{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_64392/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_64392","id":"gutenberg_64392","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/64392","summary":null,"tags":["Category: History - Early Modern (c. 1450-1750)","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Reformed Church -- Doctrines -- Early works to 1800","Theology, Doctrinal -- Early works to 1800"],"text":"Institutes of the Christian Religion\n\n\n\n\n                 INSTITUTES OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION.\n\n                                   BY\n\n                              JOHN CALVIN.\n\n\n         TRANSLATED FROM THE ORIGINAL LATIN, AND COLLATED WITH\n                  THE AUTHOR\u2019S LAST EDITION IN FRENCH,\n\n                             BY JOHN ALLEN.\n\n\n               Non tamen omnino potuit mors invida totum\n                Tollere Calvinum terris; \u00e6terna manebunt\n                Ingenii monumenta tui: et livoris iniqui\n             Languida paulatim cum flamma resederit, omnes\n                Religio qua pura nitet se fundet in oras\n                               Fama tui.\n\n                               BUCHANAN.\n\n\n             SIXTH AMERICAN EDITION, REVISED AND CORRECTED.\n\n                            IN TWO VOLUMES.\n\n                                VOL. II.\n\n\n                             PHILADELPHIA:\n                   PRESBYTERIAN BOARD OF PUBLICATION.\n\n\n\n\n                               BOOK III.\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER XIV.\n       THE COMMENCEMENT AND CONTINUAL PROGRESS OF JUSTIFICATION.\n\n\nFor the further elucidation of this subject, let us examine what kind of\nrighteousness can be found in men during the whole course of their\nlives. Let us divide them into four classes. For either they are\ndestitute of the knowledge of God, and immerged in idolatry; or, having\nbeen initiated by the sacraments, they lead impure lives, denying God in\ntheir actions, while they confess him with their lips, and belong to\nChrist only in name; or they are hypocrites, concealing the iniquity of\ntheir hearts with vain disguises; or, being regenerated by the Spirit of\nGod, they devote themselves to true holiness. In the first of these\nclasses, judged of according to their natural characters, from the crown\nof the head to the sole of the foot there will not be found a single\nspark of goodness; unless we mean to charge the Scripture with falsehood\nin these representations which it gives of all the sons of Adam\u2014that\n\u201cthe heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked;\u201d[1]\nthat \u201cevery imagination of man\u2019s heart is evil from his youth;\u201d[2] that\n\u201cthe thoughts of man are vanity; that there is no fear of God before his\neyes;\u201d[3] that \u201cthere is none that understandeth, none that seeketh\nafter God;\u201d[4] in a word, \u201cthat he is flesh,\u201d[5] a term expressive of\nall those works which are enumerated by Paul\u2014\u201cadultery, fornication,\nuncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance,\nemulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, murders,\u201d[6]\nand every impurity and abomination that can be conceived. This is the\ndignity, in the confidence of which they must glory. But if any among\nthem discover that integrity in their conduct which among men has some\nappearance of sanctity, yet, since we know that God regards not external\nsplendour, we must penetrate to the secret springs of these actions, if\nwe wish them to avail any thing to justification. We must narrowly\nexamine, I say, from what disposition of heart these works proceed.\nThough a most extensive field of observation is now before us, yet,\nsince the subject may be despatched in very few words, I shall be as\ncompendious as possible.\n\nII. In the first place, I do not deny, that whatever excellences appear\nin unbelievers, they are the gifts of God. I am not so at variance with\nthe common opinion of mankind, as to contend that there is no difference\nbetween the justice, moderation, and equity of Titus or Trajan, and the\nrage, intemperance, and cruelty of Caligula, or Nero, or Domitian;\nbetween the obscenities of Tiberius and the continence of Vespasian;\nand, not to dwell on particular virtues or vices, between the observance\nand the contempt of moral obligation and positive laws. For so great is\nthe difference between just and unjust, that it is visible even in the\nlifeless image of it. For what order will be left in the world, if these\nopposites be confounded together? Such a distinction as this, therefore,\nbetween virtuous and vicious actions, has not only been engraven by the\nLord in the heart of every man, but has also been frequently confirmed\nby his providential dispensations. We see how he confers many blessings\nof the present life on those who practise virtue among men. Not that\nthis external resemblance of virtue merits the least favour from him;\nbut he is pleased to discover his great esteem of true righteousness, by\nnot permitting that which is external and hypocritical to remain without\na temporal reward. Whence it follows, as we have just acknowledged, that\nthese virtues, whatever they may be, or rather images of virtues, are\nthe gifts of God; since there is nothing in any respect laudable which\ndoes not proceed from him.