likewise what is inculcated on
that subject by the Romanists. Our present business is only to inquire
briefly into the reasons of those persons who promulgated the opinion
which has prevailed for a long period in the churches and in the
schools, that penance is a sacrament. In the first place, I will make a
few remarks on the practice of the ancient Church, the pretence of which
they have abused for the introduction and establishment of their foolish
invention. The order observed by the ancients in public penitence was,
that persons who had completed the satisfactions enjoined upon them,
were reconciled to the Church by solemn imposition of hands. This was a
sign of absolution, to encourage the sinner himself with an assurance of
pardon before God, and to admonish the Church that they ought to
obliterate the memory of his offence, and kindly to receive him into
favour. This Cyprian often calls “giving peace.” To increase the
importance of this act, and give it a greater recommendation among the
people, it was ordained that it should always be done by the authority
of a bishop. Hence that decree of the second Council of Carthage: “Let
no presbyter be permitted to reconcile a penitent publicly at the mass.”
And another decree of the Council of Arausium: “Let those who, during
the period of their penitence, depart out of this life, be admitted to
the communion without the reconciliatory imposition of hands. If they
recover from their illness, let them complete the period of their
penitence, and then let them receive from the bishop the reconciliatory
imposition of hands.” Also the decree of the third Council of Carthage:
“Let not a presbyter reconcile a penitent without the authority of the
bishop.” The design of all these decrees was, to prevent the severity
which they wished to preserve in this matter from falling into disuse.
Therefore they committed it to the cognizance of the bishop, who was
likely to be more circumspect in conducting the examination. But Cyprian
states that it was not the bishop alone who laid hands on the penitent,
but that all the clergy also united in this act. These are his words:
“They do penance for a proper time, and then they come to the communion,
and are restored to the right of communion by the imposition of the
hands of the bishop and clergy.” Afterwards, in process of time, the
custom was corrupted, so that they used this ceremony in private
absolutions, without any public expression of penitence. Hence that
distinction in Gratian, between public and private reconciliation. I
consider that ancient custom, which is mentioned by Cyprian, to have
been holy and useful to the Church, and could wish it were revived in
the present day. This more recent one, though I venture not to condemn
or censure it with severity, yet I consider less necessary. We see,
however, that imposition of hands on repentance is a ceremony of human,
not of Divine institution, and is to be placed among indifferent things
and external exercises, such as are not to be despised, but ought to
hold a station far below the sacraments, which are enjoined upon us by
the word of God.

XV. Now, the Romish theologians and schoolmen, who are in the habit of
corrupting every thing by misinterpretation, take very great pains here
to discover a sacrament, but to no purpose. Nor ought this to be
wondered at, for they seek it where it is not to be found. When they
have done their best, they leave the subject perplexed, doubtful,
uncertain, and confounded with a variety of opinions. They say, then,
that external penitence is a sacrament, and if it be so, that it ought
to be considered as a sign of internal penitence, that is, of contrition
of heart, which is the substance of the sacrament; or that both together
constitute the sacrament, not two sacraments, but one complete one; but
that external penitence is merely the sacrament; while that which is
internal is both the sacrament and the substance of the sacrament; and
remission of sins is the substance only, and not the sacrament. Let
those who bear in mind the definition of a sacrament which we have
already given, apply it to the examination of this pretended sacrament,
and they will find that it is not an external ceremony instituted by God
for the confirmation of our faith. If they plead that my definition is
not a law which they are bound to obey, let them hear Augustine, whom
they profess to regard with the greatest reverence. He says, “Visible
sacraments are instituted for carnal persons, that by the steps of the
sacraments they may be led from those things which are visible to the
eye, to those which are intelligible to the mind.” What resemblance to
this do they themselves see, or are they able to point out to others, in
that which they call the sacrament of penance? The same writer says in
another place, “It is therefore called a sacrament, because one thing is
seen, another is understood in it. That which is seen has corporeal
form; that which is understood has spiritual fruit.” These things are
not at all applicable to the sacrament of penance, which they have
invented, in which there is no corporeal form to represent any spiritual
fruit.

XVI. And to vanquish these champions on their own ground, if any
sacrament be sought for here, would it not be far more plausible to say
that the sacrament consists in the absolution of the priest, rather than
in penitence, either internal or external? For it would be easy to say,
that this is a ceremony appointed for the confirmation of our faith in
the remission of sins, and has what they call the promise of the keys:
“Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven; and
whatsoever ye shall loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven.”[1379]
But some would have objected, that many who are absolved by priests,
derive no such benefits from their absolution; whereas, upon their
principle, the sacraments of the new law actually accomplish that which
they represent. To this it might be replied, that, as in the eucharist
there is a twofold eating,—sacramental, which is equally common to the
good and the wicked; and spiritual, which is peculiar to the good—why
might they not also imagine the reception of a twofold absolution? Yet I
have never yet been able to comprehend what they intended by that
principle of theirs, respecting the efficacious virtue of the sacraments
of the new law; which we have proved to be altogether at variance with
the truth of God, when we professedly discussed that subject. Here I
only mean to show that this difficulty is no objection to their calling
sacerdotal absolution a sacrament. For they might answer, in the
language of Augustine, “That sanctification is sometimes without the
visible sacrament, and that the visible sacrament is sometimes
unaccompanied by internal sanctification.” Again: “That the sacraments
effect that which they represent in the elect alone.” Again: “That some
persons put on Christ as far as the reception of the sacrament, and
others even to sanctification;” that the former is equally the case with
the good and evil; and the latter with none but the good. Surely they
have betrayed more than the weakness of children, and shown themselves
blind to the broad day, who, in the midst of such difficulty and
perplexity, have not discovered a thing so plain and obvious to every
one.

XVII. Yet let them not flatter themselves, for in whatever part they
place their sacrament, I deny that it ought to be considered as a
sacrament at all; first, because it is not accompanied with any special
promise of God, which is the only foundation of a sacrament; secondly,
because all the ceremony exhibited here is the mere invention of men;
whereas it has been already ascertained that sacramental ceremonies
cannot be instituted, except by God himself. All that they have
fabricated, therefore, respecting the sacrament of penance, is nothing
but falsehood and imposture. This counterfeit sacrament they have
adorned with a suitable title, calling it “a second plank after a
shipwreck;” for that, if any one by sin has soiled the garment of
innocence received in baptism, he may purify it by penance. But this,
they say, is the language of Jerome. Whose language soever it may be, it
cannot be exculpated from manifest impiety, if it be explained according
to their notion of it. As if baptism were effaced by sin, and ought not
rather to be recalled to the memory of the sinner whenever he thinks of
remission of sins, that it may serve to comfort his mind, inspire him
with courage, and confirm his confidence of obtaining the remission of
sins, which was promised to him in baptism. But that which Jerome has
expressed with some degree of harshness and impropriety, that baptism,
from which those who deserve to be excommunicated from the Church have
fallen away, is repaired by penitence, these admirable expositors apply
to their impiety. We shall speak with the greatest propriety, therefore,
if we call baptism the sacrament of penitence; since it is given for a
confirmation of grace, and seal of confidence, to those who meditate
repentance. And this must not be considered as an invention of ours,
for, beside its conformity to the language of Scripture, it appears to
have been generally received in the ancient Church as an indubitable
axiom. For in the treatise on Faith addressed to Peter, which is
attributed to Augustine, it is called “the sacrament of faith and
repentance.” And why do we resort to uncertain testimonies? Nothing can
be required more explicit than what is recited by the evangelists, that
“John did preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of
sins.”[1380]

EXTREME UNCTION.

XVIII. The third counterfeit sacrament is extreme unction; which is
never performed but by a priest, and that in the last moments of life,
with oil consecrated by a bishop, and the following form of words: “By
this holy unction, and by his most tender mercy, may God pardon thee
whatever sin thou hast committed by sight, by hearing, by smell, by
taste, and by touch.” They pretend that it has two virtues—remission of
sins, and relief from bodily disease, if that be expedient, or otherwise
the salvation of the soul. They say that the institution of it is
established by James, who says, “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.”[1381] This unction of theirs is of the same
kind as we have already proved their imposition of hands to be: it is a
mere hypocritical farce, by which, without any reason, and without any
advantage, they affect to mimic the apostles. It is related by Mark,
that the apostles, at their first mission, according to the command
which they had received from the Lord, raised the dead, ejected demons,
cleansed lepers, healed the sick, and that in the cure of the sick they
made use of oil. “They anointed with oil,” he says, “many that were
sick, and healed them.”[1382] James had this in view when he directed
the elders of the Church to be sent for to anoint the sick. That such
ceremonies concealed no higher mystery, will easily be concluded by any
attentive observers of the great liberty used by our Lord and his
apostles in external things. When our Lord was about to restore sight to
a blind man, he made clay of dust and spittle; some he healed with a
touch, others with a word. In the same manner, the apostles cured some
maladies with a mere word, others with a touch, others with unction. But
it may be alleged that it is probable that this unction, like the other
methods, was not employed without reason. This I confess; not, however,
that they used it as an instrument of cure, but merely as a sign, to
instruct the ignorance of the simple whence such virtue proceeded, that
they might not ascribe the praise of it to the apostles. Now, it is very
common in the Scriptures for the Holy Spirit and his gifts to be
signified by oil. But that grace of healing has disappeared, like all
the other miraculous powers, which the Lord was pleased to exhibit for a
time, that he might render the preaching of the gospel, which was then
new, the object of admiration for ever. Even though we should fully
grant, therefore, that unction was a sacrament of the powers which were
administered by the instrumentality of the apostles, it has nothing to
do with us, to whom the administration of those powers has not been
committed.

XIX. And what greater reason have they to make a sacrament of this
unction than of all the other signs or symbols which are mentioned in
the Scriptures? Why do not they appoint some pool of Siloam, in which
the sick may bathe themselves at certain seasons?[1383] That, they say,
would be a vain attempt. Surely not more in vain than unction. Why do
they not “fall upon and embrace” the dead, because Paul resuscitated a
deceased young man by such means?[1384] Why is not clay, composed of
spittle and dust, converted into a sacrament? All the others, they say,
were single examples, but the use of unction is commanded by James. I
reply, that James was speaking in reference to that period in which this
benediction of God was still enjoyed by the Church. They affirm, indeed,
that there is even now the same virtue in their unction; but we find it
to be otherwise by experience. Let no one now wonder how they have so
confidently deluded souls, whom they know to be stupid and blind when
deprived of the word of God, which is their life and light, since they
are not at all ashamed to attempt to deceive the living and observing
senses of the body. They make themselves ridiculous, therefore, when
they boast that they are endued with the gift of healing. The Lord is
undoubtedly present with his people to assist them in all ages; and,
whenever it is necessary, he heals their diseases as much as he did in
ancient times; but he does not display those visible powers, or dispense
miracles by the hands of apostles; because that gift was only of
temporary duration, and was soon lost, in some measure, by the
ingratitude of men.

XX. As the apostles, therefore, had sufficient cause for using the
symbol of oil as an evident testimony that the gift of healing, which
had been committed to them, was not a power of their own, but of the
Holy Spirit, so, on the other hand, they do a great injury to the Holy
Spirit who represent a fetid oil, destitute of all efficacy, as his
power. This is just as if any one were to affirm, that all oil is the
power of the Holy Spirit, because it is called by that name in the
Scripture; or that every dove is the Holy Spirit, because he appeared
under that form. But let them look to these things. For us, it is
sufficient, at present, that we see beyond all doubt that their unction
is not a sacrament, being a ceremony which is neither of God’s
institution, nor accompanied with any promise from him. For when we
require these two things in a sacrament, that it be a ceremony
instituted by God, and that it have some promise of God, we at the same
time require that the ceremony be enjoined upon us, and that the promise
have reference to us. For no one contends that circumcision is now a
sacrament of the Christian Church, notwithstanding it was instituted by
God, and had a promise annexed to it; because it is not enjoined upon
us, nor is the promise which was subjoined to it given to us on that
condition. That the promise which they presumptuously boast of in their
unction is not given to us, we have clearly proved, and they themselves
declare by experience. The ceremony ought not to have been used, except
by those who were endued with the gift of healing; and not by these
butchers, who are more capable of killing and murdering than of healing.

XXI. Even if they had established, what they are very far from having
established, that the injunction of James respecting unction is
applicable to the present age, still they would have made but little
progress in defending their unction with which they have hitherto
besmeared us. James directs that all sick persons be anointed; these men
bedaub with their unguent not sick persons, but half-dead corpses, when
their souls are at the point of departing from them. If in their
sacrament they have a present medicine, by which they can either
alleviate the anguish of disease, or at least communicate some
consolation to the soul, they are cruel never to apply the remedy in
time. James directs, that the sick person be anointed by the elders of
the Church; these men admit no anointer but a priest. Their explanation
that the term _elders_ denotes priests, and the plural number is used
for the sake of dignity, is frivolous in the extreme; as though the
Churches in that age abounded with priests, to be able to march in a
long procession, carrying their box of consecrated oil. When James
simply commands that sick persons be anointed, he appears to me to
intend no other unction than of common oil; nor is any other mentioned
in the narrative of Mark. These men deign to use no oil which has not
been consecrated by the bishop; that is, warmed with his breath,
enchanted by his muttering, and nine times saluted by him on bended
knees; three times, _Hail, holy oil_; three times, _Hail, holy chrism_;
three times, _Hail, holy balm_. From whom have they derived such
incantations? James says, that when the elders shall have prayed over
the sick person, anointing him with oil, if he have committed sins they
shall be forgiven him; that, being absolved from guilt, he may obtain
relief from pain; not meaning that sins are effaced by unction, but that
the prayers of the believers, by which the afflicted brother shall have
been commended to God, shall not be in vain. These men impiously
pretend, that sins are remitted by their holy, or, to speak more
properly, abominable unction. See what lengths they will go, when they
shall be allowed to abuse that passage of James by their absurd
interpretation. And we need not labour any longer in the proof; even
their own histories relieve us from this difficulty. For they relate,
that Pope Innocent, who presided over the Church of Rome in the time of
Augustine, decreed that not only elders, but also all Christians, should
use oil, in case of illness, for the purpose of anointing themselves or
their friends.

ECCLESIASTICAL ORDERS.

XXII. The fourth place in their catalogue is occupied by the sacrament
of orders; but this is so fertile that it is the parent of seven little
sacraments which arise out of it. Now, it is truly ridiculous for them
to affirm, that there are _seven_ sacraments, and when they proceed to
specify them, to enumerate _thirteen_. Nor can they plead, that the
seven sacraments of orders are only one sacrament, because they all
belong to one priesthood, and form, as it were, so many steps to it.
For, as it appears that in all of them there are different ceremonies,
and they themselves say that there are different graces, no person can
doubt that, if their principles be admitted, they ought to be called
seven sacraments. And why do we controvert it as a doubtful thing, when
they themselves plainly and distinctly declare that there are seven? In
the first place, we will briefly suggest by the way what numerous and
great absurdities they obtrude upon us, when they wish us to receive
their orders as sacraments; and then we will inquire, whether the
ceremony which the churches use in ordaining ministers ought to be
called a sacrament at all. They mention seven ecclesiastical orders or
degrees, which they dignify with the name of sacrament. They
are—beadles, readers, exorcists, acolothists, subdeacons, deacons,
priests. And they are seven, it is said, on account of the sevenfold
grace of the Holy Spirit, with which those who are promoted to them
ought to be endued; but it is increased, and more abundantly
communicated to them, in their promotion. Now, the number itself is
consecrated by a perverse interpretation of the Scripture; because they
think they have read in Isaiah of seven virtues of the Holy Spirit;
though, in truth, that prophet mentions only six, and had no intention
of enumerating them all in that passage; for in other passages of
Scripture, he is called “the Spirit of life, of holiness, and of
adoption,” as he is there called “the Spirit of wisdom and
understanding, the Spirit of counsel and might, the Spirit of knowledge,
and of the fear of the Lord.”[1385] Other persons of greater subtlety
limit not the orders to seven, but extend them to nine, in resemblance,
they say, of the church triumphant. And they are not agreed among
themselves; for some represent the clerical tonsure to be the first
order of all, and the episcopate the last: others exclude the tonsure,
and place the archiepiscopal office among the orders. Isidore
distinguishes them in a different way; for he makes psalmists and
readers two separate orders, appointing the former to the chantings, and
the latter to the reading of the Scriptures, for the instruction of the
people. And this distinction is observed in the canons. In such a
diversity, what do they wish us to pursue or to avoid? Shall we say that
there are seven orders? So teaches the master of the sentences, Lombard;
but the most illuminated doctors determine otherwise; and these doctors
differ among themselves. Moreover, the most sacred canons call us
another way. This is the harmony exhibited by men, when they discuss
Divine subjects without the word of God.

XXIII. But this surpasses all folly, that in every one of their orders
they make Christ a colleague with them. First, they say, he executed the
office of beadle, when he made a whip of small cords, and drove all the
buyers and sellers out of the temple. He showed himself to be a beadle,
when he said, “I am the door.” He assumed the place of a reader, when he
read a passage of Isaiah in the synagogue. He discharged the function of
an exorcist, when, applying spittle to the ears and tongue of a man who
was deaf and dumb, he restored his hearing and speech. He declared
himself to be an acolothist in these words: “He that followeth me shall
not walk in darkness.” He discharged the duty of a subdeacon, when he
girded himself with a towel, and washed the feet of his disciples. He
sustained the character of a deacon, when he distributed his body and
blood in the supper. He acted the part of a priest, when he offered
himself on the cross a sacrifice to the Father. It is impossible to hear
these things without laughing, so that I wonder they were written
without laughing; at least, if those who wrote them were men. But the
most remarkable of all is, the subtlety with which they reason on the
word _acolothist_, which they call _ceroferarius_, a taper-bearer; a
term of magic, I suppose, certainly unknown in any nation or language;
whereas the Greek word ακολουθος, _acolothist_, simply signifies a
_follower_ or _attendant_. But I should justly incur ridicule myself, if
I were to dwell on a serious refutation of such things, they are so
frivolous and ludicrous.

XXIV. To prevent them, however, from continuing their impositions on
silly women, it is necessary, as we proceed, to expose their vanity.
They create with great pomp and solemnity their readers, psalmists,
beadles, acolothists, to discharge those offices in which they employ
either boys, or at least those whom they call laymen. For who, in most
cases, lights the wax tapers, who pours wine and water out of the
flagon, but a boy, or some mean layman, who gets his livelihood by it?
Do not the same persons chant? Do they not open and shut the doors of
the churches? For who ever saw in their temples an acolothist or beadle
performing his office? On the contrary, he who, when a boy, discharged
the duty of an acolothist, as soon as he is admitted into that order,
ceases to be what he begins to be called; so that it should seem to be
their deliberate intention to discard the office when they assume the
title. We see what need they have to be consecrated by sacraments, and
to receive the Holy Spirit; it is, that they may do nothing. If they
allege, that this arises from the perverseness of the present age, that
men desert and neglect their official duties, let them at the same time
confess, that their holy orders, which they so wonderfully extol, are of
no use or benefit to the Church in the present day, and that their whole
Church is filled with a curse, since it permits boys and laymen to
handle the tapers and flagons, which none are worthy of touching except
those who have been consecrated as acolothists; and since it leaves boys
to chant those services, which ought never to be heard but from a
consecrated mouth. But for what purpose do they consecrate their
exorcists? I know that the Jews had their exorcists; but I find that
they derived their name from the exorcisms which they practised.
Respecting these counterfeit exorcists, who ever heard of their
exhibiting one specimen of their profession? It is pretended that they
are invested with power to lay hands upon maniacs, demoniacs, and
catechumens; but they cannot persuade the demons that they are endued
with such power; not only because the demons do not submit to their
commands, but because they even exercise dominion over them. For
scarcely one in ten can be found among them who is not influenced by an
evil spirit. Whatever ridiculous pretensions they may set up respecting
their contemptible orders, are the mere compositions of ignorance and
falsehood. Of the ancient acolothists, beadles, and readers, we have
spoken already, when we discussed the order of the Church. Our present
design is only to combat that novel invention of a sevenfold sacrament
in ecclesiastical orders; on which not a syllable is any where to be
found, except among those sapient theologues, the Sorbonists and
Canonists.

XXV. Let us now examine the ceremonies which they employ. In the first
place, all whom they enrol in their army they initiate into the rank of
clergy by a common sign. They shave them on the crown of the head, that
the crown may denote regal dignity; because ecclesiastics ought to be
kings, to rule themselves and others, according to the language in which
Peter addresses them: “Ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a
holy nation, a peculiar people.” But it was sacrilege for them to
arrogate exclusively to themselves that which is attributed to the whole
Church, and proudly to glory in the title which they had stolen from the
believers. Peter addresses the whole Church; they misapply his words to
a few shavelings, as if they were the only holy persons, as if they
alone had been redeemed by the blood of Christ, as if they alone had
been made by him kings and priests unto God. They proceed to assign
other reasons; that the top of their head is laid bare, to show that
their mind is free to the Lord, and can with open face contemplate the
glory of God; or to indicate that the faults of their mouth and eyes
ought to be cut off. Or the tonsure of the crown signifies the
relinquishment and renunciation of temporal things; and the hair left
round the crown denotes the relics of property which are reserved for
their sustenance. Every thing is symbolical; because, with respect to
them, the veil of the temple has not yet been rent asunder. Therefore,
having persuaded themselves that they have completely discharged their
duties, when they have represented such things by their shaven crown,
they, in reality, fulfil none of them. How long will they impose upon us
with such deceptions and falsehoods? Ecclesiastics, by shaving off a few
hairs, signify that they have relinquished an abundance of temporal
possessions, to be at liberty to contemplate the glory of God, and that
they have mortified the inordinate propensities of their ears and eyes;
but there is no class of men more rapacious, ignorant, or libidinous.
Why do they not make an actual exhibition of sanctity, rather than
counterfeit the appearance of it by false and delusive symbols?

XXVI. When they say that their clerical tonsure derives its origin and
reason from the Nazarites, what is this but declaring that their
mysteries have sprung from Jewish ceremonies, or, rather, are mere
Judaism? But when they add, that Priscilla, Aquila, and Paul himself,
after having made a vow, shaved their heads in order to purify
themselves, they betray their gross ignorance. For this is nowhere said
of Priscilla; and there is some uncertainty even respecting Aquila; for
that tonsure may as well be referred to Paul as to Aquila.[1386] But not
to leave them what they require, that they have an example of this
tonsure in Paul, it ought to be observed by the plain reader, that Paul
never shaved his head with a view to any sanctity, but merely to
accommodate himself to the weakness of his brethren. I am accustomed to
call vows of this kind vows of charity, and not of piety; that is to
say, they were not made for any purpose of religion, or as acts of
service to God, but in order to bear the ignorance of weak brethren; as
the apostle himself says: “Unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might
gain the Jews.”[1387] Therefore he did this act, and that once, and for
a short period, that he might accommodate himself to the Jews. When
these men desire, without any cause, to imitate the purifications of the
Nazarites, what is this but raising up a new Judaism by a culpable
affectation of emulating that which is abolished? The same superstition
dictated that decretal epistle which prohibits ecclesiastics, according
to the apostle, to let their hair grow, but enjoins them to shave in a
circular form; as though the apostle, when he mentioned what is becoming
to all men, were concerned about the circular tonsure of the clergy.
Hence the readers may form some opinion of the importance and dignity of
other succeeding mysteries, to which there is such an introduction.

XXVII. The true origin of the clerical tonsure is very evident from the
testimony of Augustine. As, in that age, no persons suffered their hair
to grow long, but such as were effeminate, and affected an elegance and
delicacy not sufficiently manly, it was thought that it would be a bad
example to permit this custom in the clergy. They were, therefore,
commanded to shave their heads, that they might exhibit no appearance of
effeminate ornament. The tonsure then became so common, that some monks,
to display their superior sanctity by something remarkable and
distinguished from others, left their hair to grow very long.
Afterwards, when the custom of wearing long hair was revived, and
several nations were converted to Christianity, who had always been
accustomed to wear their hair, as France, Germany, and England, it is
probable that ecclesiastics every where shaved their heads, that they
might not appear to be fond of the ornament of hair. At length, in a
more corrupt age, when all the ancient institutions were either
perverted or degenerated into superstition, because they saw no reason
in the clerical tonsure (for they had retained nothing but a foolish
imitation of their predecessors,) they had recourse to a mystery, which
they now superstitiously obtrude upon us as a proof of their sacrament.
Beadles, at their consecration, receive the keys of the Church, as a
sign that the custody of it is committed to them. Readers are presented
with the Holy Bible. To exorcists are given the forms of exorcisms to be
used over catechumens and maniacs. Acolothists receive their tapers and
flagons. These are the ceremonies which, if we believe them, contain
such secret virtue as to be, not only signs and tokens, but even causes,
of an invisible grace. For, according to their definition, all this is
assumed when they insist on their being numbered among the sacraments.
But, to conclude in a few words, I maintain it to be absurd for
canonists and scholastic theologues to give the title of sacraments to
these, which they themselves call _lesser orders_; since, even according
to their own confession, they were unknown to the primitive Church, and
were invented many years after. But, as sacraments contain some promises
of God, they cannot be instituted by men or angels, but by God alone,
whose prerogative it is to give the promise.

