diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'old/64392-0.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | old/64392-0.txt | 38721 |
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 38721 deletions
diff --git a/old/64392-0.txt b/old/64392-0.txt deleted file mode 100644 index 55bc42d..0000000 --- a/old/64392-0.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,38721 +0,0 @@ -The Project Gutenberg eBook of Institutes of the Christian Religion, Vol. 2 -of 2, by John Calvin - -This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and -most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions -whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms -of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at -www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you -will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before -using this eBook. - -Title: Institutes of the Christian Religion, Vol. 2 of 2 - -Author: John Calvin - -Translator: John Allen - -Release Date: January 26, 2021 [eBook #64392] - -Language: English - -Character set encoding: UTF-8 - -Produced by: Richard Hulse, Heather Clark, David King, and the Online - Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net. (This - file was produced from images generously made available by The - Internet Archive.) - -*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK INSTITUTES OF THE CHRISTIAN -RELIGION, VOL. 2 OF 2 *** - - - - - Institutes of the Christian Religion - - - - - INSTITUTES OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION. - - BY - - 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 not 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 - -BY - -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 THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK INSTITUTES OF THE CHRISTIAN -RELIGION, VOL. 2 OF 2 *** - -Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions will -be renamed. - -Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright -law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, -so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the -United States without permission and without paying copyright -royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part -of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm -concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, -and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following -the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use -of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for -copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very -easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation -of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project -Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away--you may -do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected -by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark -license, especially commercial redistribution. - -START: FULL LICENSE - -THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE -PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK - -To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free -distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work -(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full -Project Gutenberg-tm License available with this file or online at -www.gutenberg.org/license. - -Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works - -1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to -and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property -(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all -the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or -destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your -possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a -Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound -by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the -person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph -1.E.8. - -1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be -used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who -agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few -things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See -paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this -agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below. - -1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the -Foundation" or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection -of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual -works in the collection are in the public domain in the United -States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the -United States and you are located in the United States, we do not -claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, -displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as -all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope -that you will support the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting -free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm -works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the -Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with the work. You can easily -comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the -same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg-tm License when -you share it without charge with others. - -1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern -what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are -in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, -check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this -agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, -distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any -other Project Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no -representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any -country other than the United States. - -1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: - -1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other -immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear -prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work -on which the phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the -phrase "Project Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, -performed, viewed, copied or distributed: - - This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and - most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no - restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it - under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this - eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the - United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where - you are located before using this eBook. - -1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is -derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not -contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the -copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in -the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are -redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply -either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or -obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg-tm -trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted -with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution -must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any -additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms -will be linked to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works -posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the -beginning of this work. - -1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm -License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this -work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. - -1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this -electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without -prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with -active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project -Gutenberg-tm License. - -1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, -compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including -any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access -to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format -other than "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official -version posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm website -(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense -to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means -of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original "Plain -Vanilla ASCII" or other form. Any alternate format must include the -full Project Gutenberg-tm License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. - -1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, -performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works -unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing -access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -provided that: - -* You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from - the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method - you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed - to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he has - agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid - within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are - legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty - payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in - Section 4, "Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg - Literary Archive Foundation." - -* You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies - you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he - does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm - License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all - copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue - all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg-tm - works. - -* You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of - any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the - electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of - receipt of the work. - -* You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free - distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. - -1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work or group of works on different terms than -are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing -from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of -the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the Foundation as set -forth in Section 3 below. - -1.F. - -1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable -effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread -works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project -Gutenberg-tm collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may -contain "Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate -or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other -intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or -other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or -cannot be read by your equipment. - -1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right -of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project -Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all -liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal -fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT -LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE -PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE -TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE -LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR -INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH -DAMAGE. - -1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a -defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can -receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a -written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you -received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium -with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you -with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in -lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person -or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second -opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If -the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing -without further opportunities to fix the problem. - -1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth -in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS', WITH NO -OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT -LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. - -1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied -warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of -damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement -violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the -agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or -limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or -unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the -remaining provisions. - -1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the -trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone -providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in -accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the -production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, -including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of -the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this -or any Project Gutenberg-tm work, (b) alteration, modification, or -additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any -Defect you cause. - -Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm - -Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of -electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of -computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It -exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations -from people in all walks of life. - -Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the -assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's -goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will -remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure -and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future -generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see -Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at -www.gutenberg.org - -Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation - -The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit -501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the -state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal -Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification -number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by -U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. - -The Foundation's business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, -Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up -to date contact information can be found at the Foundation's website -and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact - -Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg -Literary Archive Foundation - -Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without -widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission of -increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be -freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest -array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations -($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt -status with the IRS. - -The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating -charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United -States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a -considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up -with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations -where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND -DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular -state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate - -While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we -have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition -against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who -approach us with offers to donate. - -International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make -any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from -outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. - -Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation -methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other -ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To -donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate - -Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works - -Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project -Gutenberg-tm concept of a library of electronic works that could be -freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and -distributed Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of -volunteer support. - -Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed -editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in -the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not -necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper -edition. - -Most people start at our website which has the main PG search -facility: www.gutenberg.org - -This website includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, -including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to -subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. |