\n\nIII. Nevertheless the observation of Augustine is strictly true\u2014that all\nwho are strangers to the religion of the one true God, however they may\nbe esteemed worthy of admiration for their reputed virtue, not only\nmerit no reward, but are rather deserving of punishment, because they\ncontaminate the pure gifts of God with the pollution of their own\nhearts. For though they are instruments used by God for the preservation\nof human society, by the exercise of justice, continence, friendship,\ntemperance, fortitude, and prudence, yet they perform these good works\nof God very improperly; being restrained from the commission of evil,\nnot by a sincere attachment to true virtue, but either by mere ambition,\nor by self-love, or by some other irregular disposition. These actions,\ntherefore, being corrupted in their very source by the impurity of their\nhearts, are no more entitled to be classed among virtues, than those\nvices which commonly deceive mankind by their affinity and similitude to\nvirtues. Besides, when we remember that the end of what is right is\nalways to serve God, whatever is directed to any other end, can have no\nclaim to that appellation. Therefore, since they regard not the end\nprescribed by Divine wisdom, though an act performed by them be\nexternally and apparently good, yet, being directed to a wrong end, it\nbecomes sin. He concludes, therefore, that all the Fabricii, Scipios,\nand Catos, in all their celebrated actions, were guilty of sin, inasmuch\nas, being destitute of the light of faith, they did not direct those\nactions to that end to which they ought to have directed them; that\nconsequently they had no genuine righteousness; because moral duties are\nestimated not by external actions, but by the ends for which such\nactions are designed.\n\nIV. Besides, if there be any truth in the assertion of John, that \u201che\nthat hath not the Son of God, hath not life;\u201d[7] they who have no\ninterest in Christ, whatever be their characters, their actions, or\ntheir endeavours, are constantly advancing, through the whole course of\ntheir lives, towards destruction and the sentence of eternal death. On\nthis argument is founded the following observation of Augustine: \u201cOur\nreligion discriminates between the righteous and the unrighteous, not by\nthe law of works, but by that of faith, without which works apparently\ngood are perverted into sins.\u201d Wherefore the same writer, in another\nplace, strikingly compares the exertions of such men to a deviation in a\nrace from the prescribed course. For the more vigorously any one runs\nout of the way, he recedes so much the further from the goal, and\nbecomes so much the more unfortunate. Wherefore he contends, that it is\nbetter to halt in the way, than to run out of the way. Finally, it is\nevident that they are evil trees, since without a participation of\nChrist there is no sanctification. They may produce fruits fair and\nbeautiful to the eye, and even sweet to the taste, but never any that\nare good. Hence we clearly perceive that all the thoughts, meditations,\nand actions of man, antecedent to a reconciliation to God by faith, are\naccursed, and not only of no avail to justification, but certainly\ndeserving of condemnation. But why do we dispute concerning it as a\ndubious point, when it is already proved by the testimony of the\napostle, that \u201cwithout faith it is impossible to please God?\u201d[8]\n\nV. But the proof will be still clearer, if the grace of God be directly\nopposed to the natural condition of man. The Scripture invariably\nproclaims, that God finds nothing in men which can incite him to bless\nthem, but that he prevents them by his gratuitous goodness. For what can\na dead man do to recover life? But when God illuminates us with the\nknowledge of himself, he is said to raise us from death, and to make us\nnew creatures.[9] For under this character we find the Divine goodness\ntowards us frequently celebrated, especially by the apostle. \u201cGod,\u201d says\nhe, \u201cwho is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,\neven when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ,\u201d\n&c.[10] In another place, when, under the type of Abraham, he treats of\nthe general calling of believers, he says, It is \u201cGod, who quickeneth\nthe dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they\nwere.\u201d[11] If we are nothing, what can we do? Wherefore God forcibly\nrepresses this presumption, in the Book of Job, in the following words:\n\u201cWho hath prevented me, that I should repay him? Whatsoever is under the\nwhole heaven is mine.\u201d[12] Paul, explaining this passage, concludes from\nit, that we ought not to suppose we bring any thing to the Lord but\nignominious indigence and emptiness.[13] Wherefore, in the passage cited\nabove, in order to prove that we attain to the hope of salvation, not by\nworks, but solely by the grace of God, he alleges, that \u201cwe are his\nworkmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath\nbefore ordained that we should walk in them.\u201d[14] As though he would\nsay, Who of us can boast that he has influenced God by his\nrighteousness, since our first power to do well proceeds from\nregeneration? For, according to the constitution of our nature, oil\nmight be extracted from a stone sooner than we could perform a good\nwork. It is wonderful, indeed, that man, condemned to such ignominy,\ndares to pretend to have any thing left. Let us confess, therefore, with\nthat eminent servant of the Lord, that \u201cGod hath saved us, and called us\nwith a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his\nown purpose and grace;\u201d[15] and that \u201cthe kindness and love of God our\nSaviour towards man appeared,\u201d because \u201cnot by works of righteousness\nwhich we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us; that being\njustified by his grace, we should be made heirs of eternal life.