XXVIII. There remain three orders, which they call _greater orders_; of
which sub-deaconry, they say, was transferred to this class after the
number of the lesser orders began to increase. As they think that they
have a testimony for these from the word of God, they peculiarly
denominate them, for the sake of honour, _holy orders_. But we must now
examine how perversely they abuse the Divine appointments of God in
their own vindication. We will begin with the order of presbyters, or
priests. For by these two names they signify one thing; and these are
the appellations which they apply to those whose office, they say, it
is, to offer the sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ upon the
altar, to say prayers and to pronounce benedictions on the gifts of God.
Therefore, at their ordination, they receive a chalice, with the patine
and host, as symbols of the power committed to them to offer expiatory
sacrifices to God; and their hands are anointed with oil, as a symbol to
show that they are invested with power to consecrate. The ceremonies we
shall notice hereafter. Of the thing itself, I affirm, that it is so far
from having a syllable of the Divine word to support it, that it was
impossible for them to have introduced a viler corruption of the order
instituted by God. In the first place, it ought to be taken for granted,
as we have shown in the preceding chapter, on the Papal Mass, that great
injury is done to Christ by all those who call themselves priests to
offer sacrifices of expiation. He was constituted and consecrated by the
Father, with an oath, a priest after the order of Melchisedec, without
end, and without a successor. He once offered a sacrifice of eternal
expiation and reconciliation; and now, having entered into the sanctuary
of heaven, intercedes for us. In him we are all priests; but it is only
to offer to God praises and thanksgivings, in short, ourselves and all
that belongs to us. It was his province alone, by his oblation, to
appease God and expiate sins. When these men usurp that office to
themselves, what follows, but that their priesthood is chargeable with
impiety and sacrilege? They certainly betray the greatest effrontery
when they dare to dignify it with the title of a sacrament. The
imposition of hands, which is used at the introduction of the true
presbyters and ministers of the Church into their office, I have no
objection to consider as a sacrament; for, in the first place, that
ceremony is taken from the Scripture, and, in the next place, it is
declared by Paul to be not unnecessary or useless, but a faithful symbol
of spiritual grace.[1388] I have not enumerated it as the third among
the sacraments, because it is not ordinary or common to all believers,
but a special rite for a particular office. The ascription of this
honour to the Christian ministry, however, furnishes no reason for the
pride of Romish priests; for Christ has commanded the ordination of
ministers to dispense his gospel and his mysteries, not the inauguration
of priests to offer sacrifices. He has commissioned them to preach the
gospel and to feed his flock, and not to immolate victims. He has
promised them the grace of the Holy Spirit, not in order to effect an
expiation for sins, but rightly to sustain and conduct the government of
the Church.

XXIX. There is an excellent correspondence between the ceremonies and
the thing itself. Our Lord, when he sent forth his disciples to preach
the gospel, “breathed upon them;”[1389] by that symbol representing the
power of the Holy Spirit which he imparted to them. These sapient
theologues retain the _breathing_, and, as if they disgorged the Holy
Spirit from their throats, they mutter over the priests whom they
ordain, _Receive ye the Holy Ghost_. Thus they leave nothing that they
do not preposterously counterfeit, I do not say like comedians, whose
gesticulations are not without art and meaning, but like apes, who
imitate every thing without any taste or design. We observe, they say,
the example of our Lord. But our Lord did many things which he never
intended to be examples to us. He said to his disciples, “Receive ye the
Holy Ghost.” He said to Lazarus, “Lazarus, Come forth.”[1390] He said to
the paralytic, “Arise and walk.”[1391] Why do not they say the same to
all deceased persons and paralytics? When he breathed upon his apostles,
and filled them with the grace of the Holy Spirit, he exhibited a
specimen of his Divine power. If they attempt to do the same, they
emulate God, and, as it were, challenge him to contend with them; but
they are very far from producing a similar effect, and the foolish
mimicry is a mere mockery of Christ. They have the effrontery, indeed,
to dare to assert, that they confer the Holy Ghost; but how far this is
true is shown by experience, which proves, that those who are
consecrated priests, from being horses become asses, and are changed
from fools to madmen. Nor do I contend with them on this account; I only
condemn the ceremony itself, which ought not to be made a precedent,
since it was used by Christ as a special sign of a particular miracle;
so far is their pretence of imitating him from justifying their conduct.

XXX. But from whom have they received the unction? Their answer is, that
they have received it from the sons of Aaron, from whom also their order
derived its origin. Thus they always prefer defending themselves by
improper examples, to confessing that which they practise without just
reason to be their own invention; but at the same time, they do not
consider that, in professing themselves successors of the sons of Aaron,
they do an injury to the priesthood of Christ; which was the only thing
adumbrated and prefigured by all the ancient priesthoods. In him,
therefore, they were all accomplished and concluded; in him they ceased,
as we have more than once already stated, and the Epistle to the Hebrews
declares without the help of any comment. But, if they are so highly
delighted with the Mosaic ceremonies, why do they not take oxen, and
calves, and lambs, and offer them as sacrifices? They have, indeed, a
great part of the ancient tabernacle, and of all the Jewish worship; but
their religion is still deficient in that they do not sacrifice animal
victims. Who does not see that this custom of anointing is far more
pernicious than circumcision; especially when it is attended with
superstition and a pharisaical opinion of the merit of the act? The Jews
placed a confidence of righteousness in circumcision; in unction these
men place spiritual graces. Therefore, while they desire to be imitators
of the Levites, they become apostates from Christ, and renounce the
office of pastors.

XXXI. This is their consecrated oil, which, it is pretended, impresses a
character never to be effaced; as though oil could not be cleansed away
with dust and salt, or, if it be more adhesive, with soap. But this
character, they say, is spiritual. What connection has oil with the
soul? Have they forgotten an observation, which they often quote to us
from Augustine—That, if the word be separated from the water, it will be
nothing but water, and that it is the word which makes it a sacrament?
What word will they show in their unction? Will they produce the command
which was given to Moses to anoint the sons of Aaron? But in that case
there was also a command given respecting the coat, the ephod, the
mitre, the holy crown, with which Aaron was to be adorned; and
respecting the coats, girdles, and mitres, with which his sons were to
be invested. It was commanded to kill a bullock, to burn his fat, to cut
one ram asunder and burn it, to sanctify their ears and garments with
the blood of another ram; and numerous other observances, which I wonder
how it is that they have entirely omitted, and taken only the anointing
oil. But if they are fond of being sprinkled, why are they sprinkled
with oil rather than with blood? They attempt, indeed, a most ingenious
thing; to frame one religion out of a number of fragments collected
together from Christianity, Judaism, and Paganism. Their unction,
therefore, is quite fetid, for want of the salt, the word of God. There
remains imposition of hands, which I confess to be a sacrament in true
and legitimate ordinations, but I deny that it has any place in this
farce, in which they neither obey the command of Christ, nor regard the
end to which the promise ought to lead us. If they wish the sign not to
be refused to them, they must apply it to the very object to which it
was dedicated.

XXXII. Respecting the order of deacons, also, I should have no
controversy with them, if that office were restored to its primitive
purity, as it existed under the apostles, and in the purer times of the
Church. But what resemblance to it is to be found among those whom the
Romanists pretend to be deacons? I speak not of the persons, lest they
should complain that it is unjust to estimate their doctrine by the
faults of individuals; but I contend that, taking their deacons exactly
as their doctrine describes them to us, it is absurd to fetch any
testimony in their favour from the examples of those who were appointed
deacons by the apostolic Church. They say that it belongs to their
deacons to assist the priests, to minister in every thing that is done
in the sacraments, as in baptism, in chrism, to pour the wine into the
chalice, to place the bread in the patine; to lay and dispose the
oblations upon the altar, to prepare and cover the table of the Lord, to
bear the cross, to read and chant the gospel and epistle to the people.
Is there in all this a single word of the true duty of deacons? Now, let
us hear how they are inaugurated. On the deacon who is ordained the
bishop alone lays his hand; on his left shoulder he places a stole, to
teach him that he has taken upon him the light yoke of the Lord, to
subject to the fear of God every thing belonging to the left side. He
gives him the text of the gospel, that he may know himself to be a
herald of it. And what have these things to do with deacons? It is no
better than if any one pretended to ordain apostles, while he only
appointed them to burn incense, to adorn the images, to trim the lamps,
to sweep the Churches, to catch mice, and to drive out dogs. Who could
suffer such persons to be called apostles, and to be compared with the
apostles of Christ? Let them never again falsely represent those as
deacons, whom they merely appoint to act a part in their farcical
exhibitions. The very name which they bear sufficiently declares the
nature of their office. For they call them Levites, and wish to deduce
their origin from the sons of Levi. This I have no objection to their
doing, provided they drop their pretensions to Christianity.

XXXIII. Of what use is it to say any thing respecting sub-deacons? In
ancient times they actually had the care of the poor. The Romanists
attribute to them I know not what nugatory functions; as to bring the
chalice and patine, the flagon with water, and the towel to the altar,
to pour out water for washing the hands of the priests, and similar
services. When they speak of the sub-deacons receiving and bringing
oblations, they mean those which they devour as consecrated to their
use. With this office the ceremony of their initiation perfectly
corresponds: they receive from the bishop the patine and chalice, from
the archdeacon the flagon with water, the manual, and similar trumpery.
They require us to confess the Holy Ghost to be contained in these
fooleries. What pious person can bear to admit this? But to come to an
end, we may draw the same conclusion respecting them as respecting the
rest; nor is it necessary to repeat any more of what we have already
stated. This will be sufficient for persons of modest and docile minds,
to whom this book is addressed; that there is no sacrament of God, which
does not exhibit a ceremony annexed to a promise, or rather which does
not present a promise in a ceremony. In this case not a syllable is to
be found of any certain promise; and, therefore, it is in vain to seek
for a ceremony to confirm the promise. And of all the ceremonies which
they use, not one appears to have been instituted by God; therefore
there can be no sacrament.

MATRIMONY.

XXXIV. The last of their sacraments is matrimony, which all confess to
have been instituted by God, but which no one, till the time of Gregory,
ever discovered to have been enjoined as a sacrament. And what man, in
his sober senses, would ever have taken it into his head? It is alleged
to be a good and holy ordinance of God; and so agriculture,
architecture, shoemaking, and many other things, are legitimate
ordinances of God, and yet they are not sacraments. For it is required
in a sacrament, not only that it be a work of God, but that it be an
external ceremony appointed by God for the confirmation of a promise.
That there is nothing of this kind in matrimony even children can judge.
But, they say, it is a sign of a sacred thing, that is, of the spiritual
union of Christ with the Church. If by the word _sign_, they mean a
symbol presented to us by God to support our faith, they are very far
from the truth. If by a sign they merely understand that which is
adduced 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.”[1392] Here is one sacrament. Christ says,
“The kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed.” Here is
another. Again: “The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven.”[1393] Here
is a third. Isaiah says, “Behold, the Lord shall feed his flock like a
shepherd.”[1394] Here is a fourth. Again: “The Lord shall go forth as a
mighty man.”[1395] Here is a fifth. And what end will there be? Upon
this principle, every thing will be a sacrament; as many parables and
similitudes as there are in the Scripture, there will be so many
sacraments. Even theft will be a sacrament; because it is written, “The
day of the Lord cometh as a thief.”[1396] Who can bear the foolish
babblings of these sophists? I confess indeed, that, whenever we see a
vine, it is very desirable to recall to remembrance the language of
Christ: “I am the vine, ye are the branches, and my Father is the
husbandman.”[1397] Whenever we meet a shepherd with his flock, it is
good for us to remember another declaration of our Lord: “I am the good
shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.”[1398] But if
any one should class such similitudes among the sacraments, it would
argue a want of mental sanity.

XXXV. They obtrude upon us the language of Paul, in which, they say, he
expressly calls matrimony a sacrament. “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 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 (or _sacrament_, as the word is
rendered in the Vulgate;) but I speak concerning Christ and the
Church.”[1399] But to treat the Scriptures in this manner, is to
confound heaven and earth together. To show to husbands what peculiar
affection they ought to bear to their wives, Paul proposes Christ to
them as an example. For as he has poured forth all the treasures of his
kindness upon the Church, which he had espoused to himself, so the
apostle would have every man to evince a similar affection towards his
wife. It follows, “He that loveth his wife, loveth himself; even as the
Lord the Church.” Now, to declare how Christ has loved the Church, even
as himself, and how he has made himself one with the Church his spouse,
Paul applies to him what Moses relates Adam to have spoken of himself.
For when Eve was brought into his presence, knowing her to have been
formed out of his side, he said, “This is bone of my bones, and flesh of
my flesh.”[1400] Paul testifies that all this has been spiritually
fulfilled in Christ and us, when he says, “We are members of his body,
of his flesh, and of his bones,” and consequently “one flesh” with him.
At length he concludes with an exclamation, “This is a great mystery;”
and, that no one might be deceived by an ambiguity of language, he
expressly states, that he intends not the conjugal union of man and
woman, but the spiritual marriage of Christ and his Church: “I speak
concerning Christ and the Church.” And, indeed, it is a great mystery
that Christ has suffered a rib to be taken from him, of which we might
be formed: that is to say, though he was strong, he voluntarily became
weak, that we might be strengthened with his might; so that now we
“live, yet not” we, “but Christ liveth in” us.[1401]

XXXVI. They have been deceived by the word _sacrament_ in the Vulgate
version. But was it reasonable that the whole Church should suffer the
punishment of their ignorance? Paul has used the word μυστηριον,
_mystery_—a word which the translator might have retained, _mysterium_
being not unfamiliar to Latin ears, or he might have rendered it
_arcanum_, secret; he preferred, however, to use the word _sacramentum_,
sacrament, but in the same sense in which Paul has used the Greek word
μυστηριον, _mystery_. Now, let them go and clamorously rail against the
critical knowledge of languages, through ignorance of which they have so
long been most shamefully deceived in a thing so easy and obvious to
every one. But why do they so strenuously insist on the word _sacrament_
in this one passage, and pass it over in so many others without the
least notice? For that translator has used it twice in the First Epistle
to Timothy,[1402] and in another place in this Epistle to the
Ephesians,[1403] and in every other case where the word _mystery_
occurs. Let this oversight, however, be forgiven them; liars ought, at
least, to have good memories. For, after having dignified matrimony with
the title of a sacrament, what brainless versatility is it for them to
stigmatize it with the characters of impurity, pollution, and carnal
defilement! What an absurdity is it to exclude priests from a sacrament!
If they deny that they are interdicted from the sacrament, but only from
the conjugal intercourse, I shall not be satisfied with this evasion.
For they inculcate that the conjugal intercourse itself is part of the
sacrament, and that it represents the union which we have with Christ in
conformity of nature; because it is by that intercourse that a husband
and wife become one flesh. Here some of them have found two sacraments;
one, of God and the soul, in the man and woman when betrothed; the
other, of Christ and the Church, in the husband and wife. The conjugal
intercourse, upon their principles, however, is a sacrament, from which
no Christian ought to be prohibited; unless the sacraments of Christians
are so incompatible, that they cannot consist together. There is also
another absurdity in their doctrine. They affirm that the grace of the
Holy Spirit is conferred in every sacrament; they acknowledge that the
conjugal intercourse is a sacrament; yet they deny that the Holy Spirit
is ever present in that intercourse.

XXXVII. And, not to deceive the Church in one thing only, what a long
series of errors, falsehoods, frauds, and iniquities, have they joined
to that false principle! It may truly be affirmed that, when they made
matrimony into a sacrament, they only sought a den of all abominations.
For, when they had once established this notion, they assumed to
themselves the cognizance of matrimonial causes; for matrimony was a
spiritual thing, and not to be meddled with before lay judges. Then they
made laws for the confirmation of their tyranny; and some of them
manifestly impious towards God, and others most unjust towards men. Such
as, that marriages contracted between young persons subject to the
authority of parents, without the consent of their parents, remain valid
and permanent; that no marriages be lawful between persons related, even
to the seventh degree; and that, if any such be contracted, they be
dissolved, (and the degrees themselves they state in opposition to the
laws of all nations, and to the institution of Moses, so that what they
call the fourth degree is, in reality, the seventh;) that it be unlawful
for a man, who has repudiated his wife for adultery, to marry another;
that spiritual relatives be not united in marriage; that no marriages be
celebrated from Septuagesima, or the third Sunday before Lent, to the
octaves of Easter, or eight days after that festival; for three weeks
before the nativity of John the Baptist, or Midsummer-day, instead of
which three weeks they now substitute the Whitsun week, and the two
weeks which precede it; or from Advent to the Epiphany; and innumerable
other regulations, which it would be tedious to enumerate. We must now
quit their corruptions, in which we have been detained longer than I
could wish: but I think I have gained some advantage by stripping these
asses, in some measure, of the lion’s skin, and so far unmasking their
principles, and exposing them to the world in their true colours.

Footnote 1366:

1 Tim. ii. 8.

Footnote 1367:

Matt. xxi. 25.

Footnote 1368:

Acts viii. 14-17.

Footnote 1369:

John vii. 37, 38.

Footnote 1370:

John xx. 22.

Footnote 1371:

Gal. iv. 9. Col. ii. 20.

Footnote 1372:

Col. ii. 22.

Footnote 1373:

1 Cor. vi. 13.

Footnote 1374:

Rom. vi. 4-6.

Footnote 1375:

Acts viii. 16. xix. 5.

Footnote 1376:

Acts ii. 4, &c. Matt. x. 20.

Footnote 1377:

Gal. iii. 27.

Footnote 1378:

Acts ix. 17, 18.

Footnote 1379:

Matt. xviii. 18.

Footnote 1380:

Matt. iii. 1-6. Luke iii. 3.

Footnote 1381:

James v. 14, 15.

Footnote 1382:

Mark vi. 13.

Footnote 1383:

John ix. 7.

Footnote 1384:

Acts xx. 10.

Footnote 1385:

Ezek. i. 20. Rom. i. 4; viii. 15. Isaiah xi. 2, 3.

Footnote 1386:

Acts xviii. 18.

Footnote 1387:

1 Cor. ix. 20.

Footnote 1388:

1 Tim. iv. 14.

Footnote 1389:

John xx. 22.

Footnote 1390:

John xi. 43.

Footnote 1391:

Matt. ix. 5. John v. 8.

Footnote 1392:

1 Cor. xv. 41, 42.

Footnote 1393:

Matt. xiii. 31, 33.

Footnote 1394:

Isaiah xl. 10, 11.

Footnote 1395:

Isaiah xlii. 13.

Footnote 1396:

1 Thess. v. 2.

Footnote 1397:

John xv. 1, 5.

Footnote 1398:

John x. 11.

Footnote 1399:

Ephes. v. 28-32.

Footnote 1400:

Gen. ii. 23.

Footnote 1401:

Gal. ii. 20.

Footnote 1402:

1 Tim. iii. 9, 16.

Footnote 1403:

Ephes. iii. 9.

CHAPTER XX.
ON CIVIL GOVERNMENT.

Having already stated that man is the subject of two kinds of
government, and having sufficiently discussed that which is situated in
the soul, or the inner man, and relates to eternal life,—we are, in this
chapter, to say something of the other kind, which relates to civil
justice, and the regulation of the external conduct. For, though the
nature of this argument seems to have no connection with the spiritual
doctrine of faith which I have undertaken to discuss, the sequel will
show that I have sufficient reason for connecting them together, and,
indeed, that necessity obliges me to it; especially since, on the one
hand, infatuated and barbarous men madly endeavour to subvert this
ordinance established by God; and, on the other hand, the flatterers of
princes, extolling their power beyond all just bounds, hesitate not to
oppose it to the authority of God himself. Unless both these errors be
resisted, the purity of the faith will be destroyed. Besides, it is of
no small importance for us to know what benevolent provision God has
made for mankind in this instance, that we may be stimulated by a
greater degree of pious zeal to testify our gratitude. In the first
place, before we enter on the subject itself, it is necessary for us to
recur to the distinction which we have already established, lest we fall
into an error very common in the world, and injudiciously confound
together these two things, the nature of which is altogether different.
For some men, when they hear that the gospel promises a liberty which
acknowledges no king or magistrate among men, but submits to Christ
alone, think they can enjoy no advantage of their liberty, while they
see any power exalted above them. They imagine, therefore, that nothing
will prosper, unless the whole world be modelled in a new form, without
any tribunals, or laws, or magistrates, or any thing of a similar kind,
which they consider injurious to their liberty. But he who knows how to
distinguish between the body and the soul, between this present
transitory life and the future eternal one, will find no difficulty in
understanding, that the spiritual kingdom of Christ and civil government
are things very different and remote from each other. Since it is a
Jewish folly, therefore, to seek and include the kingdom of Christ under
the elements of this world, let us, on the contrary, considering what
the Scripture clearly inculcates, that the benefit which is received
from the grace of Christ is spiritual; let us, I say, remember to
confine within its proper limits all this liberty which is promised and
offered to us in him. For why is it that the same apostle, who, in one
place, exhorts to “stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made
us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage,”[1404] in
another, enjoins servants to “care not for” their servile
condition;[1405] except that spiritual liberty may very well consist
with civil servitude? In this sense we are likewise to understand him in
these passages: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond
nor free, there is neither male nor female.”[1406] Again: “There is
neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian,
Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all;”[1407] in which
he signifies, that it is of no importance, what is our condition among
men, or under the laws of what nation we live, as the kingdom of Christ
consists not in these things.

II. Yet this distinction does not lead us to consider the whole system
of civil government as a polluted thing, which has nothing to do with
Christian men. Some fanatics, who are pleased with nothing but liberty,
or rather licentiousness without any restraint, do indeed boast and
vociferate, That since we are dead with Christ to the elements of this
world, and, being translated into the kingdom of God, sit among the
celestials, it is a degradation to us, and far beneath our dignity, to
be occupied with those secular and impure cares which relate to things
altogether uninteresting to a Christian man. Of what use, they ask, are
laws without judgments and tribunals? But what have judgments to do with
a Christian man? And if it be unlawful to kill, of what use are laws and
judgments to us? But as we have just suggested that this kind of
government is distinct from that spiritual and internal reign of Christ,
so it ought to be known that they are in no respect at variance with
each other. For that spiritual reign, even now upon earth, commences
within us some preludes of the heavenly kingdom, and in this mortal and
transitory life affords us some prelibations of immortal and
incorruptible blessedness; but this civil government is designed, as
long as we live in this world, to cherish and support the external
worship of God, to preserve the pure doctrine of religion, to defend the
constitution of the Church, to regulate our lives in a manner requisite
for the society of men, to form our manners to civil justice, to promote
our concord with each other, and to establish general peace and
tranquillity; all which I confess to be superfluous, if the kingdom of
God, as it now exists in us, extinguishes the present life. But if it is
the will of God, that while we are aspiring towards our true country, we
be pilgrims on the earth, and if such aids are necessary to our
pilgrimage, they who take them from man deprive him of his human nature.
They plead that there should be so much perfection in the Church of God,
that its order would suffice to supply the place of all laws; but they
foolishly imagine a perfection which can never be found in any community
of men. For since the insolence of the wicked is so great, and their
iniquity so obstinate that it can scarcely be restrained by all the
severity of the laws, what may we expect they would do, if they found
themselves at liberty to perpetrate crimes with impunity, whose outrages
even the arm of power cannot altogether prevent?

III. But for speaking of the exercise of civil polity, there will be
another place more suitable. At present we only wish it to be
understood, that to entertain a thought of its extermination, is inhuman
barbarism; it is equally as necessary to mankind as bread and water,
light and air, and far more excellent. For it not only tends to secure
the accommodations arising from all these things, that men may breathe,
eat, drink, and be sustained in life, though it comprehends all these
things while it causes them to live together, yet, I say, this is not
its only tendency; its objects also are, that idolatry, sacrileges
against the name of God, blasphemies against his truth, and other
offences against religion, may not openly appear and be disseminated
among the people; that the public tranquillity may not be disturbed;
that every person may enjoy his property without molestation; that men
may transact their business together without fraud or injustice; that
integrity and modesty may be cultivated among them; in short, that there
may be a public form of religion among Christians, and that humanity may
be maintained among men. Nor let any one think it strange that I now
refer to human polity the charge of the due maintenance of religion,
which I may appear to have placed beyond the jurisdiction of men. For I
do not allow men to make laws respecting religion and the worship of God
now, any more than I did before; though I approve of civil government,
which provides that the true religion which is contained in the law of
God, be not violated, and polluted by public blasphemies, with impunity.
But the perspicuity of order will assist the readers to attain a clearer
understanding of what sentiments ought to be entertained respecting the
whole system of civil administration, if we enter on a discussion of
each branch of it. These are three: The magistrate, who is the guardian
and conservator of the laws: The laws, according to which he governs:
The people, who are governed by the laws, and obey the magistrate. Let
us, therefore, examine, first, the function of a magistrate, whether it
be a legitimate calling and approved by God, the nature of the duty, and
the extent of the power; secondly, by what laws Christian government
ought to be regulated; and lastly, what advantage the people derive from
the laws, and what obedience they owe to the magistrate.

IV. The Lord has not only testified that the function of magistrates has
his approbation and acceptance, but has eminently commended it to us, by
dignifying it with the most honourable titles. We will mention a few of
them. When all who sustain the magistracy are called “gods,”[1408] it
ought not to be considered as an appellation of trivial importance; for
it implies, that they have their command from God, that they are
invested with his authority, and are altogether his representatives, and
act as his vicegerents. This is not an invention of mine, but the
interpretation of Christ, who says, “If he called them gods, unto whom
the word of God came, and the Scripture cannot be broken.”[1409] What is
the meaning of this, but that their commission has been given to them by
God, to serve him in their office, and, as Moses and Jehoshaphat said to
the judges whom they appointed, to “judge not for man, but for the
Lord?”[1410] To the same purpose is the declaration of the wisdom of God
by the mouth of Solomon: “By me kings reign, and princes decree justice.
By me princes rule, and nobles, even all the judges of the earth.”[1411]
This is just as if it had been affirmed, that the authority possessed by
kings and other governors over all things upon earth is not a
consequence of the perverseness of men, but of the providence and holy
ordinance of God, who has been pleased to regulate human affairs in this
manner; forasmuch as he is present, and also presides among them, in
making laws and in executing equitable judgments. This is clearly taught
by Paul, when he enumerates governments (ὁ προἱσταμενος)[1412] among the
gifts of God, which, being variously distributed according to the
diversity of grace, ought to be employed by the servants of Christ to
the edification of the Church. For though in that place he is properly
speaking of the council of elders, who were appointed in the primitive
Church to preside over the regulation of the public discipline, the same
office which in writing to the Corinthians he calls κυβερνησεις,
“governments,”[1413] yet, as we see that civil government tends to
promote the same object, there is no doubt that he recommends to his
every kind of just authority. But he does this in a manner much more
explicit, where he enters on a full discussion of that subject. For he
says, “There is no power but of God; the powers that be are ordained of
God. Rulers are ministers of God, revengers to execute wrath upon him
that doeth evil. Do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of
the same.”[1414] This is corroborated by the examples of holy men; of
whom some have been kings, as David, Josiah, Hezekiah; some have been
viceroys, as Joseph and Daniel; some have held civil offices in a
commonwealth, as Moses, Joshua, and the Judges; whose functions God
declared to be approved by him. Wherefore no doubt ought now to be
entertained by any person that civil magistracy is a calling not only
holy and legitimate, but far the most sacred and honourable in human
life.

V. Those who would wish to introduce anarchy, reply, that though, in
ancient times, kings and judges presided over a rude people, that
servile kind of government is now quite incompatible with the perfection
which accompanies the gospel of Christ. Here they betray not only their
ignorance, but their diabolical pride, in boasting of perfection, of
which not the smallest particle can be discovered in them. But whatever
their characters may be, they are easily refuted. For, when David
exhorts kings and judges to kiss the Son of God,[1415] he does not
command them to abdicate their authority and retire to private life, but
to submit to Christ the power with which they are invested, that he
alone may have the preëminence over all. In like manner Isaiah, when he
predicts that “kings shall be nursing-fathers and queens
nursing-mothers” to the Church,[1416] does not depose them from their
thrones; but rather establishes them by an honourable title, as patrons
and protectors of the pious worshippers of God; for that prophecy
relates to the advent of Christ. I purposely omit numerous testimonies,
which often occur, and especially in the Psalms, in which the rights of
all governors are asserted. But the most remarkable of all is that
passage where Paul, admonishing Timothy that in the public congregation,
“supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made
for kings and for all that are in authority,” assigns as a reason, “that
we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and
honesty;”[1417] language in which he recommends the state of the Church
to their patronage and defence.

VI. This consideration ought continually to occupy the magistrates
themselves, since it is calculated to furnish them with a powerful
stimulus, by which they may be excited to their duty, and to afford them
peculiar consolation, by which the difficulties of their office, which
certainly are many and arduous, may be alleviated. For what an ardent
pursuit of integrity, prudence, clemency, moderation, and innocence
ought they to prescribe to themselves, who are conscious of having been
constituted ministers of the Divine justice! With what confidence will
they admit iniquity to their tribunal, which they understand to be the
throne of the living God? With what audacity will they pronounce an
unjust sentence with that mouth which they know to be the destined organ
of Divine truth? With what conscience will they subscribe to impious
decrees with that hand which they know to be appointed to register the
edicts of God? In short, if they remember that they are the vicegerents
of God, it behoves them to watch with all care, earnestness, and
diligence, that in their administration they may exhibit to men an
image, as it were, of the providence, care, goodness, benevolence, and
justice of God. And they must constantly bear this in mind, that if in
all cases “he be cursed that doeth the work of the Lord
deceitfully,”[1418] a far heavier curse awaits those who act
fraudulently in a righteous calling. Therefore, when Moses and
Jehoshaphat wished to exhort their judges to the discharge of their
duty, they had nothing to suggest more efficacious than the principle
which we have already mentioned. Moses says, “Judge righteously between
every man and his brother, and the stranger that is with him. For the
judgment is God’s.”[1419] Jehoshaphat says, “Take heed what ye do; for
ye judge not for man, but for the Lord, who is with you in the judgment.
Wherefore now let the fear of the Lord be upon you: take heed and do it;
for there is no iniquity with the Lord our God.”[1420] And in another
place it is said, “God standeth in the congregation of the mighty: he
judgeth among the gods;”[1421] that they may be animated to their duty,
when they understand that they are delegated by God, to whom they must
one day render an account of their administration. And this admonition
is entitled to have considerable weight with them; for if they fail in
their duty, they not only injure men by criminally distressing them, but
even offend God by polluting his sacred judgments. On the other hand, it
opens a source of peculiar consolation to them to reflect, that they are
not employed in profane things, or occupations unsuitable to a servant
of God, but in a most sacred function, inasmuch as they execute a Divine
commission.

VII. Those who are not restrained by so many testimonies of Scripture,
but still dare to stigmatize this sacred ministry as a thing
incompatible with religion and Christian piety, do they not offer an
insult to God himself, who cannot but be involved in the reproach cast
upon his ministry? And in fact they do not reject magistrates, but they
reject God, “that he should not reign over them.”[1422] For if this was
truly asserted by the Lord respecting the people of Israel, because they
refused the government of Samuel, why shall it not now be affirmed with
equal truth of those who take the liberty to outrage all the authorities
which God has instituted? But they object that our Lord said to his
disciples, “The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them: but
ye shall not be so; but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the
younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve:”[1423] and they
contend that these words prohibit the exercise of royalty, or any other
authority, by any Christians. Admirable expositors! A contention had
arisen among the disciples “which of them should be accounted the
greatest.” To repress this vain ambition, our Lord taught them that
their ministry was not like temporal kingdoms, in which one person has
the preëminence over all others. Now, what dishonour does this
comparison cast upon regal dignity? What does it prove at all, except
that the regal office is not the apostolic ministry? Moreover, though
there are various forms of magistracy, yet there is no difference in
this respect, but we ought to receive them all as ordinances of God. For
Paul comprehends them all together, when he says, that “there is no
power but of God;” and that which was furthest from giving general
satisfaction, is recommended to us in a remarkable manner beyond all
others; namely, the government of one man; which, as it is attended with
the common servitude of all, except the single individual to whose will
all others are subjected, has never been so highly approved by heroic
and noble minds. But the Scripture, on the contrary, to correct these
unjust sentiments, expressly affirms, that it is by the providence of
Divine wisdom that kings reign, and particularly commands us to “honour
the king.”[1424]

VIII. And for private men, who have no authority to deliberate on the
regulation of any public affairs, it would surely be a vain occupation
to dispute which would be the best form of government in the place where
they live. Besides, this could not be simply determined, as an abstract
question, without great impropriety, since the principle to guide the
decision must depend on circumstances. And even if we compare the
different forms together, without their circumstances, their advantages
are so nearly equal, that it will not be easy to discover of which the
utility preponderates. The forms of civil government are considered to
be of three kinds: Monarchy, which is the dominion of one person,
whether called a king, or a duke, or any other title; Aristocracy, or
the dominion of the principal persons of a nation; and Democracy, or
popular government, in which the power resides in the people at large.
It is true that the transition is easy from monarchy to despotism; it is
not much more difficult from aristocracy to oligarchy, or the faction of
a few; but it is most easy of all from democracy to sedition. Indeed, if
these three forms of government, which are stated by philosophers, be
considered in themselves, I shall by no means deny, that either
aristocracy, or a mixture of aristocracy and democracy, far excels all
others; and that indeed not of itself, but because it very rarely
happens that kings regulate themselves so that their will is never at
variance with justice and rectitude; or, in the next place, that they
are endued with such penetration and prudence, as in all cases to
discover what is best. The vice or imperfection of men therefore renders
it safer and more tolerable for the government to be in the hands of
many, that they may afford each other mutual assistance and admonition,
and that if any one arrogate to himself more than is right, the many may
act as censors and masters to restrain his ambition. This has always
been proved by experience, and the Lord confirmed it by his authority,
when he established a government of this kind among the people of
Israel, with a view to preserve them in the most desirable condition,
till he exhibited in David a type of Christ. And as I readily
acknowledge that no kind of government is more happy than this, where
liberty is regulated with becoming moderation, and properly established
on a durable basis, so also I consider those as the most happy people,
who are permitted to enjoy such a condition; and if they exert their
strenuous and constant efforts for its preservation and retention, I
admit that they act in perfect consistence with their duty. And to this
object the magistrates likewise ought to apply their greatest diligence,
that they suffer not the liberty, of which they are constituted
guardians, to be in any respect diminished, much less to be violated: if
they are inactive and unconcerned about this, they are perfidious to
their office, and traitors to their country. But if those, to whom the
will of God has assigned another form of government, transfer this to
themselves so as to be tempted to desire a revolution, the very thought
will be not only foolish and useless, but altogether criminal. If we
limit not our views to one city, but look round and take a comprehensive
survey of the whole world, or at least extend our observations to
distant lands, we shall certainly find it to be a wise arrangement of
Divine Providence that various countries are governed by different forms
of civil polity; for they are admirably held together with a certain
inequality, as the elements are combined in very unequal proportions.
All these remarks, however, will be unnecessary to those who are
satisfied with the will of the Lord. For if it be his pleasure to
appoint kings over kingdoms, and senators or other magistrates over free
cities, it is our duty to be obedient to any governors whom God has
established over the places in which we reside.

IX. Here it is necessary to state in a brief manner the nature of the
office of magistracy, as described in the word of God, and wherein it
consists. If the Scripture did not teach that this office extends to
both tables of the law, we might learn it from heathen writers; for not
one of them has treated of the office of magistrates, of legislation,
and civil government, without beginning with religion and Divine
worship. And thus they have all confessed that no government can be
happily constituted, unless its first object, be the promotion of piety,
and that all laws are preposterous which neglect the claims of God, and
merely provide for the interests of men. Therefore, as religion holds
the first place among all the philosophers, and as this has always been
regarded by the universal consent of all nations, Christian princes and
magistrates ought to be ashamed of their indolence, if they do not make
it the object of their most serious care. We have already shown that
this duty is particularly enjoined upon them by God; for it is
reasonable that they should employ their utmost efforts in asserting and
defending the honour of him, whose vicegerents they are, and by whose
favour they govern. And the principal commendations given in the
Scripture to the good kings are for having restored the worship of God
when it had been corrupted or abolished, or for having devoted their
attention to religion, that it might flourish in purity and safety under
their reigns. On the contrary, the sacred history represents it as one
of the evils arising from anarchy, or a want of good government, that
when “there was no king in Israel, every man did that which was right in
his own eyes.”[1425] These things evince the folly of those who would
wish magistrates to neglect all thoughts of God, and to confine
themselves entirely to the administration of justice among men; as
though God appointed governors in his name to decide secular
controversies, and disregarded that which is of far greater
importance—the pure worship of himself according to the rule of his law.
But a rage for universal innovation, and a desire to escape with
impunity, instigate men of turbulent spirits to wish that all the
avengers of violated piety were removed out of the world. With respect
to the second table, Jeremiah admonishes kings in the following manner:
“Execute ye judgment and righteousness, and deliver the spoiled out of
the hand of the oppressor; and do no wrong, do no violence to the
stranger, the fatherless, nor the widow, neither shed innocent
blood.”[1426] To the same purpose is the exhortation in the
eighty-second psalm: “Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the
afflicted and needy: deliver the poor and needy: rid them out of the
hand of the wicked.”[1427] And Moses “charged the judges” whom he
appointed to supply his place, saying, “Hear the causes between your
brethren, and judge righteously between every man and his brother, and
the stranger that is with him: ye shall not respect persons in judgment;
but ye shall hear the small as well as the great; ye shall not be afraid
of the face of man; for the judgment is God’s.”[1428] I forbear to
remark the directions given by him in another place respecting their
future kings: “He shall not multiply horses to himself; neither shall he
greatly multiply to himself silver and gold; his heart shall not be
lifted up above his brethren; he shall read in the law all the days of
his life;”[1429] also that judges show no partiality, nor take bribes,
with similar injunctions, which abound in the Scriptures; because, in
describing the office of magistrates in this treatise, my design is not
so much to instruct magistrates themselves, as to show to others what
magistrates are, and for what end God has appointed them. We see,
therefore, that they are constituted the protectors and vindicators of
the public innocence, modesty, probity, and tranquillity, whose sole
object it ought to be to promote the common peace and security of all.
Of these virtues, David declares that he will be an example, when he
shall be exalted to the royal throne. “I will set no wicked thing before
mine eyes. I will not know a wicked person. Whoso privily slandereth his
neighbour, him will I cut off: him that hath a high look and a proud
heart will I not suffer. Mine eyes shall be upon the faithful of the
land, that they may dwell with me: he that walketh in a perfect way, he
shall serve me.”[1430] But as they cannot do this, unless they defend
good men from the injuries of the wicked, and aid the oppressed by their
relief and protection, they are likewise armed with power for the
suppression of crimes, and the severe punishment of malefactors, whose
wickedness disturbs the public peace. For experience fully verifies the
observation of Solon: “That all states are supported by reward and
punishment; and that when these two things are removed, all the
discipline of human societies is broken and destroyed.” For the minds of
many lose their regard for equity and justice, unless virtue be rewarded
with due honour; nor can the violence of the wicked be restrained,
unless crimes are followed by severe punishments. And these two parts
are included in the injunction of the prophet to kings and other
governors, to “execute judgment and righteousness.”[1431]
_Righteousness_ means the care, patronage, defence, vindication, and
liberation of the innocent: _judgment_ imports the repression of the
audacity, the coercion of the violence, and the punishment of the
crimes, of the impious.

X. But here, it seems, arises an important and difficult question. If by
the law of God all Christians are forbidden to kill,[1432] and the
prophet predicts respecting the Church, that “they shall not hurt nor
destroy in all my holy mountain, saith the Lord,”[1433] how can it be
compatible with piety for magistrates to shed blood? But if we
understand, that in the infliction of punishments, the magistrate does
not act at all from himself, but merely executes the judgments of God,
we shall not be embarrassed with this scruple. The law of the Lord
commands, “Thou shalt not kill;” but that homicide may not go
unpunished, the legislator himself puts the sword into the hands of his
ministers, to be used against all homicides.[1434] _To hurt_ and _to
destroy_ are incompatible with the character of the godly; but to avenge
the afflictions of the righteous at the command of God, is neither _to
hurt_ nor _to destroy_. Therefore it is easy to conclude that in this
respect magistrates are not subject to the common law; by which, though
the Lord binds the hands of men, he does not bind his own justice, which
he exercises by the hands of magistrates. So, when a prince forbids all
his subjects to strike or wound any one, he does not prohibit his
officers from executing that justice which is particularly committed to
them. I sincerely wish that this consideration were constantly in our
recollection, that nothing is done here by the temerity of men, but
every thing by the authority of God, who commands it, and under whose
guidance we never err from the right way. For we can find no valid
objection to the infliction of public vengeance, unless the justice of
God be restrained from the punishment of crimes. But if it be unlawful
for us to impose restraints upon him, why do we calumniate his
ministers? Paul says of the magistrate, that “He beareth not the sword
in vain; for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon
him that doeth evil.”[1435] Therefore, if princes and other governors
know that nothing will be more acceptable to God than their obedience,
and if they desire to approve their piety, justice, and integrity before
God, let them devote themselves to this duty. This motive influenced
Moses, when, knowing himself to be destined to become the liberator of
his people by the power of the Lord, “he slew the Egyptian;”[1436] and
when he punished the idolatry of the people by the slaughter of three
thousand men in one day.[1437] The same motive actuated David, when, at
the close of his life, he commanded his son Solomon to put to death Joab
and Shimei.[1438] Hence, also, it is enumerated among the virtues of a
king, to “destroy all the wicked of the land, that he may cut off all
wicked doers from the city of the Lord.”[1439] The same topic furnishes
the eulogium given to Solomon: “Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest
wickedness.”[1440] How did the meek and placid disposition of Moses burn
with such cruelty, that, after having his hands imbrued in the blood of
his brethren, he continued to go through the camp till three thousand
were slain? How did David, who discovered such humanity all his
lifetime, in his last moments bequeath such a cruel injunction to his
son respecting Joab? “Let not his hoar head go down to the grave in
peace;” and respecting Shimei: “His hoar head bring down to the grave
with blood.” Both Moses and David, in executing the vengeance committed
to them by God, by this severity sanctified their hands, which would
have been defiled by lenity. Solomon says, “It is an abomination to
kings to commit wickedness; for the throne is established by
righteousness.”[1441] Again: “A king that sitteth in the throne of
judgment, scattereth away all evil with his eyes.”[1442] Again: “A wise
king scattereth the wicked, and bringeth the wheel over them.”[1443]
Again: “Take away the dross from the silver, and there shall come forth
a vessel for the finer. Take away the wicked from before the king, and
his throne shall be established in righteousness.”[1444] Again: “He that
justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both
are an abomination to the Lord.”[1445] Again: “An evil man seeketh only
rebellion; therefore a cruel messenger shall be sent against him.”[1446]
Again: “He that saith unto the wicked, Thou art righteous; him shall the
people curse, nations shall abhor him.”[1447] Now, if it be true justice
for them to pursue the wicked with a drawn sword, let them sheathe the
sword, and keep their hands from shedding blood, while the swords of
desperadoes are drenched in murders; and they will be so far from
acquiring the praise of goodness and justice by this forbearance, that
they will involve themselves in the deepest impiety. There ought not,
however, to be any excessive or unreasonable severity, nor ought any
cause to be given for considering the tribunal as a gibbet prepared for
all who are accused. For I am not an advocate for unnecessary cruelty,
nor can I conceive the possibility of an equitable sentence being
pronounced without mercy; of which Solomon affirms, that “mercy and
truth preserve the king; and his throne is upholden by mercy.”[1448] Yet
it behoves the magistrate to be on his guard against both these errors;
that he do not, by excessive severity, wound rather than heal; or,
through a superstitious affectation of clemency, fall into a mistaken
humanity, which is the worst kind of cruelty, by indulging a weak and
ill-judged lenity, to the detriment of multitudes. For it is a remark
not without foundation, that was anciently applied to the government of
Nerva, that it is bad to live under a prince who permits nothing, but
much worse to live under one who permits every thing.

XI. Now, as it is sometimes necessary for kings and nations to take up
arms for the infliction of such public vengeance, the same reason will
lead us to infer the lawfulness of wars which are undertaken for this
end. For if they have been intrusted with power to preserve the
tranquillity of their own territories, to suppress the seditious tumults
of disturbers, to succour the victims of oppression, and to punish
crimes,—can they exert this power for a better purpose, than to repel
the violence of him who disturbs both the private repose of individuals
and the general tranquillity of the nation; who excites insurrections,
and perpetrates acts of oppression, cruelty, and every species of crime?
If they ought to be the guardians and defenders of the laws, it is
incumbent upon them to defeat the efforts of all by whose injustice the
discipline of the laws is corrupted. And if they justly punish those
robbers, whose injuries have only extended to a few persons, shall they
suffer a whole district to be plundered and devastated with impunity?
For there is no difference, whether he, who in a hostile manner invades,
disturbs, and plunders the territory of another to which he has no
right, be a king, or one of the meanest of mankind: all persons of this
description are equally to be considered as robbers, and ought to be
punished as such. It is the dictate both of natural equity, and of the
nature of the office, therefore, that princes are armed, not only to
restrain the crimes of private individuals by judicial punishments, but
also to defend the territories committed to their charge by going to war
against any hostile aggression; and the Holy Spirit, in many passages of
Scripture, declares such wars to be lawful.

XII. If it be objected that the New Testament contains no precept or
example, which proves war to be lawful to Christians, I answer, first,
that the reason for waging war which existed in ancient times, is
equally valid in the present age; and that, on the contrary, there is no
cause to prevent princes from defending their subjects. Secondly, that
no express declaration on this subject is to be expected in the writings
of the apostles, whose design was, not to organize civil governments,
but to describe the spiritual kingdom of Christ. Lastly, that in those
very writings it is implied by the way, that no change has been made in
this respect by the coming of Christ. “For,” to use the words of
Augustine, “if Christian discipline condemned all wars, the soldiers who
inquired respecting their salvation ought rather to have been directed
to cast away their arms, and entirely to renounce the military
profession; whereas the advice given them was, ‘Do violence to no man,
neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages.’[1449] An
injunction to be content with their wages was certainly not a
prohibition of the military life.” But here all magistrates ought to be
very cautious, that they follow not in any respect the impulse of their
passions. On the contrary, if punishments are to be inflicted, they
ought not to be precipitated with anger, exasperated with hatred, or
inflamed with implacable severity: they ought, as Augustine says, “to
commiserate our common nature even in him whom they punish for his
crime.” Or, if arms are to be resorted to against an enemy, that is, an
armed robber, they ought not to seize a trivial occasion, nor even to
take it when presented, unless they are driven to it by extreme
necessity. For, if it be our duty to exceed what was required by that
heathen writer who maintained that the evident object of war ought to be
the restoration of peace, certainly we ought to make every other attempt
before we have recourse to the decision of arms. In short, in both cases
they must not suffer themselves to be carried away by any private
motive, but be wholly guided by public spirit; otherwise they grossly
abuse their power, which is given them, not for their own particular
advantage, but for the benefit and service of others. Moreover, on this
right of war depends the lawfulness of garrisons, alliances, and other
civil munitions. By _garrisons_, I mean soldiers who are stationed in
towns to defend the boundaries of a country. By _alliances_, I mean
confederations which are made between neighbouring princes, that, if any
disturbance arise in their territories, they will render each other
mutual assistance, and will unite their forces together for the common
resistance of the common enemies of mankind. By _civil munitions_, I
mean all the provisions which are employed in the art of war.

XIII. In the last place, I think it necessary to add, that tributes and
taxes are the legitimate revenues of princes; which, indeed, they ought
principally to employ in sustaining the public expenses of their office,
but which they may likewise use for the support of their domestic
splendour, which is closely connected with the dignity of the government
that they hold. Thus we see that David, Jehoshaphat, Hezekiah, Josiah,
and other pious kings, and likewise Joseph and Daniel, without any
violation of piety, on account of the office which they filled, lived at
the public expense; and we read in Ezekiel of a very ample portion of
land being assigned to the kings;[1450] in which passage, though the
prophet is describing the spiritual kingdom of Christ, yet he borrows
the model of it from the legitimate kingdoms of men. On the other hand,
princes themselves ought to remember, that their finances are not so
much private incomes, as the revenues of the whole people, according to
the testimony of Paul,[1451] and therefore cannot be lavished or
dilapidated without manifest injustice; or, rather, that they are to be
considered as the blood of the people, not to spare which is the most
inhuman cruelty; and their various imposts and tributes ought to be
regarded merely as aids of the public necessity, to burden the people
with which, without cause, would be tyrannical rapacity. These things
give no encouragement to princes to indulge profusion and luxury; and
certainly there is no need to add fuel to their passions, which of
themselves are more than sufficiently inflamed; but, as it is of very
great importance, that whatever they undertake they attempt it with a
pure conscience before God, it is necessary, in order to their avoiding
vain confidence and contempt of God, that they be taught how far their
rights extend. Nor is this doctrine useless to private persons, who
learn from it not to pronounce rash and insolent censures on the
expenses of princes, notwithstanding they exceed the limits of common
life.

XIV. From the magistracy, we next proceed to the laws, which are the
strong nerves of civil polity, or, according to an appellation which
Cicero has borrowed from Plato, the _souls of states_, without which
magistracy cannot subsist, as, on the other hand, without magistrates
laws are of no force. No observation, therefore, can be more correct
than this, that the law is a silent magistrate, and a magistrate a
speaking law. Though I have promised to show by what laws a Christian
state ought to be regulated, it will not be reasonable for any person to
expect a long discussion respecting the best kind of laws; which is a
subject of immense extent, and foreign from our present object. I will
briefly remark, however, by the way, what laws it may piously use before
God, and be rightly governed by among men. And even this I would have
preferred passing over in silence, if I did not know that it is a point
on which many persons run into dangerous errors. For some deny that a
state is well constituted, which neglects the polity of Moses, and is
governed by the common laws of nations. The dangerous and seditious
nature of this opinion I leave to the examination of others; it will be
sufficient for me to have evinced it to be false and foolish. Now, it is
necessary to observe that common distinction, which distributes all the
laws of God promulgated by Moses into moral, ceremonial, and judicial;
and these different kinds of laws are to be distinctly examined, that we
may ascertain what belongs to us, and what does not. Nor let any one be
embarrassed by this scruple, that even the ceremonial and judicial
precepts are included in the moral. For the ancients, who first made
this distinction, were not ignorant that these two kinds of precepts
related to the conduct of moral agents; yet, as they might be changed
and abrogated without affecting the morality of actions, therefore they
did not call them moral precepts. They particularly applied this
appellation to those precepts without which there can be no real purity
of morals, nor any permanent rule of a holy life.

XV. The moral law, therefore, with which I shall begin, being comprised
in two leading articles, of which one simply commands us to worship God
with pure faith and piety, and the other enjoins us to embrace men with
sincere love,—this law, I say, is the true and eternal rule of
righteousness, prescribed to men of all ages and nations, who wish to
conform their lives to the will of God. For this is his eternal and
immutable will, that he himself be worshipped by us all, and that we
mutually love one another. The ceremonial law was the pupilage of the
Jews, with which it pleased the Lord to exercise that people during a
state resembling childhood, till that “fulness of the time” should
come,[1452] when he would fully manifest his wisdom to the world, and
would exhibit the reality of those things which were then adumbrated in
figures. The judicial law, given to them as a political constitution,
taught them certain rules of equity and justice, by which they might
conduct themselves in a harmless and peaceable manner towards each
other. And as that exercise of ceremonies properly related to the
doctrine of piety, inasmuch as it kept the Jewish Church in the worship
and service of God, which is the first article of the moral law, and yet
was distinct from piety itself, so these judicial regulations, though
they had no other end than the preservation of that love, which is
enjoined in the eternal law of God, yet had something which
distinguished them from that precept itself. As the ceremonies,
therefore, might be abrogated without any violation or injury of piety,
so the precepts and duties of love remain of perpetual obligation,
notwithstanding the abolition of all these judicial ordinances. If this
be true, certainly all nations are left at liberty to enact such laws as
they shall find to be respectively expedient for them; provided they be
framed according to that perpetual rule of love, so that, though they
vary in form, they may have the same end. For those barbarous and savage
laws which rewarded theft and permitted promiscuous concubinage, with
others still more vile, execrable, and absurd, I am very far from
thinking ought to be considered as laws; since they are not only
violations of all righteousness, but outrages against humanity itself.

XVI. What I have said will be more clearly understood, if in all laws we
properly consider these two things—the constitution of the law and its
equity, on the reason of which the constitution itself is founded and
rests. Equity, being natural, is the same to all mankind; and
consequently all laws, on every subject, ought to have the same equity
for their end. Particular enactments and regulations, being connected
with circumstances, and partly dependent upon them, may be different in
different cases without any impropriety, provided they are all equally
directed to the same object of equity. Now, as it is certain that the
law of God, which we call the moral law, is no other than a declaration
of natural law, and of that conscience which has been engraven by God on
the minds of men, the whole rule of this equity, of which we now speak,
is prescribed in it. This equity, therefore, must alone be the scope,
and rule, and end, of all laws. Whatever laws shall be framed according
to that rule, directed to that object, and limited to that end, there is
no reason why we should censure them, however they may differ from the
Jewish law or from each other. The law of God forbids theft. What
punishment was enacted for thieves, among the Jews, may be seen in the
book of Exodus.[1453] The most ancient laws of other nations punished
theft by requiring a compensation of double the value. Subsequent laws
made a distinction between open and secret theft. Some proceeded to
banishment, some to flagellation, and some to the punishment of death.
False witness was punished, among the Jews, with the same punishment as
such testimony would have caused to be inflicted on the person against
whom it was given;[1454] in some countries it was punished with infamy,
in others with hanging, in others with crucifixion. All laws agree in
punishing murder with death, though in several different forms. The
punishments of adulterers in different countries have been attended with
different degrees of severity. Yet we see how, amidst this diversity,
they are all directed to the same end. For they all agree in denouncing
punishment against those crimes which are condemned by the eternal law
of God; such as murders, thefts, adulteries, false testimonies, though
there is not a uniformity in the mode of punishment; and, indeed, this
is neither necessary, nor even expedient. One country, if it did not
inflict the most exemplary vengeance upon murderers, would soon be
ruined by murders and robberies. One age requires the severity of
punishments to be increased. If a country be disturbed by any civil
commotion, the evils which generally arise from it must be corrected by
new edicts. In time of war all humanity would be forgotten amidst the
din of arms, if men were not awed by more than a common dread of
punishment. During famine and pestilence, unless greater severity be
employed, every thing will fall into ruin. One nation is more prone than
others to some particular vice, unless it be most rigidly restrained.
What malignity and envy against the public good will be betrayed by him
who shall take offence at such diversity, which is best adapted to
secure the observance of the law of God? For the objection made by some,
that it is an insult to the law of God given by Moses, when it is
abrogated, and other laws are preferred to it, is without any
foundation; for neither are other laws preferred to it, when they are
more approved, not on a simple comparison, but on account of the
circumstances of time, place, and nation; nor do we abrogate that which
was never given to us. For the Lord gave not that law by the hand of
Moses to be promulgated among all nations, and to be universally
binding; but after having taken the Jewish nation into his special
charge, patronage, and protection, he was pleased to become, in a
peculiar manner, their legislator, and, as became a wise legislator, in
all the laws which he gave them, he had a special regard to their
peculiar circumstances.

XVII. It now remains for us, as we proposed, in the last place, to
examine what advantage the common society of Christians derives from
laws, judgments, and magistrates; with which is connected another
question—what honour private persons ought to render to magistrates, and
how far their obedience ought to extend. Many persons suppose the office
of magistracy to be of no use among Christians, for that they cannot,
consistently with piety, apply for their assistance, because they are
forbidden to have recourse to revenge or litigation. But as Paul, on the
contrary, clearly testifies that the magistrate is “the minister of God
to us for good,”[1455] we understand from this that he is divinely
appointed, in order that we may be defended by his power and protection
against the malice and injuries of wicked men, and may lead peaceable
and secure lives. But if it be in vain that he is given to us by the
Lord for our protection, unless it be lawful for us to avail ourselves
of such an advantage, it clearly follows that we may appeal to him, and
apply for his aid, without any violation of piety. But here I have to do
with two sorts of persons; for there are multitudes inflamed with such a
rage for litigation, that they never have peace in themselves, unless
they are in contention with others; and they commence their lawsuits
with a mortal bitterness of animosities, and with an infuriated cupidity
of revenge and injury, and pursue them with an implacable obstinacy,
even to the ruin of their adversary. At the same time, that they may not
be thought to do any thing wrong, they defend this perverseness under
the pretext of seeking justice. But, though it is allowable for a man to
endeavour to obtain justice from his neighbour by a judicial process, he
is not therefore at liberty to hate him, or to cherish a desire to hurt
him, or to persecute him without mercy.

XVIII. Let such persons, therefore, understand, that judicial processes
are lawful to those who use them rightly; and that the right use, both
for the plaintiff and for the defendant, is this: First, if the
plaintiff, being injured either in his person or in his property, has
recourse to the protection of the magistrate, states his complaint,
makes a just and equitable claim, but without any desire of injury or
revenge, without any asperity or hatred, without any ardour for
contention, but rather prepared to waive his right, and to sustain some
disadvantage, than to cherish enmity against his adversary. Secondly, if
the defendant, being summoned, appears on the day appointed, and defends
his cause by the best arguments in his power, without any bitterness,
but with the simple desire of maintaining his just right. On the
contrary, when their minds are filled with malevolence, corrupted with
envy, incensed with wrath, stimulated with revenge, or inflamed with the
fervour of contention, so as to diminish their charity, all the
proceedings of the justest cause are inevitably wicked. For it ought to
be an established maxim with all Christians, that however just a cause
may be, no lawsuit can ever be carried on in a proper manner by any man,
who does not feel as much benevolence and affection towards his
adversary, as if the business in dispute had already been settled and
terminated by an amicable adjustment. Some, perhaps, will object, that
such moderation in lawsuits is far from being ever practised, and that
if one instance of it were to be found, it would be regarded as a
prodigy. I confess, indeed, that, in the corruption of these times, the
example of an upright litigator is very rare; but the thing itself
ceases not to be good and pure, if it be not defiled by an adventitious
evil. But when we hear that the assistance of the magistrate is a holy
gift of God, it behoves us to use the more assiduous caution that it be
not contaminated by our guilt.

XIX. Those who positively condemn all controversies at law, ought to
understand that they thereby reject a holy ordinance of God, and a gift
of the number of those which may be “pure to the pure;” unless they mean
to charge Paul with a crime, who repelled the calumnies of his accusers,
exposing their subtlety and malice; who, before his judges, asserted his
right to the privileges of a Roman citizen; and who, when he found it
necessary, appealed from an unjust governor to the tribunal of Cæsar. It
is no objection to this that all Christians are forbidden the desire of
revenge, which we also wish to banish to the greatest distance from all
Christian judicatures. For, in a civil cause, no man proceeds in the
right way, who does not, with innocent simplicity, commit his cause to
the judge as to a public guardian, without the least thought of a mutual
retaliation of evil, which is the passion of revenge. And in any more
important or criminal action we require the accuser to be one who goes
into the court, influenced by no desire of revenge, affected by no
resentment of private injury, and having no other motive than to resist
the attempts of a mischievous man, that he may not injure the public.
But if a vindictive spirit be excluded, no offence is committed against
that precept by which revenge is forbidden to Christians. It may
probably be objected, that they are not only forbidden to desire
revenge, but are also commanded to wait for the hand of the Lord, who
promises that he will assist and revenge the afflicted and oppressed,
and therefore that those who seek the interference of the magistrate on
behalf of themselves or others, anticipate all that vengeance of the
celestial protector. But this is very far from the truth. For the
vengeance of the magistrate is to be considered, not as the vengeance of
man, but of God, which, according to the testimony of Paul, he exercises
by the ministry of men for our good.

XX. Nor do we any more oppose the prohibition and injunction of Christ,
“Resist not evil; but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek,
turn to him the other also; and if any man will sue thee at the law, and
take away, thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.”[1456] In this
passage, indeed, he requires the minds of his servants to be so far from
cherishing a desire of retaliation, as rather to suffer the repetition
of an injury against themselves than to wish to revenge it; nor do we
dissuade them from this patience. For it truly behoves Christians to be
a people, as it were, formed to bear injuries and reproaches, exposed to
the iniquity, impostures, and ridicule of the worst of mankind; and not
only so, but they ought to be patient under all these evils; that is to
say, so calm and composed in their minds, that, after having suffered
one affliction, they may prepare themselves for another, expecting
nothing all their lifetime but to bear a perpetual cross. At the same
time, they are required to bless and pray for them from whom they
receive curses, to do good to them from whom they experience
injuries,[1457] and to aim at that which constitutes their only victory,
to “overcome evil with good.”[1458] With this disposition they will not
demand “an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth,” as the Pharisees
taught their disciples to desire revenge; but, as we are instructed by
Christ, they will suffer injuries in their persons and property in such
a manner as to be ready to forgive them as soon as they are
committed.[1459] Yet this equanimity and moderation will be no obstacle,
but that, without any breach of friendship towards their enemies, they
may avail themselves of the assistance of the magistrate for the
preservation of their property; or, from zeal for the public good, may
bring a pestilent offender to justice, though they know he can only be
punished with death. For it is very correctly explained by Augustine,
that the end of all these precepts is, “that a just and pious man should
be ready to bear with patience the wickedness of those whom he desires
to become good; rather in order that the number of the good may
increase, not that with similar wickedness he may himself join the
number of the evil; and in the next place, that they relate to the
internal affection of the heart more than to the external actions; in
order that in the secrecy of our minds we may feel patience and
benevolence, but in our outward conduct may do that which we see tends
to the advantage of those to whom we ought to feel benevolent
affections.”

XXI. The objection which is frequently alleged, that lawsuits are
universally condemned by Paul, has no foundation in truth.[1460] It may
be easily understood from his words, that in the Church of the
Corinthians there was an immoderate rage for litigation, so that they
exposed the gospel of Christ, and all the religion which they professed,
to the cavils and reproaches of the impious. The first thing which Paul
reprehended in them was, that the intemperance of their dissensions
brought the gospel into discredit among unbelievers. And the next thing
was, that they had such altercations among them, brethren with brethren;
for they were so far from bearing an injury, that they coveted each
other’s property, and molested and injured one another without any
provocation. It was against that rage for litigation, therefore, that he
inveighed, and not absolutely against all controversies. But he
pronounces it to be altogether a vice or a weakness, that they did not
suffer the injury or loss of their property rather than to proceed to
contentions for the preservation of it: when they were so disturbed or
exasperated at every loss or injury, that they had recourse to lawsuits
on the most trivial occasions, he argues that this proved their minds to
be too irritable, and not sufficiently patient. It is certainly
incumbent on Christians, in all cases, to prefer a concession of their
right to an entrance on a lawsuit; from which they can scarcely come out
without a mind exasperated and inflamed with enmity to their brother.
But when one sees that, without any breach of charity, he may defend his
property, the loss of which would be a serious injury to him; if he do
it, he commits no offence against that sentence of Paul. In a word, as
we have observed at the beginning, charity will give every one the best
counsel; for, whatever litigations are undertaken without charity, or
are carried to a degree inconsistent with it, we conclude them, beyond
all controversy, to be unjust and wicked.

XXII. The first duty of subjects towards their magistrates is to
entertain the most honourable sentiments of their function, which they
know to be a jurisdiction delegated to them from God, and on that
account to esteem and reverence them as God’s ministers and vicegerents.
For there are some persons to be found, who show themselves very
obedient to their magistrates, and have not the least wish that there
were no magistrates for them to obey, because they know them to be so
necessary to the public good; but who, nevertheless, consider the
magistrates themselves as no other than necessary evils. But something
more than this is required of us by Peter, when he commands us to
“honour the king;”[1461] and by Solomon, when he says, “Fear thou the
Lord and the king;”[1462] for Peter, under the term _honour_,
comprehends a sincere and candid esteem; and Solomon, by connecting the
king with the Lord, attributes to him a kind of sacred veneration and
dignity. It is also a remarkable commendation of magistrates which is
given by Paul, when he says, that we “must needs be subject, not only
for wrath, but also for conscience sake;”[1463] by which he means, that
subjects ought to be induced to submit to princes and governors, not
merely from a dread of their power, as persons are accustomed to yield
to an armed enemy, who they know will immediately take vengeance upon
them if they resist; but because the obedience which is rendered to
princes and magistrates is rendered to God, from whom they have received
their authority. I am not speaking of the persons, as if the mask of
dignity ought to palliate or excuse folly, ignorance, or cruelty, and
conduct the most nefarious and flagitious, and so to acquire for vices
the praise due to virtues; but I affirm that the station itself is
worthy of honour and reverence; so that, whoever our governors are, they
ought to possess our esteem and veneration on account of the office
which they fill.

XXIII. Hence follows another duty, that, with minds disposed to honour
and reverence magistrates, subjects approve their obedience to them, in
submitting to their edicts, in paying taxes, in discharging public
duties, and bearing burdens which relate to the common defence, and in
fulfilling all their other commands. Paul says to the Romans, “Let every
soul be subject unto the higher powers. Whosoever resisteth the power,
resisteth the ordinance of God.”[1464] He writes to Titus, “Put them in
mind to be subject to principalities and powers, to obey magistrates, to
be ready to every good work.”[1465] Peter exhorts, “Submit yourselves to
every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake; whether it be to the king,
as supreme; or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the
punishment of evil-doers, and for the praise of them that do
well.”[1466] Moreover, that subjects may testify that theirs is not a
hypocritical but a sincere and cordial submission, Paul teaches, that
they ought to pray to God for the safety and prosperity of those under
whose government they live. “I exhort,” he says, “that supplications,
prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; for
kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and
peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.”[1467] Here let no man
deceive himself. For as it is impossible to resist the magistrate
without, at the same time, resisting God himself; though an unarmed
magistrate may seem to be despised with impunity, yet God is armed to
inflict exemplary vengeance on the contempt offered to himself. Under
this obedience I also include the moderation which private persons ought
to prescribe to themselves in relation to public affairs, that they do
not, without being called upon, intermeddle with affairs of state, or
rashly intrude themselves into the office of magistrates, or undertake
any thing of a public nature. If there be any thing in the public
administration which requires to be corrected, let them not raise any
tumults, or take the business into their own hands, which ought to be
all bound in this respect, but let them refer it to the cognizance of
the magistrate, who is alone authorized to regulate the concerns of the
public. I mean, that they ought to attempt nothing without being
commanded; for when they have the command of a governor, then they also
are invested with public authority. For, as we are accustomed to call
the counsellors of a prince _his eyes and ears_, so they may not unaptly
be called _his hands_ whom he has commissioned to execute his commands.

XXIV. Now, as we have hitherto described a magistrate who truly answers
to his title; who is the father of his country, and, as the poet calls
him, the pastor of his people, the guardian of peace, the protector of
justice, the avenger of innocence; he would justly be deemed insane who
disapproved of such a government. But, as it has happened, in almost all
ages, that some princes, regardless of every thing to which they ought
to have directed their attention and provision, give themselves up to
their pleasures in indolent exemption from every care; others, absorbed
in their own interest, expose to sale all laws, privileges, rights, and
judgments; others plunder the public of wealth, which they afterwards
lavish in mad prodigality; others commit flagrant outrages, pillaging
houses, violating virgins and matrons, and murdering infants; many
persons cannot be persuaded that such ought to be acknowledged as
princes, whom, as far as possible, they ought to obey. For in such
enormities, and actions so completely incompatible, not only with the
office of a magistrate, but with the duty of every man, they discover no
appearance of the image of God, which ought to be conspicuous in a
magistrate; while they perceive no vestige of that minister of God who
is “not a terror to good works, but to the evil,” who is sent “for the
punishment of evil-doers, and for the praise of them that do well;” nor
recognize that governor, whose dignity and authority the Scripture
recommends to us. And certainly the minds of men have always been
naturally disposed to hate and execrate tyrants as much as to love and
reverence legitimate kings.

XXV. But, if we direct our attention to the word of God, it will carry
us much further; even to submit to the government, not only of those
princes who discharge their duty to us with becoming integrity and
fidelity, but of all who possess the sovereignty, even though they
perform none of the duties of their function. For, though the Lord
testifies that the magistrate is an eminent gift of his liberality to
preserve the safety of men, and prescribes to magistrates themselves the
extent of their duty, yet he at the same time declares, that whatever be
their characters, they have their government only from him; that those
who govern for the public good are true specimens and mirrors of his
beneficence; and that those who rule in an unjust and tyrannical manner
are raised up by him to punish the iniquity of the people; that all
equally possess that sacred majesty with which he has invested
legitimate authority. I will not proceed any further till I have
subjoined a few testimonies in proof of this point. It is unnecessary,
however, to labour much to evince an impious king to be a judgment of
God’s wrath upon the world, as I have no expectation that any one will
deny it: and in this we say no more of a king than of any other robber
who plunders our property; or adulterer who violates our bed; or
assassin who attempts to murder us; since the Scripture enumerates all
these calamities among the curses inflicted by God. But let us rather
insist on the proof of that which the minds of men do not so easily
admit; that a man of the worst character, and most undeserving of all
honour, who holds the sovereign power, really possesses that eminent and
Divine authority, which the Lord has given by his word to the ministers
of his justice and judgment; and, therefore, that he ought to be
regarded by his subjects, as far as pertains to public obedience, with
the same reverence and esteem which they would show to the best of
kings, if such a one were granted to them.

XXVI. In the first place, I request my readers to observe and consider
with attention, what is so frequently and justly mentioned in the
Scriptures,—the providence and peculiar dispensation of God in
distributing kingdoms and appointing whom he pleases to be kings. Daniel
says, “God changeth the times and the seasons: he removeth kings and
setteth up kings.”[1468] Again: “That the living may know that the Most
High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he
will.”[1469] Passages of this kind abound throughout the Scriptures, but
particularly in this prophecy. Now, the character of Nebuchadnezzar, who
conquered Jerusalem, is sufficiently known, that he was an invader and
depopulator of the territories of others. Yet by the mouth of Ezekiel
the Lord declares that he had given him the land of Egypt, as a reward
for the service which he had performed in devastating Tyre.[1470] And
Daniel said to him, “Thou, O king, art a king of kings; for the God of
heaven hath given thee a kingdom, power, and strength, and glory; and
wheresoever the children of men dwell, the beasts of the field, and the
fowls of the heaven, hath he given into thine hand, and hath made thee
ruler over all.”[1471] Again: to his grandson Belshazzar Daniel said,
“The most high God gave Nebuchadnezzar thy father a kingdom, and
majesty, and glory, and honour; and for the majesty that he gave him,
all people, nations, and languages, trembled and feared before
him.”[1472] When we hear that Nebuchadnezzar was placed on the throne by
God, let us, at the same time, call to mind the celestial edicts which
command us to fear and honour the king; and we shall not hesitate to
regard the most iniquitous tyrant with the honour due to the station in
which the Lord has deigned to place him. When Samuel denounced to the
children of Israel what treatment they would receive from their kings,
he said, “This will be the manner[1473] of the king that shall reign
over you; he will take your sons and appoint them for himself, for his
chariots, and to be his horsemen, and to ear his ground, and to reap his
harvest, and to make his instruments of war. And he will take your
daughters to be confectionaries, and to be cooks, and to be bakers. And
he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your oliveyards, even
the best of them, and give them to his servants. And he will take the
tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers and
to his servants. And he will take your men-servants, and your
maid-servants, and your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put
them to his work. He will take the tenth of your sheep; and ye shall be
his servants.”[1474] Certainly the kings would not do all this by
“right,” for they were excellently instructed by the law to observe all
moderation; but it was called a “right” with respect to the people who
were bound to obey, and were not at liberty to resist it. It was just as
if Samuel had said, The cupidity of your kings will proceed to all these
outrages, which it will not be your province to restrain; nothing will
remain for you, but to receive their commands and to obey them.

XXVII. But the most remarkable and memorable passage of all is in the
Prophecy of Jeremiah, which, though it is rather long, I shall readily
quote, because it most clearly decides the whole question: “I have made
the earth, the man and the beast that are upon the ground, by my great
power and by my outstretched arm, and have given it unto whom it seemed
meet unto me. And now I have given all these lands into the hand of
Nebuchadnezzar, the king of Babylon, my servant. And all nations shall
serve him, and his son, and his son’s son, until the very time of his
land come. And it shall come to pass, that the nation and kingdom which
will not serve the same king of Babylon, that nation will I punish with
the sword, and with the famine, and with the pestilence. Therefore serve
the king of Babylon and live.”[1475] We see what great obedience and
honour the Lord required to be rendered to that pestilent and cruel
tyrant, for no other reason than because he possessed the kingdom; and
it was by the heavenly decree that he was seated on the throne of the
kingdom, and exalted to that regal majesty, which it was not lawful to
violate. If we have this constantly present to our eyes and impressed
upon our hearts, that the most iniquitous kings are placed on their
thrones by the same decree by which the authority of all kings is
established, those seditious thoughts will never enter our minds, that a
king is to be treated according to his merits, and that it is not
reasonable for us to be subject to a king who does not on his part
perform towards us those duties which his office requires.

XXVIII. In vain will any one object that this was a special command
given to the Israelites. For we must observe the reason upon which the
Lord founds it. He says, “I have given these lands to Nebuchadnezzar;
therefore serve him and live.” To whomsoever, therefore, a kingdom shall
evidently be given, we have no room to doubt that subjection is due to
him. And as soon as he exalts any person to royal dignity, he gives us a
declaration of his pleasure that he shall reign. The Scripture contains
general testimonies on this subject. Solomon says, “For the
transgression of a land, many are the princes thereof.”[1476] Job says,
“He looseth the bonds of kings,” or divests them of their power; “and
girdeth their loins with a girdle,”[1477] or restores them to their
former dignity. This being admitted, nothing remains for us but to serve
and live. The prophet Jeremiah likewise records another command of the
Lord to his people: “Seek the peace of the city whither I have caused
you to be carried away captives, and pray unto the Lord for it; for in
the peace of it ye shall have peace.”[1478] Here, we see, the
Israelites, after having been stripped of all their property, torn from
their habitations, driven into exile, and forced into a miserable
servitude, were commanded to pray for the prosperity of their conqueror;
not in the same manner in which we are all commanded to pray for our
persecutors; but that his kingdom might be preserved in safety and
tranquillity, and that they might live in prosperity under him. Thus
David, after having been already designated as king by the ordination of
God, and anointed with his holy oil, though he was unjustly persecuted
by Saul, without having given him any cause of offence, nevertheless
accounted the person of his pursuer sacred, because the Lord had
consecrated it by the royal dignity. “And he said, The Lord forbid that
I should do this thing unto my master, the Lord’s anointed, to stretch
forth mine hand against him, seeing he is the anointed of the Lord.”
Again: “Mine eye spared thee; and I said, I will not put forth mine hand
against my lord; for he is the Lord’s anointed.”[1479] Again: “Who can
stretch forth his hand against the Lord’s anointed, and be guiltless? As
the Lord liveth, the Lord shall smite him; or his day shall come to die,
or he shall descend into battle, and perish. The Lord forbid that I
should stretch forth mine hand against the Lord’s anointed.”[1480]

XXIX. Finally, we owe these sentiments of affection and reverence to all
our rulers, whatever their characters may be; which I the more
frequently repeat, that we may learn not to scrutinize the persons
themselves, but may be satisfied with knowing that they are invested by
the will of the Lord with that function, upon which he has impressed an
inviolable majesty. But it will be said, that rulers owe mutual duties
to their subjects. That I have already confessed. But he who infers from
this that obedience ought to be rendered to none but just rulers, is a
very bad reasoner. For husbands owe mutual duties to their wives, and
parents to their children. Now, if husbands and parents violate their
obligations; if parents conduct themselves with discouraging severity
and fastidious moroseness towards their children, whom they are
forbidden to provoke to wrath;[1481] if husbands despise and vex their
wives, whom they are commanded to love and to spare as the weaker
vessels;[1482] does it follow that children should be less obedient to
their parents, or wives to their husbands? They are still subject, even
to those who are wicked and unkind. As it is incumbent on all, not to
inquire into the duties of one another, but to confine their attention
respectively to their own, this consideration ought particularly to be
regarded by those who are subject to the authority of others. Wherefore,
if we are inhumanly harassed by a cruel prince; if we are rapaciously
plundered by an avaricious or luxurious one; if we are neglected by an
indolent one; or if we are persecuted, on account of piety, by an
impious and sacrilegious one,—let us first call to mind our
transgressions against God, which he undoubtedly chastises by these
scourges. Thus our impatience will be restrained by humility. Let us, in
the next place, consider that it is not our province to remedy these
evils; and that nothing remains for us, but to implore the aid of the
Lord, in whose hand are the hearts of kings and the revolutions of
kingdoms. It is “God” who “standeth in the congregation of the mighty,”
and “judgeth among the gods;”[1483] whose presence shall confound and
crush all kings and judges of the earth who shall not have kissed his
Son;[1484] “that decree unrighteous decrees, to turn aside the needy
from judgment, and to take away the right from the poor, that widows may
be their prey, and that they may rob the fatherless.”[1485]

XXX. And here is displayed his wonderful goodness, and power, and
providence; for sometimes he raises up some of his servants as public
avengers, and arms them with his commission to punish unrighteous
domination, and to deliver from their distressing calamities a people
who have been unjustly oppressed: sometimes he accomplishes this end by
the fury of men who meditate and attempt something altogether different.
Thus he liberated the people of Israel from the tyranny of Pharaoh by
Moses; from the oppression of Chusan by Othniel; and from other yokes by
other kings and judges. Thus he subdued the pride of Tyre by the
Egyptians; the insolence of the Egyptians by the Assyrians; the
haughtiness of the Assyrians by the Chaldeans; the confidence of Babylon
by the Medes and Persians, after Cyrus had subjugated the Medes. The
ingratitude of the kings of Israel and Judah, and their impious
rebellion, notwithstanding his numerous favours, he repressed and
punished, sometimes by the Assyrians, sometimes by the Babylonians.
These were all the executioners of his vengeance, but not all in the
same manner. The former, when they were called forth to the performance
of such acts by a legitimate commission from God, in taking arms against
kings, were not chargeable with the least violation of that majesty with
which kings are invested by the ordination of God; but, being armed with
authority from Heaven, they punished an inferior power by a superior
one, as it is lawful for kings to punish their inferior officers. The
latter, though they were guided by the hand of God in such directions as
he pleased, and performed his work without being conscious of it,
nevertheless contemplated in their hearts nothing but evil.

XXXI. But whatever opinion be formed of the acts of men, yet the Lord
equally executed his work by them, when he broke the sanguinary sceptres
of insolent kings, and overturned tyrannical governments. Let princes
hear and fear. But, in the mean while, it behoves us to use the greatest
caution, that we do not despise or violate that authority of
magistrates, which is entitled to the greatest veneration, which God has
established by the most solemn commands, even though it reside in those
who are most unworthy of it, and who, as far as in them lies, pollute it
by their iniquity. For though the correction of tyrannical domination is
the vengeance of God, we are not, therefore, to conclude that it is
committed to us, who have received no other command than to obey and
suffer. This observation I always apply to private persons. For if there
be, in the present day, any magistrates appointed for the protection of
the people and the moderation of the power of kings, such as were, in
ancient times, the Ephori, who were a check upon the kings among the
Lacedæmonians, or the popular tribunes upon the consuls among the
Romans, or the Demarchi upon the senate among the Athenians; or with
power such as perhaps is now possessed by the three estates in every
kingdom when they are assembled; I am so far from prohibiting them, in
the discharge of their duty, to oppose the violence or cruelty of kings,
that I affirm, that if they connive at kings in their oppression of
their people, such forbearance involves the most nefarious perfidy,
because they fraudulently betray the liberty of the people, of which
they know that they have been appointed protectors by the ordination of
God.

XXXII. But in the obedience which we have shown to be due to the
authority of governors, it is always necessary to make one exception,
and that is entitled to our first attention,—that it do not seduce us
from obedience to him, to whose will the desires of all kings ought to
be subject, to whose decrees all their commands ought to yield, to whose
majesty all their sceptres ought to submit. And, indeed, how
preposterous it would be for us, with a view to satisfy men, to incur
the displeasure of him on whose account we yield obedience to men! The
Lord, therefore, is the King of kings; who, when he has opened his
sacred mouth, is to be heard alone, above all, for all, and before all;
in the next place, we are subject to those men who preside over us; but
no otherwise than in him. If they command any thing against him, it
ought not to have the least attention; nor, in this case, ought we to
pay any regard to all that dignity attached to magistrates; to which no
injury is done when it is subjected to the unrivalled and supreme power
of God. On this principle Daniel denied that he had committed any crime
against the king in disobeying his impious decree;[1486] because the
king had exceeded the limits of his office, and had not only done an
injury to men, but, by raising his arm against God, had degraded his own
authority. On the other hand, the Israelites are condemned for having
been too submissive to the impious edict of their king. For when
Jeroboam had made his golden calves, in compliance with his will, they
deserted the temple of God and revolted to new superstitions. Their
posterity conformed to the decrees of their idolatrous kings with the
same facility. The prophet severely condemns them for having “willingly
walked after the commandment:”[1487] so far is any praise from being due
to the pretext of humility, with which courtly flatterers excuse
themselves and deceive the unwary, when they deny that it is lawful for
them to refuse compliance with any command of their kings; as if God had
resigned his right to mortal men when he made them rulers of mankind; or
as if earthly power were diminished by being subordinated to its author,
before whom even the principalities of heaven tremble with awe. I know
what great and present danger awaits this constancy, for kings cannot
bear to be disregarded without the greatest indignation; and “the wrath
of a king,” says Solomon, “is as messengers of death.”[1488] But since
this edict has been proclaimed by that celestial herald, Peter, “We
ought to obey God rather than men,”[1489]—let us console ourselves with
this thought, that we truly perform the obedience which God requires of
us, when we suffer any thing rather than deviate from piety. And that
our hearts may not fail us, Paul stimulates us with another
consideration—that Christ has redeemed us at the immense price which our
redemption cost him, that we may not be submissive to the corrupt
desires of men, much less be slaves to their impiety.[1490]

END OF THE INSTITUTES.

Footnote 1404:

Gal. v. 1.

Footnote 1405:

1 Cor. vii. 21.

Footnote 1406:

Gal. iii. 28.

Footnote 1407:

Col. iii. 11.

Footnote 1408:

Psalm lxxxii. 1, 6.

Footnote 1409:

John x. 35.

Footnote 1410:

Deut. i. 16, 17. 2 Chron. xix. 6.

Footnote 1411:

Prov. viii. 15, 16.

Footnote 1412:

Rom. xii. 8.

Footnote 1413:

1 Cor. xii. 28.

Footnote 1414:

Rom. xiii. 1, 3, 4.

Footnote 1415:

Psalm ii. 10-12.

Footnote 1416:

Isaiah xlix. 23.

Footnote 1417:

1 Tim. ii. 1, 2.

Footnote 1418:

Jer. xlviii. 10.

Footnote 1419:

Deut. i. 16, 17.

Footnote 1420:

2 Chron. xix. 6, 7.

Footnote 1421:

Psalm lxxxii. 1.

Footnote 1422:

1 Sam. viii. 7.

Footnote 1423:

Luke xxii. 25, 26.

Footnote 1424:

Rom. xiii. 1, &c. Prov. viii. 15. 1 Pet. ii. 13, 14, 17.

Footnote 1425:

Judges xxi. 25.

Footnote 1426:

Jer. xxii. 3.

Footnote 1427:

Psalm lxxxii. 3, 4.

Footnote 1428:

Deut. i. 16, 17.

Footnote 1429:

Deut. xvii. 16, 17, 19, 20.

Footnote 1430:

Psalm ci. 3-6.

Footnote 1431:

Jer. xxii. 3.

Footnote 1432:

Exod. xx. 13.

Footnote 1433:

Isaiah xi. 9; lxv. 25.

Footnote 1434:

Gen. ix. 6. Exod. xxi. 12.

Footnote 1435:

Rom. xiii. 4.

Footnote 1436:

Exod. ii. 12.

Footnote 1437:

Exod. xxxii. 26-28.

Footnote 1438:

1 Kings ii. 5-9.

Footnote 1439:

Psalm ci. 8.

Footnote 1440:

Psalm xlv. 7.

Footnote 1441:

Prov. xvi. 12.

Footnote 1442:

Prov. xx. 8.

Footnote 1443:

Prov. xx. 26.

Footnote 1444:

Prov. xxv. 4, 5.

Footnote 1445:

Prov. xvii. 15.

Footnote 1446:

Prov. xvii. 11.

Footnote 1447:

Prov. xxiv. 24.

Footnote 1448:

Prov. xx. 28.

Footnote 1449:

Luke iii. 14.

Footnote 1450:

Ezek. xlviii. 21, 22.

Footnote 1451:

Rom. xiii. 6.

Footnote 1452:

Gal. iii. 24; iv. 4.

Footnote 1453:

Exod. xxii. 1, &c.

Footnote 1454:

Deut. xix. 18, 19.

Footnote 1455:

Rom. xiii. 4.

Footnote 1456:

Matt. v. 39, 40.

Footnote 1457:

Matt. v. 44.

Footnote 1458:

Rom xii. 21.

Footnote 1459:

Matt. v. 38-40.

Footnote 1460:

1 Cor. vi. 1-8.

Footnote 1461:

1 Peter ii. 17.

Footnote 1462:

Prov. xxiv. 21.

Footnote 1463:

Rom. xiii. 5.

Footnote 1464:

Rom. xiii. 1, 2.

Footnote 1465:

Titus iii. 1.

Footnote 1466:

1 Peter ii. 13, 14.

Footnote 1467:

1 Tim. ii. 1, 2.

Footnote 1468:

Dan. ii. 21.

Footnote 1469:

Dan. iv. 17.

Footnote 1470:

Ezek. xxix. 18-20.

Footnote 1471:

Dan. ii. 37, 38.

Footnote 1472:

Dan. v. 18, 19.

Footnote 1473:

In the Latin translation, it is _jus_, right.

Footnote 1474:

1 Sam. viii. 11-17.

Footnote 1475:

Jer. xxvii. 5-9, 12.

Footnote 1476:

Prov. xxviii. 2.

Footnote 1477:

Job xii. 18.

Footnote 1478:

Jer. xxix. 7.

Footnote 1479:

1 Sam. xxiv. 6, 11.

Footnote 1480:

1 Sam. xxvi. 9-11.

Footnote 1481:

Ephes. vi. 1. Col. iii. 21.

Footnote 1482:

Ephes. v. 25. 1 Pet. iii. 7.

Footnote 1483:

Psalm lxxxii. 1.

Footnote 1484:

Psalm ii. 10-12.

Footnote 1485:

Isaiah x. 1, 2.

Footnote 1486:

Dan. vi. 22.

Footnote 1487:

Hos. v. 11.

Footnote 1488:

Prov. xvi. 14.

Footnote 1489:

Acts v. 29.

Footnote 1490:

1 Cor. vii. 23.

INDEX OF THE PRINCIPAL MATTERS.

_The first number indicates the Book; the second, the Chapter._

Adam’s fall, the cause of the curse inflicted on all mankind, and of
their degeneracy from their primitive condition, ii. 1.

Angels, their creation, nature, names, and offices, i. 14.

Articles of faith, power of the Church relating to them, iv. 8, 9.

Ascension of Christ, i. 15.

Baptism, a sacrament; its institution, nature, administration, and uses,
iv. 15.

—— of infants perfectly consistent with the institution of Christ and
the nature of the sign, iv. 16.

Celibacy of priests, iv. 12.

—— of monks and nuns, iv. 13.

Christ proved to be God, i. 13.

—— necessity of his becoming man in order to fulfil the office of a
mediator, ii. 12.

—— his assumption of real humanity, ii. 13.

—— the union of the two natures constituting his one person, ii. 14.

—— the only Redeemer of lost man, ii. 6.

—— the consideration of his three offices, prophetical, regal, and
sacerdotal, necessary to our knowing the end of his mission from the
Father, and the benefits he confers on us, ii. 15.

—— his death, resurrection, and ascension to heaven, to accomplish our
salvation, ii. 16.

—— truly and properly said to have merited the grace of God and
salvation for us, ii. 17.

—— imperfectly revealed to the Jews under the law, ii. 7, 9.

—— clearly revealed only in the gospel, ii. 9.

Christian liberty, its nature and advantages, iii. 19.

Christian life, scriptural arguments and exhortations to it, iii. 6.

——— summary of it, iii. 7.

Church, the necessity of our union with the true Church, iv. 1.

—— true and false compared and distinguished, iv. 2.

—— teachers and ministers of the Church, their election and office, iv.
3.

—— power of the, relating to articles of faith, iv. 8, 9.

—— ———— in making laws, iv. 10.

—— ———— in jurisdiction, iv. 11.

—— discipline of the; censures and excommunication, iv. 12.

—— state of the ancient, and the mode of government practised before the
Papacy, iv. 4.

—— ancient form of its government entirely subverted by the Papal
tyranny, iv. 5.

Confession, auricular, iii. 4.

—— true, iii. 4.

Confirmation, Papal, iv. 19.

Conscience, its nature and obligations, iii. 19.

Councils, their authority, iv. 9.

Creation, of the world—of angels; this clearly distinguishes the true
God from all fictitious deities, i. 14.

Cross, bearing of, a branch of self-denial, iii. 8.

Death of Christ, ii. 15.

Depravity, human, total, ii. 3.

Descent of Christ into hell, ii. 16.

Devils, their existence, power, subtlety, malignity, i. 14.

Discipline of the Church, iv. 12.

Election, eternal, or God’s predestination of some to salvation, and of
others to destruction, iii. 21.

—— —— testimonies of Scripture in confirmation of this doctrine, iii.
22.

—— —— a refutation of the calumnies generally but unjustly urged against
this doctrine, iii. 23.

—— —— confirmed by the divine call, iii. 24.

Excommunication, iv. 12.

Extreme unction, iv. 19.

Faith defined, and its properties described, iii. 2.

——, justification by faith, iii. 11.

——, prayer its principal exercise, iii. 20.

Fanaticism of discarding the Scripture, under the pretence of resorting
to immediate revelations, subversive of every principle of piety, i. 9.

Fasting, its use and abuse, iv. 12.

Free-will lost by the fall; man in his present state miserably enslaved,
ii. 2.

—— a refutation of the objections commonly urged in support of
free-will, ii. 5.

God truly known only from the Scriptures, i. 6.

—— what kind of being God is; exclusively opposed in the Scripture to
all the heathen deities, i. 10.

—— contradistinguished from idols as the sole and supreme object of
worship, i. 12.

—— ascription of a visible form to, unlawful, and all idolatry a
defection from the true, i. 11.

—— the creator of the universe, i. 14.

—— his preservation and support of the world by his power, and his
government of every part of it by his providence, i. 16.

—— the proper use and advantages of this doctrine, i. 17.

—— his operations in the hearts of men, ii. 4.

—— his use of the agency of the wicked, without the least stain of his
perfect purity, i. 18.

—— one Divine essence containing three persons, i. 13.

Gospel and law compared and distinguished, ii. 9, 10, 11.

Government of the Church, iv. 3, 4, 5.

—— civil; its nature, dignity, and advantages, iv. 20.

Holy Spirit proved to be God, i. 13.

—— his testimony requisite to the confirmation of the Scripture, and the
establishment of its authority, i. 7.

—— his secret and special operation necessary to our enjoyment of Christ
and all his benefits; this operation the foundation of faith, newness of
life, and all holy exercises, iii. 1.

—— the sin against, iii. 3.

Humility of believers, iii. 12.

Idolatry a defection from the true God; all worship of images idolatry,
i. 1.

Image of God in man, i. 15.

Imposition of hands, iv. 15.

Indulgences and pardons, iii. 5.

Intercession of saints, iii. 20.

Judgment, last, iii. 25.

Jurisdiction of the Church, iv. 11.

Justification by faith; the name and thing defined, iii. 11.

—— a consideration of the Divine tribunal necessary to a serious
conviction of gratuitous, iii. 12.

—— things necessary to be observed in gratuitous, iii. 13.

—— commencement and continual progress of, iii. 14.

—— boasting of the merit of works equally subversive of God’s glory in
gratuitous, and of the certainty of salvation, iii. 15.

—— a refutation of the injurious calumnies of the Papists against the
doctrine here maintained, iii. 16.

—— by works, the promise of a reward no argument for, iii. 17.

Kingdom of Christ, ii. 15.

Knowledge of Christ, imperfect under the law, ii. 7, 9.

—— clearly unfolded under the gospel, ii. 9.

—— of God connected with the knowledge of ourselves, i. 1.

—— nature and tendency of it, i. 2.

—— naturally implanted in the human mind, i. 3.

—— extinguished or corrupted, partly by ignorance, partly by wickedness,
i. 4.

—— conspicuous in the formation and government of the work, i. 5.

—— effectually attained only from the Scripture, i. 6.

Law of Moses; its office, use, and end, ii. 7.

Laws given to the Jews; moral, ceremonial, and judicial, iv. 20.

Law, moral, an exposition of, ii. 8.

Law and gospel, compared and distinguished, ii. 9, 10, 11.

Laws, ecclesiastical, iv. 10.

—— civil and political, iv. 20.

Liberty, Christian, iii. 19.

Life, Christian, iii. 6, 7, 8.

—— present, and its supports, right use of, iii. 10.

—— future, meditation on, iii. 9.

Lord’s prayer, exposition of, iii. 20.

Lord’s supper, its institution, nature, and advantages, iii. 17.

—— not only profaned, but annihilated by the Papal mass, iii. 18.

Man, his state at his creation, the faculties of his soul, the Divine
image, free-will, and the original purity of his nature, i. 15.

—— in his present state, despoiled of freedom of will, and subjected to
a miserable slavery, ii. 2.

—— every thing that proceeds from his corrupt nature worthy of
condemnation, ii. 3.

—— his mind naturally furnished with the knowledge of God, i. 3.

—— the knowledge of God in the human mind extinguished or corrupted by
ignorance and wickedness, i. 4.

Magistracy, iv. 20.

Marriage, ii. 8.

Matrimony, falsely called a sacrament, iv. 19.

Mass, the Papal, not only a sacrilegious profanation of the Lord’s
supper, but a total annihilation of it, iv. 18.

Mediator. _See_ Christ, ii. 14.

Merit of Christ, ii. 17.

—— of works disproved, iii. 15, 18.

Monks, iv. 13.

Neighbour, love of our, ii. 8.

Nuns, iv. 13.

Oaths, ii. 8.

Offences given and taken; what to be avoided, iii. 19.

Orders, ecclesiastical, no sacrament, iv. 19.

Original sin, the doctrine of, ii. 1.

Pædobaptism. _See_ Baptism, iv. 16.

Papacy, its entire subversion of the ancient form of ecclesiastical
government, iv. 5.

—— its rise and progress to its present eminence attended with the loss
of liberty to the Church, and the ruin of all moderation, iv. 7.

—— its licentious perversion of the power of the Church respecting
articles of faith, to the corruption of all purity of doctrine, iv. 8.

—— its sophistry and jargon concerning repentance utterly inconsistent
with the gospel, iii. 4.

—— its corrupt tenets respecting indulgences and purgatory, iii. 5.

—— its assumption of the power of legislation, tyranny over men’s minds,
and tortures of their bodies, iv. 10.

—— its abuse of the jurisdiction of the Church, iv. 11.

—— its corrupt discipline, censures, and excommunications, iv. 12.

—— its unscriptural vows, iv. 13.

—— its sacrilegious mass an annihilation of the Lord’s supper, iv. 18.

—— its five ceremonies falsely called sacraments, proved not to be
sacraments, iv. 19.

—— its characteristics of a false Church, iv. 2.

Penance no sacrament, iv. 19.

Prayer, the principal exercise of faith, and the medium of our daily
reception of Divine blessings, iii. 20.

Predestination. _See_ Election, iii. 21-24.

Priesthood of Christ, ii. 15.

Promises of the law and gospel, harmony between them, iii. 17.

Prophetical office of Christ, ii. 15.

Providence of God governs the world, i. 16.

—— proper application and utility of this doctrine, i. 17.

—— contracts no impurity from its control and use of the agency of the
wicked, i. 18.

Purgatory exposed and disproved, iii. 5.

Reason furnishes proofs to establish the authority of the Scripture, i.
8.

Redemption necessary in consequence of the fall, ii. 1, 6.

—— to be sought only in Christ, ii. 6.

—— accomplished by the death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ, ii.
16.

Regeneration, iii. 3.

Repentance, true, always accompanies true faith; its origin, nature, and
effects, iii. 3.

—— comprises mortification of the flesh and vivification of the spirit,
iii. 6-10.

—— the sophistry and jargon of the schools on this subject very remote
from the purity of the gospel, iii. 4.

Reprobates, the destruction of, procured by themselves, iii. 24.

Resurrection of Christ, ii. 16.

—— final, iii. 25.

Reward promised, no proof of justification by works, iii. 18.

Roman See, primacy of, iv. 6.

Sabbath, ii. 8.

Sacraments in general, iv. 14.

—— in particular, iv. 15, 16.

—— ceremonies falsely so called, iv. 19.

Sacrifices, legal, ii. 7.

—— none propitiatory under the gospel since that of Christ, iv. 18.

Saints, invocation and intercession of, iii. 20.

Salvation for lost man to be sought only in Christ, ii. 6.

—— procured by Christ, ii. 16.

Satisfactions exposed, iii. 4.

Schismatics, iv. 1.

Scripture, the guidance and teaching of it necessary to lead to the
knowledge of God, i. 6.

—— the testimony of the Spirit requisite to its confirmation and
establishment of its authority, i. 7.

—— the dependence of its authority on the judgment of the Church an
impious fiction, i. 7.

—— rational proofs to establish its authority, i. 8.

—— rejection of it, under the pretence of resorting to immediate
revelations subversive of every principle of piety, i. 9.

—— exclusively opposes the true God to all the heathen deities, i. 10.

—— clearly distinguishes the true God from all fictitious ones, in the
creation of the universe, i. 14.

—— teaches the unity of God, and the existence of three persons in the
Divine essence, i. 13.

Temptation, iii. 20.

Testament, Old, ii. 7.

Testament, New, ii. 9.

—— similarity of the Old and New, ii. 10.

—— difference of the Old and New, ii. 11.

—— harmony between the promises of the Old and New, iii. 17.

—— sacraments of the Old and New, iv. 14.

Traditions, human, iv. 10.

Transubstantiation exposed, iv. 10.

Vocation confirms election, iii. 24.

Vows; the misery of rashly making them, iv. 13.

Wicked, the agency of, controlled and used by God, i. 18.

Works merit no favour from God, iii. 15.

World created by God, i. 14.

—— preserved by his power, and governed by his providence, i. 16.

* * * * *

The quotations from different Authors, chiefly the fathers, which occur
in this work, are not in general referred to in the margin; such
references having been considered of no use, except to persons who will
probably be furnished with the original, in which they are all inserted.

THE END

SCRIPTURE INDEX TO CALVIN’S INSTITUTES.

ARRANGED AND PRESENTED

S. T. LIVERMORE,

TO THE

PRESBYTERIAN BOARD OF PUBLICATION.

UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER,

MDCCCLII.

GENESIS.

Chapter. Verse. Vol Page
i 2 1 130
2 1 139
3 1 123
20 1 203
26 1 174
27 1 173
28 1 169

ii 1 1 153
7 1 171
7 1 177
7 1 444
9 16 17 2 469
17 1 495
18 2 435
23 2 631
23 1 427

iii 5 1 242
9 12 1 564
15 1 432
15 1 165
15 2 46
17-19 1 392
19 23 1 171
23 2 462
23 1 631

iv 4 2 10
7 1 301
8 14 1 392
10 1 495
13 1 537

vi 3 1 392
3 5 2 3
5 1 256
6 1 208
14-21 1 392

vii 11 1 392

viii 13 1 392
21 1 256
21 2 3
21 1 259

ix 2 1 169
6 2 643
12-17 2 469
24 25 1 393

xii 1 1 393
2 3 2 52
3 1 429
3 2 471
10-15 1 393
xii 17 1 345

xiii 7-11 1 393
16 2 52

xiv 12 13 1 393
18 2 586

xv 1 1 407
1 2 215
2 1 394
5 2 52
6 2 46
17 2 469

xvi 1-15 1 394
9 1 156

xvii 1-14 2 495
7 1 391
7 1 347
10 2 546
10 2 547

xviii 2 1 155
18 1 429
23 2 96
27 1 48

xx 1 2 1 393
3 1 345
3 7 1 210

xxi 2 3 1 394
10-14 1 394
24 1 253
25-30 1 393

xxii 1 12 1 632
2 1 394
8 1 186
16-18 2 52
18 1 429
18 2 471

xxiii 3-9 2 212

xxiv 7 1 156
7 12 1 161
27 52 1 161

xxvi 1 7 1 294
4 1 429
20 1 294
21 1 294
31 1 353
34 1 294
xxvi 35 1 294

xxvii 38 39 1 559
41-45 1 395

xxviii 5 1 394
12 1 161
20-22 2 436

xxix 20 23 1 395
25 27 1 395

xxx 1 1 395
2 1 191

xxxi 13 14 1 353
16 1 353
17 1 353
19 1 104
25 36 1 395
40 41 1 395
53 1 353

xxxii 1 28 1 155
10 2 94
10 2 109
29 30 1 126

xxxiii 1 395

xxxiv 19 1 395
25 2 244

xxxv 19 22 1 395
22 2 244

xxxviii 13-18 1 395
16 2 244

xlii 1 396

xliii 14 1 282
14 2 171

xlv 7 8 1 203

xlvii 9 1 396
30 1 397
30 2 212

xlviii 14 2 271
16 1 156
16 2 107

xlix 5 1 84
10 1 85
18 1 397

l 20 1 203
25 1 397

EXODUS.

Chapter. Verse. Vol Page

ii 2 546
12 2 644

iii 2 2 546
6 1 341
6 1 392
14 1 142
21 1 202

iv 2-4 2 539
11 1 131
21 2 192
21 1 214
21 1 281
25 2 492

vi 7 1 391

vii 1 1 124
3 1 281
10 12 2 539

viii 15 1 213

xi 3 1 282

xii 5 2 523
11 2 546
11 2 547

xiii 12 2 523

xiv 19 1 156
31 2 340

xvi 7 1 85
13 1 190

xvii 15 1 125

xix 5 2 503
6 1 314
16 1 84

xx 6 1 392
6 2 506
13 2 643
24 2 227

xxi 12 2 643
13 1 189
17 1 360

xxii 1 2 649
11 1 351

xxiii 1 7 1 369
4 5 1 377
12 1 357
13 1 350
20 1 156

xxiv 18 1 84

xxv 17 18 1 99
40 1 313

xxviii 2 100

xxxi 2-11 1 247
13 14 1 355
16 17 1 355

xxxii 1 1 105
4 1 35
4-6 1 106
26-28 2 644
32 2 120

xxxiii 11 1 99
19 2 159
19 1 663
19 2 196
20 1 99

xxxiv 6 1 95
29 1 84

xxxv 30-35 1 247

xxxviii 35 2 275

xl 34 1 84

LEVITICUS.

Chapter. Verse. Vol Page

xi 2 540
44 1 340

xiv 2 1 564

xvi 21 1 570

xviii 5 1 480
5 2 13
5 1 331
5 2 36

xix 2 1 615
12 1 349
16 1 369
18 1 377

xx 6 1 85

xxvi 12 1 390
12 1 391
20 2 130
23 24 1 204
26 2 131
36 1 213
36 1 283

NUMBERS.

Chapter. Verse. Vol Page

viii 17 2 523

xi 9 1 84
18 2 139
31 1 190
33 2 139

xii 1 1 84

xiii 22 1 354

xiv 18 1 345
43 1 294

xvi 24 1 84

xx 11 1 84

xxiii 10 1 397
19 1 209
4
xxviii 3 2 245

DEUTERONOMY

Chapter. Verse. Vol Page

i 16 17 2 636
16 17 2 638
16 17 2 642
39 2 509

ii 30 1 214
30 1 280
30 1 281

iv 2 2 355
5 6 9 1 332
6 2 9
7 2 195
11 1 99
15 1 98
17 1 344
37 2 145

v 14 15 1 357

vi 5 2 65
13 1 350
16 2 435
25 2 40

vii 6 1 340
6 2 503
7 8 2 145
9 2 38
12 13 2 34

viii 3 2 131
3 1 191

ix 6 7 2 146

x 12 13 1 373
14 1 415
14 15 2 145
16 2 496
16 1 291

xi 22 1 373
26 2 34

xii 5 2 523
28 32 2 332

xiii 13 2 523

xiv 2 1 340

xvii 8 12 2 340
11 2 341
16 17 2 642
18 1 87
19 20 2 642

xviii 10-12 1 606

xix 5 1 216
18 19 2 649
19 21 2 39

xxi 18 21 1 361

xxiii 2 145

xxiv 13 2 40

xxvi 18 1 340

xxvii 26 1 677
26 2 13
26 2 43

xxviii 1 1 204
1 1 293

xxix 3 4 1 251
19 20 2 39
29 1 197
29 2 143

xxx 1 81
3 4 2 244
6 2 496
11-14 1 397
12 14 1 196
14 2 181
15 2 34
15 19 1 315

xxxii 8 9 1 415
8 9 1 145
15 1 633
15 1 86
17 2 449
46 47 1 324

xxxiii 3 1 392
29 1 391

JOSHUA.

Chapter. Verse. Vol Page

i 7 8 2 36

ii 1 2 190

v 13 1 155

vii 19 1 350

x 13 1 185

xxiv 2 1 105
2 3 2 180

JUDGES.

Chapter. Verse. Vol Page

ii 1 1 156

vi 11 1 155
11 1 156
34 1 248
37-40 2 469

viii 27 2 388

ix 20 2 94

xi 30-40 2 435

xiii 3 1 156
3 22 1 155
19 2 388
22 1 48
22 23 1 125

xv 14 1 248

xvi 28 2 95

xxi 25 2 641

RUTH.

Chapter. Verse. Vol Page

iii 13 1 353

1. SAMUEL.

Chapter. Verse. Vol Page

i 13 2 119

ii 9 1 401
6 2 140
10 1 308
25 1 215
25 2 193
34 1 213

vi 9 1 193

vii 3 2 538
17 2 388

viii 7 2 639
11-17 2 658

x 6 26 1 249

xi 6 1 283

xii 22 2 146

xiv 45 2 350

xv 11 2 96
11 1 208
22 1 592
22 23 2 381
23 1 595
29 1 208
29 1 209
30 1 537

xvi 13 1 249
14 1 281
14 1 214
14 1 164

xviii 10 1 164
19 1 281

xix 19 1 281

xxiv 6 11 2 660

xxvi 9-11 2 660
12 1 213
23 2 49

2 SAMUEL.

Chapter. Verse. Vol Page

v 6-8 2 521
14 1 593
27 28 2 93
27 2 92

x 12 1 205

xi 4 15 2 244

xii 12 1 212
13 1 570
13 2 244
13 14 1 591
13-16 1 537
18 1 595

xvi 10 1 213
10 1 203
10 22 1 217
22 1 212

xvii 7 14 1 202
14 1 283

xx 20 21 2 39

xxiv 1 1 165
10 1 537

1 KINGS.

Chapter. Verse. Vol Page

i 21 1 652

ii 5-9 2 644

viii 23 2 38
27 2 124
46-50 2 245
56 1 270

xi 13 1 308
23 1 208
31 1 213
39 1 308

xii 10 1 283
10-15 1 202
15 1 318
20 1 217

xv 4 1 308

xviii 10 1 353
17 1 38
42 2 78

xix 13 1 48
14 18 1 34
18 2 223

xxi 27 1 559

xxii 6 2 358
6 11-23 2 35
20 1 164
20-23 1 212
22 1 202
22 24 2 358
27 2 358

2 KINGS.

Chapter. Verse. Vol Page

v 17-19 1 523

vi 15-17 1 160
17 1 156
31 1 350

viii 19 1 308

x 7-10 1 218

xii 13-16 1 537

xvi 10 2 387

xvii 24-34 2 387

xix 4 2 94

xx 1 5 1 208
2 1 537
3 2 87
3 2 19
11 2 470
11 1 185

xxi 4 2 387
16 2 190

xxii 2 2 387
8 1 87

1 CHRONICLES.

Chapter. Verse. Vol Page

xxi 1 1 165

2 CHRON.

Chapter. Verse. Vol Page

x 15 1 218

xvii 4 2 387

xix 6 7 2 638

EZRA.

Chapter. Verse. Vol Page

xxxiii 14 15 2 49

NEHEMIAH.

Chapter. Verse. Vol Page

i 4 2 422
5 2 38

ix 14 1 355

JOB.

Chapter. Verse. Vol Page

i 1 279
1 672
6 1 164
6 1 167
12 1 202
21 1 212
21 1 203
21 1 215

ii 1 1 164
1 1 167

iv 6 1 680
17 1 317
17 20 1 676
18 2 43
19 1 172

v 17 1 592

ix 2 1 317
2 3 1 678
20 1 680

x 15 2 16

xii 18 2 659
20 24 1 280
24 1 249

xiii 15 1 402
15 1 511

xiv 4 1 226
4 1 680
5 1 193
17 1 589

xv 14 1 317
15 2 43
15 16 1 676
16 1 680

xix 25 1 401
25 27 2 205

xxi 13 1 400

xxv 4 1 317
4 6 1 680
5 2 43

xxvi 14 1 197

xxviii 21 28 1 197
28 1 516

xli 11 2 6

PSALMS.

Chapter. Verse. Vol Page

i 1 2 44
2 1 324

ii 1 1 448
8 1 416
9 1 452
9 1 23
10-13 2 661
10-13 2 637
12 1 308

iii 5 1 527

v 3 2 90
7 1 513
7 2 88

vi 1 1 593

vii 6 2 96
8 2 48
11 1 209

viii 2 1 186
2 4 1 59

ix 10 1 520

x 11 1 55

xii 2 2 459
6 1 505

xiv 1 1 55
1-3 2 3

xv 1 2 187
1 2 1 615
1 2 2 40

xvi 2 1 375
2 3 1 624
5 1 407
5 6 2 215
10 2 202

xvii 1 3 2 48
15 2 215
15 1 399

xviii 1 2 113
21 23 2 48
24 2 48
27 1 681
30 2 505

xix 1 1 74
1 1 578
1 3 1 58
7 1 93
7 8 1 324
12 1 576
12 1 578
12 2 36

xx 3 2 100
9 1 309

xxii 5 2 108
25 2 437

xxiii 4 1 511
4 1 518
4 1 688
4 1 207
5 2 108
6 1 276

xxiv 3 4 1 615
6 2 188

xxv 1 2 80
7 1 551
7 18 2 85
10 1 496
10 11 2 36

xxvi 1 4 2 48
9-11 2 48

xxvii 1 3 1 207
10 2 121
14 1 508

xxviii 8 1 308
8 9 1 310

xxx 5 1 401
6 7 1 631

xxxi 5 2 109
15 1 207
22 1 507

xxxii 1 2 2 44
12 1 589
5 1 570
6 2 83
6 2 109

xxxiii 6 1 132
6 13 1 183
12 1 518
12 2 146
12 1 391
18 2 125
22 2 90

xxxiv 5 6 2 109
7 2 105
7 1 156
7 1 157
14 1 540
15 2 87
15 2 79
15 2 125
15 16 1 191
21 1 397
22 1 399

xxxvi 1 2 3
1 1 55
5 1 496
6 1 196
9 1 250

xxvii 7 1 527
29 1 407

xxxviii 1 1 593

xxxix 5-7 1 398
9 1 203
12 1 398
13 2 97

xl 3 2 112
5 1 195
7 8 1 459
10 11 1 496
12 1 66

xli 4 2 91

xlii 2 2 546
4 1 569
5 1 507

xliv 3 2 146
20 2 110
22 2 110

xlv 7 1 450
7 2 644
10 1 29

xlvi 1 2 1 527
5 2 223

xlvii 4 2 145

xlviii 10 2 125

xlix 6 1 400

l 14 23 2 599
15 2 91
15 2 92
15 2 111
15 2 571
15 2 112

li 1 1 570
4 1 663
4 2 166
4 1 215
5 1 551
5 1 226
5 2 508
5 2 86
10 1 257
10 1 259
10 1 271
15 2 112
17 2 98

lii 8 1 399

lv 22 1 201
22 23 1 400

lvi 9 2 90
12 2 437

lix 10 1 276

lx 12 2 135

lxii 8 2 80
9 1 261

lxiii 3 1 518
3 2 49

lxv 1 2 115
2 2 92
4 2 147

lxviii 18 1 127
20 2 205

lxix 2 14 1 576
4 1 460
21 2 540
28 2 188
28 1 401

lxxii 8 1 416
10 11 2 297

lxxiii 2 1 399
2 1 645
16 17 1 399
26 1 407

lxxiv 9 1 446

lxxv 6 7 1 190

lxxvii 7 9 10 1 507
11 1 521

lxxviii 8 1 296
36 37 1 559
49 1 164
67 68 2 147
68 70 71 1 308

lxxix 13 1 629
67 68 2 147

lxxx 1 2 225
1 1 341
3 1 517
4 2 98
17 1 309

lxxxii 1 2 638
1 2 661
1 6 1 636
3 4 1 642
6 1 141
6 1 425
6 2 523
6 1 155

lxxxiv 2 227
2 1 407
7 2 546

lxxxvi 2 2 87
11 1 272

lxxxviii 15 1 576
16 1 596

lxxxix 3 4 2 239
30-33 2 246
30-33 1 593
35-37 1 448

xc 4 1 533
7-9 1 596

xci 1 1 201
3-6 1 207
11 2 105
11 12 1 155
12 1 158
12 1 201
15 2 93

xcii 6 1 66
12 1 399

xciii 5 1 70

xciv 11 1 256
11 2 3
12 13 1 596

xcv 7 1 494
8 1 296

xcvii 7 1 140
10 11 1 398

xcix 1 1 341
5 2 227
34 1 256

c 3 2 146
3 1 268

ci 3-2 2 642
8 2 644

cii 17 2 112
25 1 140
25-28 1 398

ciii 17 1 398
17 1 74
20 2 128
20 1 153

civ 2 1 58
3 4 1 190
15 1 646
27-30 1 183

cv 4 2 227
6 8 2 146
25 1 214
25 1 281

cvi 3 2 44
4 5 2 224
30 31 2 40
31 2 41
39 2 96
46 1 283
47 2 112

cvii 2 95
16 1 463
25 29 1 190
40 1 213
40 1 249
43 1 64

cx 1 1 448
4 2 586
4 1 408
4 1 453
4 1 315
6 1 452

cxi 1 2 459
2 1 217
10 1 516
10 1 265
10 2 9

cxii 1 2 44
6 1 399
9 10 1 398

cxiii 1 106
1 107
5 6 1 189
7 1 64

cxv 3 1 215
3 2 196
3 1 211
3 1 185
8 1 101

cxvi 1 2 113
3 1 576
7 1 507
12 2 112
14 18 2 437
15 1 397
15 1 401

cxvii 2 1 496

cxviii 6 1 207
18 1 592
25 26 1 309

cxix 1 259
1 2 44
10 2 459
18 1 252
34 1 256
34 1 259
33-40 1 296
36 1 270
41 1 520
43 1 508
71 1 592
76 2 94
76 77 1 686
105 1 324
112 1 296
133 1 272
146 1 520
147 1 520

cxxvii 3 1 191

cxxx 3 1 676
3 2 49
4 2 23
4 1 535

cxxxi 1 2 1 628

cxxxii 7 2 227
11 1 429
11 1 432
13 14 2 239
14 2 225

cxxxiii 3 1 407

cxxxv 15 1 100

cxxxvi 25 1 191

cxxxviii 1 2 459
2 1 496
8 2 186

cxl 13 1 399

cxli 2 2 599
2 2 94

cxlii 5 1 407
7 2 109

cxliii 2 2 16
2 2 49
2 2 85
2 1 677
2 1 317
3 4 1 576
5 1 521

cxliv 1 65
15 1 391

cxlv 1 96
6 1 65
8 9 1 519
9 2 196
9 1 63
18 2 93
18 2 79
19 2 80
19 2 92

cxlvii 9 1 189
10 1 242
20 2 147

PROVERBS.

Chapter. Verse. Vol Page

i 7 1 516
7 2 9

ii 22 1 407

iii 11 1 592
11 12 1 634

viii 15 2 639
15 16 2 636
22 1 444

ix 10 2 9
10 1 516

x 7 1 401
12 1 598
12 1 591

xii 14 2 51
28 2 49

xiii 13 2 51

xiv 21 2 44
26 2 19

xv 8 2 10

xvi 1 1 296
1 1 189
2 1 680
4 2 169
6 1 591
6 1 598
9 1 199
12 2 644
14 2 663
33 1 190

xvii 11 2 644
15 2 644

xviii 10 2 92
10 1 130

xix 17 2 57

xx 7 2 49
7 1 347
8 2 644
9 1 685
12 1 283
24 1 189
26 2 644
28 2 645

xxi 1 1 213
1 1 283
2 1 680

xxii 28 1 29

xxiv 21 2 654
24 2 644

xxv 2 2 143
4 5 2 644
21 1 377
27 2 142

xxvi 10 2 167

xxvii 15 2 644

xxviii 2 2 659
14 1 513

xxix 13 1 190
18 1 23

xxx 1 380
4 1 443
5 1 505
20 1 579

ECCL.

Chapter. Verse. Vol Page

iii 19 1 528
21 2 206

vii 20 1 317
20 2 10
29 1 304
29 1 231

ix 1 1 687
1 2 1 528
4 2 206
5 6 1 106
7 1 171

ISAIAH.

Chapter. Verse. Vol Page

i 3 1 26
12 2 16
13 14 2 256
13-16 2 9
15 2 84
16 17 1 540
18 1 589
19 20 1 293

iii 1 1 191
1 2 297
8 1 448

iv 2 2 16

v 8 2 69
26 1 213
26 1 281

vi 1 1 140
2 1 48
2 1 100
5 2 341
6 1 127
9 2 176
9 1 132
9 1 55
9 10 2 192

vii 2 1 508
4 1 508
14 1 309
18 1 281

viii 12 13 1 32
14 1 127
14 1 140
16 2 160
17 1 533

ix 6 1 124
6 1 446
6 1 687
6 1 482

x 1 2 2 661
5 1 213
6 1 214
15 1 281

xi 2 2 137
2 1 264
2 1 450
2 3 2 621
4 1 23
9 2 643
10 1 129

xii 1 1 593

xiv 1 2 147
27 1 210

xvii 24 2 124

xix 18 1 349
19 2 589
23 24 2 589
25 1 213

xxiv 23 1 48

xxv 1 2 183
8 1 644
9 1 143
9 1 126

xxvi 1 1 201
19 2 204
19 21 1 403
21 2 213

xxviii 16 1 129

xxix 13 2 378
13 2 84
13 14 2 386
13 14 2 116
14 2 379
14 1 213

xxx 16 1 527
32 2 218

xxxiii 14 15 1 676
14 15 2 40
22 1 391
22 1 452
22 2 371
24 2 241

xxxv 8 2 239
10 1 615

xxxvii 16 1 341
35 1 481
35 2 224
36 1 156

xxxviii 1 5 1 208
2 1 537
17 1 589
20 2 112

xxxix 6 1 86
7 1 345
13 14 2 379

xl 1 3 1 535
2 1 595
8 1 390
10 11 2 630
14 2 600
18 1 98
21 1 101
21 1 150
29-31 1 242

xli 7 29 1 98
9 2 147

xlii 1 1 466
1 1 436
8 1 125
9 1 87
10 2 112
13 2 630

xliii 10 1 80
11 25 1 575
25 1 585
25 1 128
28 1 593

xliv 3 1 487
3 1 242
3 1 529
6 1 141
9-20 1 101
22 1 589

xlv 1 1 86
7 1 216
7 1 204
23 1 140
23 1 127
23-25 1 684
25 2 16

xlvi 5 1 98

xlvii 6 1 593

xlviii 10 1 593
16 1 130

xlix 15 1 121
23 2 637

li 1 1 261
6 1 398
23 2 637

lii 7 2 261

liii 1 2 161
1 1 81
2 4 2 542
4 1 422
4 1 466
5 1 314
5 1 459
5 1 465
5 1 480
5 6 1 586
6 1 590
6 1 680
6 2 190
6 1 461
6 1 590
7 1 458
8 1 480
10 1 460
11 1 658
12 1 460

liv 7 8 1 401
13 1 494
13 1 80

lv 1 1 242
1 1 487
1 2 25
2 2 16
2 2 378
3 1 494
3 1 310
4 1 446
6 7 1 553

lvi 1 1 553
2 1 354
7 2 115
10 11 2 356
15 1 681

lviii 5 2 425
6 1 539
7 1 624
13 14 1 356

lix 1 2 1 673
15 16 2 7
17 1 665
20 1 553
20 1 554
21 1 79
21 2 225
21 1 91

lx 1 1 261
6 7 2 297
16 1 242

lxi 1 1 553
1 1 563
1 2 1 447
1-3 1 682
3 2 17

lxiii 10 1 132
16 2 107
16 2 121
17 1 554
17 1 280

lxiv 6 1 515
5-9 2 85

lxv 1 2 180
2 2 198
16 1 349
24 2 92
25 2 643

lxvi 1 2 124
1 2 116
2 1 681
22 1 403
23 1 356
24 2 218
24 1 203

JEREMIAH.

Chapter. Verse. Vol Page

i 6 2 341
9 10 2 341
23 1 281
25 1 212

ii 13 1 24
28 2 104

iii 1 2 12 2 245
1 1 293
1 2 1 345

iv 1 1 293
1 3 4 1 539
2 12 2 94
4 1 539
4 1 291
4 2 510
9 2 358
9 1 35

v 3 2 10
3 1 297
7 1 349
14 2 192

vi 13 2 356

vii 4 2 250
5-7 2 34
13 14 1 295
22 23 2 378
22 23 2 381
27 1 295
28 1 295
29 1 295

ix 23 24 1 684
24 1 130
24 1 96

x 2 1 186
8 1 102
11 1 141
23 1 189
24 25 1 593

xi 7 2 381
7 8 2 84
11 2 84
11 1 558
13 2 104
19 2 540

xii 16 1 345

xiv 7 2 85
14 2 356

xv 1 2 105

xvii 1 1 589
5 1 242
9 1 261
9 2 3
21 22 1 354
27 1 354

xviii 18 2 357
18 1 35

xxii 3 2 642
3 2 643

xxiii 5 6 1 310
6 1 125
6 1 658
16 2 362
28 2 341

xxiv 7 1 251

xxv 11 12 1 86
29 1 595

xxvii 5-9 2 659
12 2 659

xxix 7 2 659

xxxi 11 18 1 265
18 19 1 291
18 19 2 196
31 1 411
31-34 1 589
32 1 293
33 34 2 131
33 1 340
35 36 2 239

xxxii 16 2 96
18 1 345
23 1 295
39 1 270

xxxiii 8 2 131
16 1 125
16 1 658

xlii 2 9 2 94

xlviii 10 2 638

l 20 1 589

LAMENTA.

Chapter. Verse. Vol Page

iii 8 2 98
37 1 204
38 1 204

iv 20 1 309

EZEKIEL.

Chapter. Verse. Vol Page

i 20 2 621

ii 3 2 192

iii 17 2 341
17 18 2 265

vii 26 2 358
26 1 213

xi 19 1 270
19 20 1 273
19 20 1 288

xii 2 2 192
13 1 281

xiii 9 2 188
9 2 224

xiv 9 1 214
14 2 106
20 2 258

xvi 20 2 514

xvii 20 1 281

xviii 2 1 346
4 1 331
20 1 345
20 1 380
20 1 588
21 1 558
21 22 1 578
24 2 11
24-28 1 589
31 1 539

xx 12 1 354
12 1 355
43 44 1 684

xxii 8 1 354
25 26 2 356
28 2 356

xxiii 37 2 514
38 1 354

xxviii 10 1 401

xxix 3 4 1 208
18-20 2 657

xxxi 18 1 401

xxxiii 8 2 241
11 2 245
11 2 194

xxxiv 4 2 408
23-25 1 310

xxxvi 22 1 679
25 1 487
26 1 291
26 2 196
26 27 1 267
27 1 273
32 2 23

xxxvii 1-14 2 205
18 1 403
24 26 2 310

xlviii 21 22 2 647
35 1 125

DANIEL.

Chapter. Verse. Vol Page

ii 21 2 657
34 1 23
37 38 2 657

iv 17 2 657
27 1 591
27 1 598

v 18 19 2 658

vi 22 2 662

vii 10 1 157
10 1 155
25 2 335

viii 16 1 157

ix 5 1 570
18 2 94
18 19 2 84
20 2 85
21 1 157
24 1 447
24 1 453
26 1 314
27 2 258

x 13 20 1 156
13 21 1 157

xii 1 1 157
1 1 156
1 2 1 404
2 2 210
3 2 216

HOSEA.

Chapter. Verse. Vol Page

i 2 1 310

ii 2 1 345
18 19 2 241
19 23 2 7

iii 5 1 513
5 1 310
12 1 589

v 11 2 663
15 1 298

vi 1 1 536

vii 8 1 597

viii 4 1 217

ix 8 2 356

xii 5 1 126

xiii 11 1 590
12 1 589

xiv 2 1 590
2 2 112
4 2 8
4 2 599

JOEL.

Chapter. Verse. Vol Page

ii 12 1 550
12 1 291
13 2 424
13 1 549
15 2 423
28 2 589
28 1 447
28 1 486
28-32 1 137
32 2 224
32 2 223
32 2 92
32 1 130

iii 17 2 239

AMOS.

Chapter. Verse. Vol Page

i 2 1 341

iii 6 1 204
6 1 216

iv 7 2 160
9 1 190

v 14 1 293

vi 1 2 69

viii 11 2 160

ix 11 1 310

OBADIAH.

Chapter. Verse. Vol Page

i 17 2 223

JONAH.

Chapter. Verse. Vol Page

i 4 1 190

ii 9 2 112

iii 4 10 1 208
5 2 423
5 1 537

MICAH.

Chapter. Verse. Vol Page

ii 13 1 310

iii 6 2 358

v 2 1 443

vii 9 1 593
19 1 589

HABAKKUK.

Chapter. Verse. Vol Page

i 12 1 391

ii 4 2 12
12 1 391
18 1 102
18 1 69
20 1 341
20 1 69
20 1 97

iii 2 1 593
13 1 309

ZEPHANIAH.

Chapter. Verse. Vol Page
i 4 5 1 349

iii 11 12 1 681

HAGGAI.

Chapter. Verse. Vol Page

i 6-11 1 190
11-14 2 9

ZECHARIAH.

Chapter. Verse. Vol Page

i 3 2 196
3 1 191
3 1 292

ii 8 1 201
12 2 147

iii 9 10 1 687

ix 9 1 310
9 1 482
11 1 464

xii 4 2 357

xiii 9 2 91

xiv 9 1 115

MALACHI.

Chapter. Verse. Vol Page

i 2 3 2 148
6 1 516
6 1 340
11 2 588
11 2 598

ii 1-9 2 251
4-7 2 341
5-7 2 355
8 9 2 339

iii 1 1 126
1 1 159
17 2 66

iv 2 1 380
2 1 664
4 2 344
5 1 385
6 2 228

MATTHEW.

Chapter. Verse. Vol Page

i 1 1 429
5 1 454
16 1 434
21 1 434

iii 1-6 2 617
2 1 552
2 1 538
2 3 1 535
6 1 566
6 11 2 515
6 11 2 481
11 2 482
12 2 218
12 2 235
15 1 458
16 1 99
16 2 546
17 1 630
17 2 183
17 1 522

iv 4 2 131
6 1 158
7 2 435
10 1 114
11 1 156
17 1 535
19 2 521

v 3 5 7 2 44
4 1 636
10 1 634
12 2 216
12 2 51
12 14 2 96
13 14 2 261
13 14 2 295
13 14 2 342
16 2 32
17 18 1 325
19 1 379
22 1 363
22 1 334
23 24 1 572
25 1 608
28 1 334
34 1 351
38-40 2 653
39 40 2 652
44 1 625
44 2 653
44 45 1 377
45 2 96
45 2 214
46 1 377
48 2 198

vi 6 2 114
7 2 114
9 2 119
12 2 243
12 1 600
21 2 200
21 2 56
23 1 515
26 1 183

vii 6 2 566
7 2 91
11 2 121
12 1 375
15 2 362

viii 4 1 564
10 1 503
11 1 404
11 2 503
12 2 218
25 1 510
29 1 167

ix 2 1 503
2 2 86
2 1 597
2 1 574
5 2 262
6 1 128
12 1 422
13 2 7
13 1 553
13 1 682
15 2 424
15 1 550
29 1 583
29 1 534
34 1 557
35 1 382

x 5 6 1 416
8 1 129
18 1 565
20 2 609
28 2 210
28 1 173
29 1 183
29 1 189
29 30 1 201
30 1 184
33 2 246

xi 5 1 553
10 1 552
11 1 385
21 1 551
25 1 524
27 2 342
28 1 682
28 1 563
28 29 2 61
29 2 32

xii 24 1 557
29 1 161
31 1 556
31 1 132
31 32 1 555
31 32 1 556
32 1 607
43 1 166
43-45 1 162

xiii 3-23 2 461
4-7 2 565
9 2 176
11 2 193
16 1 381
16 1 411
24 2 235
25 28 1 163
29 2 419
31 33 2 630
47 2 521
47 2 235

xv 4-6 1 361
6 2 373
7-9 2 378
8 9 2 116
9 2 386
13 1 502
13 1 272
13 2 185
13 2 164
14 2 71
14 2 362
24 1 416

xvi 6 2 389
16 2 305
17 1 250
17 1 524
17 1 488
18 2 304
18 19 2 302
19 1 572
19 2 242
19 2 396
23 2 337
24 1 629
27 2 50
27 2 32

xvii 5 1 447
5 2 136
5 2 344
5 2 340
5 1 522
5 1 630
11 1 415

xviii 10 1 156
10 1 158
11 1 422
15 2 412
15-17 2 412
15-18 2 395
17 2 352
17 18 2 397
18 1 574
18 1 572
18 2 615
18 2 342
18 2 257
18 2 242
18 2 303
18 2 342
18 1 580
20 2 116
20 2 355
20 2 231

xix 11 1 364
11 2 449
12 1 365
13-15 2 449
15 2 271
16 2 444
17 2 60
17 1 129
17 1 142
18 19 1 374
20 2 445
21 2 444
25 26 1 318
29 2 216

xx 1 2 53
25 26 2 403
25 26 2 404
28 1 458

xxi 9 1 311
22 2 88
25 2 606

xxii 12 2 580
13 2 218
14 2 185
30 2 224
30 1 175
30 1 158
32 1 340
32 2 495
32-34 1 392
37-40 1 338

xxiii 3 2 388
4 2 366
8 10 2 345
8 2 340
9 2 122
12 1 681
23 1 374
37 2 197

xxiv 11 24 2 356
14 1 565
24 1 28
30 1 473
36 1 158
45 2 522

xxv 21 29 2 25
23 1 274
29 1 274
31 1 158
31 1 473
32 2 214
34 2 198
34 2 54
34 2 52
34-36 2 51
40 2 57
41 1 167
41 1 162

xxvi 3 4 1 35
11 2 553
10 12 2 212
26 28 2 526
26-28 2 544
27 2 364
28 1 479
28 1 409
39 1 468
52 2 211
53 1 157
69 2 246

xxvii 3 4 1 537
12 14 2 459
18 23 1 460
24 1 460
46 1 465
46 1 468
51 1 326
52 1 404
66 2 203

xxviii 3-6 2 203
5 1 156
11 2 203
18 2 26
19 2 480
19 2 264
19 2 492
19 20 2 345
19 20 2 516
19 20 2 342
20 1 33
20 2 348
20 2 560
20 2 231
20 1 471

MARK.

Chapter. Verse. Vol Page

i 4 1 552
15 1 552

ii 5 1 503

iii 15 1 129
28 29 1 555
29 1 132

vi 13 2 617

viii 38 2 246

ix 24 2 459
43 44 2 218

x 9 2 21
13-16 2 499
30 2 54

xi 21 1 160
24 2 88

xiii 32 1 437

xiv 22 24 2 526
22 24 3 544

xv 28 1 460

xvi 9 1 162
15 2 262
16 2 477
16 2 516
19 2 554
20 1 27

LUKE.

Chapter. Verse. Vol Page

i 6 2 41
15 2 509
19 26 1 157
32 1 442
34 2 552
35 1 440
43 1 439
54 1 388
72 1 388
72 1 423
74 2 31
75 2 31
77 1 673
79 1 423

ii 34 1 39
37 2 422
52 2 436

iii 3 1 552
3 2 481
3 2 617
14 2 646
16 1 487
16 1 489
23 2 517
38 1 426

iv 10 1 158
18 1 553
18 1 563

v 14 1 564
34 2 424
35 2 424

vi 23 2 51
24 25 2 69

vii 29 1 652
35 1 652
39 1 599

viii 5-15 2 461
30 1 162
47 1 591

ix 20 1 450
23 2 28
26 1 158

x 1 2 263
16 2 261
16 2 342
18 1 166
20 2 188
22 2 601
22 1 490
24 1 381
24 1 411
27 1 338
27 1 373
30 1 304

xi 2 2 119
21 1 166
21 1 161
39-41 1 599
46 2 366

xii 4 5 1 173
10 1 132
10 1 555
14 2 404

xiii 29 2 503

xiv 11 1 681
21 2 521

xv 7 1 156
10 1 158
11 2 122

xvi 2 1 649
9 2 56
15 1 652
15 1 677
16 1 326
16 1 410
16 1 414
22 1 156
22 1 158
22 1 173

xviii 3 4 1 625
5 2 459
9 2 15
10 2 23
10 2 14
14 1 564
20 21 1 450

xviii 11 2 114
13 1 682
13 1 577
14 1 597
14 1 653
14 1 681
15-17 2 499

xix 17 1 274
26 1 274

xx 37 38 2 495
37-40 1 392

xxi 15 2 268
28 1 644

xxii 10 2 572
17 2 592
17 2 578
19 2 264
19 20 2 526
19 20 2 544
20 2 530
25 2 403
25 26 2 639
25 26 2 404
26 2 403
43 1 156
44 1 636
62 1 597

xxiii 2 5 1 38
40 2 190
43 2 208
46 1 171

xxiv 11 2 203
16 2 559
26 2 57
26 1 482
27 1 94
31 2 559
39 2 558
39 1 437
44 1 609
45 1 525
46 1 423
46 47 1 552
47 1 423
51 2 554

JOHN.

Chapter. Verse. Vol Page

i 1 1 121
1 14 1 127
2 1 124
4 1 176
4 1 250
4 1 307
5 1 244
9 1 422
12 1 307
12 2 25
12 2 161
12 13 1 488
12 14 2 121
13 1 250
13 2 161
14 1 435
16 1 450
17 1 327
18 1 381
18 1 134
18 2 561
18 2 601
23 1 385
29 1 384
29 1 437
29 1 586
29 1 458
29 2 481
29 1 479
40-42 2 304
51 1 382
51 1 161

ii 19 1 439
19 2 210
24 1 502
25 1 502

iii 3 5 2 508
5 2 515
5 6 1 228
6 1 260
13 1 437
13 2 561
14 1 423
15 16 2 184
16 1 457
16 1 422
16 1 482
16 1 477
16 2 17
18 2 516
23 2 481
27 1 450
33 1 497
34 1 429
34 1 450
36 2 520

iv 1 2 481
14 1 487
22 1 69
22 1 75
22 1 307
23 2 377
23 2 116
24 1 144
25 2 345
25 1 446
35-38 2 522
42 1 493
50-53 1 493

v 8 2 626
17 1 436
17 1 123
17 1 187
18 1 128
21-23 1 437
22 1 475
24 1 308
24 2 26
24 2 184
24 2 199
25 2 6
25 1 305
25 1 422
26 2 532
28 29 2 205
28 29 2 210
29 2 50
32 1 134
35 1 385
36 1 129
46 1 381

vi 27 2 475
27 2 51
29 2 61
35 2 530
33 2 538
35-58 2 184
35 55-58 2 528
37 39 2 157
37 39 2 185
38 1 437
39 40 2 162
39 40 2 213
44 1 251
44 2 179
44 1 273
44 1 488
44 45 2 157
44 45 1 289
44 65 1 526
45 1 269
45 2 194
45 1 273
46 2 162
46 2 179
47 1 129
49 51 1 389
51 2 529
51 55 2 532
53 2 530
54 2 566
55 1 481
55-58 2 528
56 2 567
56 2 564
57 1 481
65 2 175
70 2 188

vii 16 2 342
16 1 351
18 1 27
37 1 487
37 1 486
37 38 2 607
37 39 1 471
39 2 548

viii 12 1 490
12 1 664
16 18 1 134
31 32 1 502
34 1 259
44 1 166
44 1 163
47 2 253
50 1 27
50 1 437
56 1 381
56 1 388
58 1 436

ix 3 1 195
5 1 437
7 2 618
24 1 350
31 2 87

x 4 5 2 162
4 5 14 2 252
9 11 1 437
11 2 630
15 18 1 458
17 18 1 423
18 1 351
26 2 162
27 2 252
27-29 2 185
28 29 2 26
29 2 162
30 1 351
35 2 523
35 2 636
37 1 129

xi 25 2 214
25 2 508
25 1 422
43 2 626
44 1 565

xii 27 1 423
27 1 468
27 28 1 469
31 1 166
31 1 161
37 38 2 193
39 40 2 193
41 1 140
41 1 127
43 1 659

xiii 15 2 32
18 2 158
18 2 188

xiv 1 1 129
1 1 311
2 3 2 553
6 1 490
6 2 508
7 1 529
10 1 437
10 11 1 135
13 2 99
16 1 134
16 17 2 348
17 1 488
26 2 345
26 2 351
28 2 553
28 1 146
30 1 165

xv 1 1 437
1 4 5 1 271
1 5 2 630
5 1 240
5 1 287
16 2 153
16 2 159
16 2 228
19 2 158
26 1 134
26 2 351

xvi 2 2 254
7 1 471
7 2 204
12 2 352
13 1 92
13 1 525
13 2 351
13 2 348
13 2 345
14 1 252
20 1 636
24 2 100
24 26 2 99

xvii 1 1 423
3 1 145
3 1 24
3 1 306
3 1 491
3 1 490
5 1 124
5 1 436
6 2 179
6 12 2 185
9 2 157
12 2 188
15 1 297
19 1 435
19 1 430
19 1 665
19 1 482
19 1 433

xviii 4 1 458
36 1 449
37 2 252
38 1 460

xix 30 2 587
30 2 596

xx 17 1 420
17 2 559
22 2 607
22 2 626
22 23 2 396
23 2 303
23 1 574
23 2 302
23 1 572
23 2 242
28 1 128
31 1 494

xxi 16 2 302
18 1 637

ACTS.

Chapter. Verse. Vol Page

i 3 9 2 204
8 2 268
9 2 554
10 1 156
11 2 551
11 1 473
11 2 557
23 2 269
23 2 270

ii 3 2 482
4 2 609
11 2 551
16-21 1 137
17 2 601
23 2 156
23 1 112
24 1 465
24 1 468
30 1 432
37 1 537
37 2 513
38 2 513
38 41 2 481
39 2 506
41 2 530
42 2 579
42 2 540
42 2 570

iii 6 1 129
15 1 476
18 1 212
19 1 553
21 2 557
25 1 404
25 1 429
25 2 506
26 1 553

iv 12 1 454
28 1 212
28 1 216
32 2 223

v 3 4 1 132
29 2 663
31 1 553
4 1 635

vi 1-3 2 267
2 2 404
6 2 272
10 1 556

vii 44 1 313
48 2 116
48 2 228
49 2 228
49 2 124
53 1 158
55 2 204
55 2 559
55 1 472
56 1 472
59 1 171
59 1 130

viii 13 18 1 499
14 15 2 305
14-17 2 606
14-17 2 482
16 2 609
16 2 480
16 17 2 523
17 31 1 523
19 1 499
22 2 246
26 2 523
37 2 459
37 2 513

ix 13 1 130
14 1 130
15 1 678
17 2 611
18 2 611

x 2 2 189
25 1 115
31 1 523
34 2 173
34 2 37
35 2 37
42 1 474
43 1 602
43 1 585
44 2 486
44-48 2 523
48 2 486

xi 2 2 305
18 1 554
26 2 522

xii 15 1 157

xiii 2 2 270
2 3 2 422
3 2 272
36 2 106
38 1 653
38 1 674
39 1 653
39 1 674
39 1 481
39 2 26
43 1 292
48 2 181

xiv 3 1 27
16 1 415
16 17 1 70
21 2 265
22 2 57
22 2 212
22 1 630
23 2 265
23 2 269
23 2 270
23 2 422

xv 6-29 2 305
8 1 404
9 2 456
9 2 10
10 2 384
11 1 605
28 2 380
29 2 380
29 2 384

xvi 3 2 71
6-10 2 160

xvii 2 1 46
6 1 38
24 2 124
27 1 59
27 1 65
27 1 70
28 1 177
28 1 183
28 1 187
28 1 60
29 1 99
30 31 1 539

xviii 18 2 624

xix 1-6 2 489
3-5 2 482
5 2 609

xx 10 2 618
17 2 265
17 28 2 266
20 2 264
20 21 2 242
20 31 2 412
21 1 535
21 1 537
21 2 264
26 2 275
26 2 412
28 1 658
28 1 603
28 1 437
28 2 291
28 1 603
29 2 357
30 2 357
31 2 264

xxii 16 2 486
18 2 559

xxiii 8 1 173
12 2 435

xxiv 5 1 38
15 2 215
16 2 75
16 2 368

xxvi 17 18 1 490

xxviii 15 2 311
25 1 132

ROMANS.

Chapter. Verse. Vol Page

i 1-3 1 387
1-4 1 442
3 1 432
3 1 429
4 2 621
4 1 469
4 1 485
5 1 497
5 1 495
5 1 319
5 16 17 1 519
14 1 15
16 1 384
16 1 39
16 17 1 319
17 1 670
19 1 70
20 1 70
20 1 51
21 1 69
22 1 54
28 1 213
28 1 214

ii 6 2 32
6 2 50
9 10 2 50
11 2 173
13 2 47
13 1 667
14 15 1 253
15 2 75
15 1 253
15 2 368
25-29 2 474

iii 9 19 1 567
10 1 669
10-18 1 261
11 2 3
19 1 684
19 1 320
19 1 387
20 1 671
20 1 290
20 1 319
21 1 387
21 1 384
21 1 670
21 24 1 671
23 2 17
24 2 26
24 1 653
24 1 590
24 1 665
24 1 590
24 25 1 458
24 25 1 480
25 1 461
25 2 479
25 1 665
26 1 685
26 1 652
26 1 683
27 1 666
28 1 671

iv 2 1 666
2 1 670
2 3 1 670
3 2 41
4 1 666
4 5 1 672
5 1 656
5 1 652
5 1 481
6-8 1 651
6-8 1 653
6-8 1 673
7 2 12
7 8 2 44
9 2 12
9-12 2 504
11 2 471
11 2 470
11 2 510
11 2 456
14 1 686
15 1 671
15 1 319
15 1 290
15 1 671
16 1 670
16 1 686
17 2 6
21 1 520
25 1 481
25 1 26
25 1 469

v 1 1 506
1 1 688
3 4 1 631
5 1 486
5 1 502
5 1 688
6 10 2 7
8 1 457
8 10 1 482
8-10 1 673
9 10 1 458
10 1 455
10 1 457
10 11 1 478
12 1 227
12 1 229
12 2 214
12 15 1 437
16 1 479
17-20 1 605
19 1 666
19 2 479
19 1 472
19 1 458
19 1 659
19 1 654
19 1 675
19 1 224
19 1 227
20 1 319
20 1 290
20 1 38

vi 1 14 1 38
3 2 2 480
4 2 516
4 2 512
4 2 507
4 1 356
4 1 616
4 5 1 462
4 5 1 470
4 6 2 31
4-6 2 608
4 11 2 480
5 6 1 541
6 1 543
12 1 545
12 13 2 66
13 2 211
14 2 66
15 1 38
18 2 31
19 21 2 190
23 1 379
23 1 380
23 1 588

vii 1 543
1 547
7 1 318
14 1 334
18 1 230
18 19 1 258
20 1 258
22 1 259
23 1 259
24 1 662
24 1 642

viii 1 1 585
3 1 586
3 1 434
3 1 429
3 1 423
3 1 318
3 1 523
3 1 461
3 2 41
3 4 1 674
6 7 1 260
6 7 1 231
7 1 541
9 1 13
9 11 1 529
9 11 1 486
9 11 2 536
10 1 227
10 1 514
10 1 487
11 2 202
11 2 211
11 16 1 13
14 16 1 529
15 1 440
15 1 413
15 1 486
15 2 621
15 16 2 178
15 26 2 77
17 1 420
19-23 2 201
20 1 225
22 1 225
23 2 54
24 1 532
24 1 53
24 2 199
26 2 81
26 27 2 119
28 2 29
29 2 57
29 1 489
29 1 487
29 1 286
29 1 432
29 1 616
29 1 630
29 2 29
29 30 2 178
30 2 51
30 2 185
32 2 184
32 1 24
32 1 482
32 1 442
33 1 652
33 1 662
34 1 652
34 1 101
34 1 470
34 1 473
34 1 474
35 1 688
35-39 2 185
36 1 644
37 2 19
38 1 662
38 1 506
38 1 530
38 39 2 29
39 1 518
39 1 662

ix 3 2 120
5 1 127
5 1 429
5 1 432
6 2 153
6-8 2 251
7 8 2 504
11 1 515
11 2 163
11-13 2 154
13 2 162
15 2 156
16 1 302
16 1 288
17 2 193
18 2 163
20 2 164
20 21 2 167
22 1 166
22 2 164
23 2 164
23 2 28
24 2 198
33 1 127
33 1 140

x 3 1 166
4 1 311
4 1 315
4 1 73
5 2 36
5 2 13
5 1 667
5 6 9 1 669
6 7 1 196
7 14 2 89
8 1 518
8 1 520
8 1 297
8 2 456
10 1 497
10 1 491
11 1 129
13 14 2 77
17 2 77
17 2 347
17 2 509
17 2 225

xi 2 2 156
4 2 223
5 6 2 141
6 2 7
8 1 213
10 1 512
17 1 485
17-23 2 185
29 2 405
32 1 320
32 2 174
32 2 198
33 1 140
33 1 196
34 1 196
34 2 176
34 2 600
34 1 525
35 2 6
35 2 153
35 2 174
36 1 340

xii 1 1 618
1 2 209
1 2 32
1 2 598
2 1 231
3 2 435
3 6 2 496
6 1 23
8 2 636
8 2 395
8 2 266
10 1 622
19 1 377
21 2 653

xiii 1 2 639
1 2 369
1 2 2 655
1 3 4 2 637
1 5 2 74
4 2 643
4 2 650
5 2 369
5 2 654
5 2 367
6 2 647
8 1 375
9 1 378
14 1 648

xiv 1 13 2 70
5 1 358
7 8 1 643
10 11 1 608
10 11 1 127
11 1 140
11 12 2 210
14 2 67
17 1 450
22 23 2 67
23 2 26
23 2 434
23 1 611
23 2 452
23 2 448
23 2 493

xv 1 2 2 71
8 1 523
8 2 506
12 1 129
20 1 165
25 2 310

xvi 7 2 264
20 1 165
25 1 384
26 1 384

1 CORINTH.

Chapter. Verse. Vol Page

i 9 1 606
11 2 236
11 12 2 246
12 13 2 446
13 1 603
20 1 252
21 1 306
23 24 2 194
26 2 173
29-31 1 684
30 1 664
30 1 553
30 1 461
30 1 447
30 1 268
30 2 25
30 2 30
30 1 256

ii 1 1 423
2 1 130
2 1 490
2 1 447
2 1 522
4 1 82
4 2 462
5 1 526
8 1 69
8 2 561
8 1 437
9 1 252
10 16 1 525
10 16 1 131
11 1 524
12 2 348
12 1 528
13 2 521
14 1 251
14 1 525
16 1 687

iii 2 2 72
3 1 287
3 2 236
4 2 246
7 2 462
7 1 288
7 9 2 229
8 2 51
9 1 303
10 11 2 25
11 2 305
12 1 609
16 1 131
16 17 2 31
19 1 64
21 23 1 29

iv 1 2 264
1 2 292
2 2 49
4 1 678
5 1 679
7 1 622
7 1 286
7 2 191
15 2 228

v 1 2 246
1 2 236
2 11 2 236
3 5 2 414
5 1 527
6 11 2 414
7 8 2 588
12 2 236
12 2 400
13 2 421

vi 1-8 2 653
7 2 236
9-11 1 581
9-11 2 190
11 2 8
11 1 485
13 2 608
13 2 441
13 14 2 211
15 2 533
15 2 211
15 20 2 209
19 2 31
19 1 131
19 20 2 211
20 1 480

vii 5 2 423
5 6 1 452
2 7 9 1 365
9 2 449
9 34 1 366
14 2 505
14 2 521
19 2 474
21 2 634
23 2 663
23 2 73
29-31 1 648
30 31 1 645
35 2 367

viii 4 7 2 385
5 6 1 128
5 6 1 452
6 1 438
9 2 385
9 2 71

ix 2 15
1 2 336
2 2 228
5 2 430
12 2 15
16 17 2 265
19 20 2 71
20 2 624
22 2 71

x 1-11 1 388
2 2 482
3 2 473
4 2 547
4 2 539
4 2 546
11 12 1 512
12 2 185
12 1 530
13 2 134
16 2 592
16 2 534
16 2 540
16 2 547
16 17 2 573
17 2 538
23 24 2 72
25 29 2 71
28 29 2 76
28 29 2 369
31 2 129
32 2 71

xi 5 2 391
7 1 176
16 2 393
20-22 2 391
23 2 570
23 2 584
23 25 2 544
24 25 2 519
26 2 572
26 2 540
26 2 519
27 2 566
27 29 2 574
28 2 575
28 2 519
28 29 2 237
29 2 519
29 2 567
31 1 551
32 1 595
32 1 633

xii 3 1 250
4 8 1 131
6 1 268
6 1 272
7 2 268
10-31 1 498
11 1 133
11 2 435
12 2 31
12 2 548
13 2 513
13 2 487
13 2 458
28 2 395
28 2 266
28 2 636

xiii 2 1 498
2 13 2 58
3 2 444
4-8 1 623
5 1 376
9 12 1 509
12 2 601
12 2 217

xiv 15 2 117
15 2 82
15 16 2 118
17 2 118
26 2 236
29 2 363
29 30 2 346
30 2 234
33 1 39
34 2 391
40 2 236
40 2 267
40 2 113
40 2 390
40 1 357

xv 1 471
3 1 458
3 17 1 26
6 36 2 204
8 2 559
10 1 275
10 2 229
12 2 211
12 2 236
13 2 202
13 2 201
13 14 1 431
14 17 1 470
19 2 54
19 1 644
22 2 508
22 1 227
23 2 203
24 1 146
24 28 1 451
24 28 1 438
28 1 356
28 2 127
39-41 2 213
41 42 2 630
45 1 176
45 1 486
45 47 1 426
46 2 521
47 1 430
47 1 434
47 2 551
50 2 508
51 1 474
51 52 2 213
53 2 213
54 2 209

xvi 7 1 207

2 CORINTH.

Chapter. Verse. Vol Page

i 1 1 291
3 2 122
6 1 605
12 2 49
18 2 584
20 2 99
20 1 522
20 1 382
21 1 527
22 1 487
23 1 173
23 1 350
24 2 346

ii 6 1 573
7 2 416
8 2 417
15 16 1 39
16 1 289

iii 5 1 256
5 1 267
5 1 259
6 1 411
6 1 488
6 2 261
6 2 228
6 8 2 462
6 8 1 93
7 1 319
14 1 524
14-16 1 504
17 1 315
17 1 240
18 1 176
18 1 541
18 1 510
18 1 178

iv 4 1 161
4 1 214
4 1 166
4 1 278
4 6 1 382
5 2 340
6 1 490
6 2 227
7 2 260
7 2 225
8-10 2 28
8 9 1 636
10 2 58
10 2 202
10 2 209
10 2 211
13 1 525

v 1 8 2 208
4 1 643
4 10 1 172
6 2 199
6 1 642
6 8 1 173
10 2 50
10 2 209
10 1 127
18 2 302
18 1 519
18 1 606
18 19 2 12
18-20 2 242
18 19 1 654
19 1 423
19 21 1 478
19 21 1 585
19 21 1 661
19 21 1 673
20 1 589
21 1 674
21 1 458
21 1 460
21 1 586
21 1 602
21 1 654
21 1 659

vi 1 2 229
8 1 635
16 1 131

vii 1 1 172
1 1 383
1 1 296
1 2 209
1 2 32
10 1 540
10 1 562
11 1 549
11 1 547

ix 6 2 57
7 2 32

x 4 2 405
4 5 2
5 6 2 400
6 2 302
8 2 340

xi 14 1 28

xii 1 1 154
7 2 567
7 1 165
7 9 1 564
8 9 1 136
9 1 276
21 2 246
21 1 552

xiii 4 1 469
4 1 430
5 1 529
10 2 340
14 1 486

GALATIANS.

Chapter. Verse. Vol Page

i 1 2 269
2 2 306
6 2 246
6 2 236

ii 3 2 71
3-5 2 72
8 2 229
9 2 310
11 14 2 412
16 2 35
17 1 39
20 1 619
20 2 631
21 1 480

iii 1 1 104
1 2 236
1 2 594
1 1 246
2 2 229
2 2 524
2 2 523
6 2 41
8 1 652
10 1 317
10 2 13
10 1 325
10 12 1 671
10-13 1 455
11 1 667
11 12 1 669
13 1 326
13 1 479
13 1 586
13 1 664
13 2 64
13 14 1 461
16 1 307
16 1 432
16 2 471
17 1 672
18 1 662
18 1 669
19 1 158
19 1 290
19 1 315
21 22 1 671
22 1 437
22 1 434
22 1 567
22 2 174
23-25 1 494
24 1 314
24 1 322
24 1 410
24 2 640
26 27 2 480
27 2 609
27 2 512
27 2 458
27 1 487
27 1 485
28 2 634
28 2 173

iv 2 250
1 1 410
1 2 2 377
1-3 1 417
4 1 415
4 1 428
4 1 429
4 1 433
4 1 664
4 1 668
4 2 648
4 5 1 326
4 5 1 458
4 5 1 481
5 6 1 440
6 1 500
6 1 688
6 2 122
8 1 56
8 1 114
9 2 246
9 2 374
9 2 608
10 11 1 358
11 2 236
14 1 375
14 1 406
22 1 413
26 2 221
30 2 52

v 1 2 634
1 2 373
1 4 2 73
1-4 2 64
1-18 2 372
5 1 533
5 2 37
6 1 672
13 2 71
14 1 375
17 1 317
19 2 483
19 2 4
19 2 229

vi 1 406
9 2 23
10 2 123
10 1 624
14 1 462
15 2 474
17 2 212
17 2 58

EPHESIANS.

Chapter. Verse. Vol Page

i 3-5 2 25
4 2 63
4 2 175
4 1 424
4 5 1 457
4 5 2 151
5 6 1 653
5-7 2 17
6 1 685
6 1 522
6 1 478
9 2 153
9 2 454
13 2 17
13 1 526
13 1 488
13 1 383
13 14 1 387
13 14 1 487
13 14 2 187
13 14 2 178
14 1 404
17 1 252
17 18 2 348
18 1 506
20-22 1 472
20 22 1 451
21 1 155
22 1 425
22 2 307
23 2 533
23 2 123
23 2 232
23 1 451

ii 1-3 2 189
2 1 166
2 1 161
2 1 278
3 1 232
3 1 227

iii 12 1 506
12 1 688
15 1 443
17 2 529
17 1 375
18 1 504
18 19 2 19
18 19 1 424

iv 2 3 2 421
4 2 223
4 5 2 308
4-16 2 260
5 1 132
5 2 253
5-7 11 2 308
7 1 486
7 1 451
8 1 127
8 1 473
10 1 471
10 2 308
10-13 2 225
11 2 262
11 13 2 350
11-16 2 221
14 2 350
15 1 487
15 1 484
15 16 1 429
15 16 2 307
15 16 2 533
17 18 1 230
17 18 1 261
18 2 189
20 1 617
20 21 1 494
22 1 260
23 1 619
23 24 1 541
23 1 260
23 1 230
24 1 176
25 28 2 190
27 1 165
30 1 292

v 2 1 453
2 1 481
6 1 517
8 2 189
8 2 31
14 1 305
23 2 307
25 2 660
25-27 2 238
26 2 477
26 1 543
26 2 513
26 27 2 349
27 2 232
28-32 2 630
30 1 487
30 1 420
30 32 1 428
30 32 2 533

vi 1 2 660
1 1 361
9 2 173
10 1 292
12 1 161
12 1 203
16 18 2 90
18 2 83
18 2 101
19 2 101

PHILIPPIANS.

Chapter. Verse. Vol Page

i 1 2 340
1 2 266
1 2 265
4 1 256
6 1 267
6 2 51
6 2 185
15 16 1 38
20 1 643
20 1 533
29 1 481
29 2 8

ii 2 5 2 253
4 1 622
6 1 128
6 7 1 143
7 2 551
7 8 1 430
7 8 1 458
8 2 472
8 10 1 438
9 1 482
9 10 1 416
9-11 1 451
10 1 608
10 1 143
11 1 512
12 2 51
12 1 296
13 1 665
13 1 259
13 1 275
13 1 272
13 1 267
17 1 495
20 2 311
21 2 311
21 1 38

iii 5 6 2 189
8 9 1 666
8-11 2 200
10 1 630
10 1 469
10 11 2 58
10 11 2 29
12-14 2 349
13 14 2 14
14 20 2 200
15 1 492
15 2 233
20 2 554
20 21 2 212
20 21 2 558
21 2 204
21 2 202

iv 5 6 2 125
6 2 113
11 12 2 69
12 1 649
18 2 598
56 2 125

COLOSSIANS.

Chapter. Verse. Vol Page

i 4 5 1 387
4 5 2 53
5 1 383
5 2 200
9 1 256
9 1 257
12 2 151
13 2 26
14 1 480
14 2 25
15 1 436
15 1 427
15 1 422
15 1 311
15-18 1 441
16 1 155
16 1 159
16 18 1 427
18 2 307
19 2 345
19 20 1 477
20 2 25
20 1 587
20 1 159
21 1 455
21 2 25
21 2 7
22 1 455
24 1 604
25 1 605
26 1 504
26 1 417
26 27 2 454
27 28 2 372
29 2 229

ii 2 1 504
3 1 423
3 1 447
3 1 503
3 1 664
3 1 410
3 2 601
3 2 345
3 8 2 372
4 8 2 388
8 2 373
8 2 374
9 1 655
10 1 426
10 2 307
11 12 2 502
11 12 2 480
11 17 2 474
12 2 211
12 2 512
13 14 1 327
14 1 480
14 15 1 461
16 17 1 356
16 17 1 358
17 1 408
17 1 326
17 2 472
18 23 2 388
19 1 446
20 2 376
20 2 608
21 2 376
22 2 608
22 2 375
23 2 372
23 2 374

iii 1 2 570
1 2 31
1 2 1 470
3 4 2 199
3 5 1 462
4 2 202
5 1 470
6 1 517
10 1 176
10 1 541
11 1 416
11 2 634
14 2 58
14 2 444
16 2 117
20 1 36
21 2 660
24 2 52
25 2 173

iv 17 2 265

v 19 1 94

1 THESSALON.

Chapter. Verse. Vol Page

i 5 2 229

ii 1 2 229
18 1 207
19 20 2 216

iii 12 1 290
13 2 50

iv 3 7 2 31
3 7 2 63
4 7 2 175
15 16 2 213
16 1 157
16 17 1 473
16 17 1 474

v 2 2 630
9 2 31
17 18 2 113
19 2 296
19 1 94
23 2 209

2 THESSALON.

Chapter. Verse. Vol Page

i 5-7 2 57
6 7 1 645
6 8 2 205
9 2 218
10 2 215
10 2 205
11 1 292
11 1 525

ii 3 2 358
3 4 2 258
4 2 356
4 7 2 335
8 2 127
9 1 28
9 11 1 164
10 11 1 28
10-12 1 214
11 12 1 281
13 1 488
14 1 387

iii 6 11 2 246
9 1 503
10 2 518
12 2 246
13 2 23
14 2 214
15 2 218

1 TIMOTHY.

Chapter. Verse. Vol Page

i 5 1 290
5 1 373
5 19 1 503
5 19 2 368
5 19 2 75
9 10 1 322
13 1 557
15 1 424
17 1 143

ii 1 2 2 655
1 2 2 637
1 5 2 101
4 2 195
5 2 99
5 1 420
5 6 1 480
6 1 461
6 1 590
8 2 604
8 2 209
8 2 124
8 2 115

iii 1 2 268
2 2 429
2 3 2 277
2-7 2 280
2-7 2 287
9 1 503
14 15 2 350
15 2 232
15 2 248
15 2 349
16 2 454
16 1 127

iv 1 2 358
1 3 2 364
1 3 2 429
1 6 1 503
5 2 67
5 2 112
6 1 494
6 1 382
8 2 130
8 1 383
10 1 635
10 1 24
13 1 92
14 2 272
14 2 626
16 1 382

v 9 2 451
9 2 266
10 2 266
12 2 450
14 2 451
17 2 359
17 2 395
20 2 412
21 1 158
21 1 164
21 2 167
22 2 268
22 2 270

vi 16 1 490
16 1 74
16 1 216
17-19 2 56
20 1 503
21 1 503

2 TIMOTHY.

Chapter. Verse. Vol Page

i 1 1 383
6 2 272
9 2 6
9 2 31
9 2 152
9 1 424
9 10 2 246
10 2 199
10 1 382
12 1 520
12 2 205
14 1 524

ii 10 1 604
11 12 2 29
13 1 55
13 2 121
19 1 34
19 2 222
19 2 230
19 2 156
20 2 28
25 2 196
25 1 554
26 1 165
26 1 554

iii 7 1 493
8 1 503
16 17 1 92
17 2 32

iv 1 1 474
8 2 55
8 2 205
14 2 216
16 2 311

TITUS.

Chapter. Verse. Vol Page

i 1 1 502
1 2 161
5 2 265
5 2 270
5 2 274
5 7 2 266
6 2 429
7 2 299
7 2 268
7 9 2 264
9 2 274
13 1 503
15 2 68
15 2 441
15 2 574

ii 11 2 246
11-13 2 31
11-14 1 621
12-13 2 199
13 1 644

iii 1 2 655
2 2 548
4 1 423
4 5 1 303
4 5 2 7
4-7 2 246
5 2 511
5 2 478
6 2 480
7 2 26
7 2 7
9 1 424

HEBREWS.

Chapter. Verse. Vol Page

i 1 2 2 344
1 2 2 601
1 2 1 446
1 2 3 1 381
2 3 1 122
3 1 251
3 1 128
3 1 188
4 1 158
6 1 159
6 10 1 140
6 10 1 127
10 1 145
14 2 105

ii 3 1 532
3 4 1 27
7 1 138
9 1 462
9 1 145
10 11 1 431
14 1 431
14 2 350
14 1 664
14 15 1 462
14 16 1 429
15 1 466
16 1 432
16 1 158
17 1 429

iii 14 1 506

iv 9 1 355
14 2 472
15 1 467
15 1 429
15 1 426
15 1 420
15 2 550
16 1 473
16 2 99
16 2 90

v 1 1 423
4 2 597
4 2 492
4 5 2 593
5 2 586
6 10 2 586
7 1 465
8 1 630

vi 4 1 500
4 1 555
4-6 1 555
4-6 1 557
10 2 57
13 1 350
16 1 350
16 1 353

vii 1 7 2 587
12 1 564
12 17 1 408
17 21 2 586
19 1 408
19 1 409
20 21 2 408
22 1 409
23 2 586
23 1 408
24 1 408
24 2 586
27 2 587

viii 5 1 313

ix 9 2 475
10-14 2 472
11 2 472
11 2 586
12 13 1 479
12 26 2 587
13 14 1 409
14 2 31
14 1 461
14 15 1 479
15 1 328
16 22 2 590
22 1 479
23 2 590
24 1 473
25 2 590
26 1 479
27 1 474
27 2 213
28 1 479
28 2 201

x 1 1 408
1 2 2 475
1-4 2 472
1 4 1 409
2 2 75
2 2 368
3-14 1 328
10 14 2 587
14 1 603
20 2 100
21 2 586
26 1 558
26 27 1 555
29 2 31
29 1 555
36 1 527
36 1 533
38 2 56

xi 1 1 530
1 2 199
2 2 66
3 1 58
3 1 70
3 1 182
6 2 6
6 2 125
6 1 667
7 1 519
9 1 396
13 2 31

xii 3 1 548
5-11 1 592
8 1 634
9 1 173
18 1 413
22 1 158
23 1 158
23 2 208

xiii 4 2 430
8 1 388
14 2 365
15 2 113
15 2 599
16 2 24
16 2 598
16 1 624
16 1 598
17 2 362
17 1 173

xiv 18 2 587

JAMES.

Chapter. Verse. Vol Page

i 5 6 2 89
12 2 44
13 14 2 135
15 1 545
17 1 252
17 1 123
21 2 552

ii 5 2 173
10 2 11
10 11 2 62
14 2 45
14 1 503
19 1 500
21-23 2 46
21 24 2 44

iv 3 2 84
6 1 242
8 1 549
11 12 2 371

v 12 1 352
13 2 83
14 15 2 617
15 2 89
16 1 566
16 1 571
16 2 110
17 18 2 108

1 PETER.

Chapter. Verse. Vol Page

i 2 2 156
2 2 8
2 1 485
3 5 1 469
5 2 53
5 21 1 533
7 1 632
9 2 54
8 9 2 200
9 22 1 173
10-12 1 381
11 1 122
11 1 135
12 1 159
12 1 411
15 2 31
16 1 615
18 19 1 480
18 19 2 73
20 2 601
21 1 490
21 1 469
22 1 297
23 2 509
23 2 228
23 1 578
23-25 1 390

ii 4 5 2 304
8 1 39
9 2 599
9 1 314
9 1 685
11 1 173
11 2 31
13 14 2 639
13 14 2 655
17 2 639
17 2 654
24 1 585
24 1 586
24 1 480
24 1 590
24 1 461
25 1 172

iii 7 2 660
18 1 430
19 1 464
21 2 478
21 2 75
21 2 512
21 2 474
21 2 456
21 2 368
21 2 478

iv 3 2 28
3 2 190
8 1 591
8 1 598
11 2 345
14 1 635
17 1 595

v 1 2 305
2 2 302
2 3 2 371
3 2 279
5 1 680
7 1 201
8 1 165
8 1 161
9 1 161

2 PETER.

Chapter. Verse. Vol Page

i 4 2 215
4 1 661
4 2 523
5 1 296
10 2 29
13 14 1 172
14 2 207
19 1 92

ii 1 2 356
4 1 164
4 1 167
19 1 240
22 1 38

iii 4 8 1 533
9 2 196
16 1 38

1 JOHN.

Chapter. Verse. Vol Page

i 1 1 437
1 1 443
1-4 2 531
7 1 602
7 2 472
7 1 479
9 1 570
9 2 86
10 2 132

ii 1 2 101
1 2 99
1 2 1 586
2 1 477
12 1 481
12 1 586
18 2 601
19 1 557
19 2 185
19 2 186
20 1 487
23 1 312

iii 1 2 121
2 2 215
2 1 661
2 1 504
2 2 601
2 1 383
8 2 32
8 1 39
8 9 2 28
9 1 297
9 1 274
10 2 31
10 1 166
15 1 363
16 1 437
20 1 577
22 2 84
22 2 87
24 2 26
24 1 488
24 1 529
24 2 180

iv 1 2 121
1 2 362
3 2 563
10 1 477
10 2 8
10 19 2 31
11 2 31
13 1 488
18 1 516
19 1 456

v 4 1 511
4 1 215
4 18 1 297
7 8 1 485
8 2 472
12 2 5
12 2 26
14 2 81
15 2 139
20 1 146
20 1 128

JUDE.

Chapter. Verse. Vol Page

6 1 164
6 1 166
9 1 167
9 1 157
20 2 82

REVELATIONS.

Chapter. Verse. Vol Page

i 5 2 472
6 1 453
6 2 599

v 13 1 608

vii 14 1 603
17 1 644

xiv 13 1 612

xix 10 1 114
10 1 159

xx 4 2 206

xxi 27 2 508

xxii 8 9 1 159
8 9 1 114
18 2 355
19 2 355

● Transcriber’s Notes:
○ Inconsistent spelling and hyphenation were made consistent only
when a predominant form was found in this book.
○ Text that was in italics is enclosed by underscores (_italics_).
○ Footnotes have been moved to follow the chapters in which they are
referenced.

*** End of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "Institutes of the Christian Religion, Vol. 2 of 2" ***

Home