\u201d[16] By\nthis confession we divest man of all righteousness, even to the smallest\nparticle, till through mere mercy he has been regenerated to the hope of\neternal life; for if a righteousness of works contributed any thing to\nour justification, we are not truly said to be \u201cjustified by grace.\u201d The\napostle, when he asserted justification to be by grace, had certainly\nnot forgotten his argument in another place, that \u201cif it be of works,\nthen it is no more grace.\u201d[17] And what else does our Lord intend, when\nhe declares, \u201cI am not come to call the righteous, but sinners?\u201d[18] If\nsinners only are admitted, why do we seek to enter by a counterfeit\nrighteousness?\n\nVI. The same thought frequently recurs to me, that I am in danger of\ninjuring the mercy of God, by labouring with so much anxiety in the\ndefence of this doctrine, as though it were doubtful or obscure. But\nsuch being our malignity, that, unless it be most powerfully subdued, it\nnever allows to God that which belongs to him, I am constrained to dwell\na little longer upon it. But as the Scripture is sufficiently\nperspicuous on this subject, I shall use its language in preference to\nmy own. Isaiah, after having described the universal ruin of mankind,\nproperly subjoins the method of recovery. \u201cThe Lord saw it, and it\ndispleased him that there was no judgment. And he saw that there was no\nman, and wondered that there was no intercessor: therefore his own arm\nbrought salvation unto him; and his righteousness it sustained him.\u201d[19]\nWhere are our righteousnesses, if it be true, as the prophet says, that\nno one assists the Lord in procuring his salvation? So another prophet\nintroduces the Lord speaking of the reconciliation of sinners to\nhimself, saying, \u201cI will betroth thee unto me for ever, in\nrighteousness, and in judgment, and in loving-kindness, and in mercies.\nI will have mercy upon her that had not obtained mercy.\u201d[20] If this\ncovenant, which is evidently our first union with God, depend on his\nmercy, there remains no foundation for our righteousness. And I should\nreally wish to be informed by those, who pretend that man advances to\nmeet God with some righteousness of works, whether there be any\nrighteousness at all, but that which is accepted by God. If it be\nmadness to entertain such a thought, what that is acceptable to God can\nproceed from his enemies, who, with all their actions, are the objects\nof his complete abhorrence? And that we are all the inveterate and\navowed enemies of our God, till we are justified and received into his\nfriendship, is an undeniable truth.[21] If justification be the\nprinciple from which love originates, what righteousnesses of works can\nprecede it? To destroy that pestilent arrogance, therefore, John\ncarefully apprizes us that \u201cwe did not first love him.\u201d[22] And the Lord\nhad by his prophet long before taught the same truth: \u201cI will love them\nfreely,\u201d saith he, \u201cfor mine anger is turned away.\u201d[23] If his love was\nspontaneously inclined towards us, it certainly is not excited by works.\nBut the ignorant mass of mankind have only this notion of it\u2014that no man\nhas merited that Christ should effect our redemption; but that towards\nobtaining the possession of redemption, we derive some assistance from\nour own works. But however we may have been redeemed by Christ, yet till\nwe are introduced into communion with him by the calling of the Father,\nwe are both heirs of darkness and death, and enemies to God. For Paul\nteaches, that we are not purified and washed from our pollutions by the\nblood of Christ, till the Spirit effects that purification within\nus.[24] This is the same that Peter intends, when he declares that the\n\u201csanctification of the Spirit\u201d is effectual \u201cunto obedience, and\nsprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ.\u201d[25] If we are sprinkled by the\nSpirit with the blood of Christ for purification, we must not imagine\nthat before this ablution we are in any other state than that of sinners\ndestitute of Christ. We may be certain, therefore, that the commencement\nof our salvation is, as it were, a resurrection from death to life;\nbecause, when \u201con the behalf of Christ it is given to us to believe on\nhim,\u201d[26] we then begin to experience a transition from death to life.\n\nVII. The same reasoning may be applied to the second and third classes\nof men in the division stated above. For the impurity of the conscience\nproves, that they are neither of them yet regenerated by the Spirit of\nGod; and their unregeneracy betrays also their want of faith: whence it\nappears, that they are not yet reconciled to God, or justified in his\nsight, since these blessings are only attained by faith. What can be\nperformed by sinners alienated from God, that is not execrable in his\nview? Yet all the impious, and especially hypocrites, are inflated with\nthis foolish confidence. Though they know that their heart is full of\nimpurity, yet if they perform any specious actions, they esteem them too\ngood to be despised by God. Hence that pernicious error, that though\nconvicted of a polluted and impious heart, they cannot be brought to\nconfess themselves destitute of righteousness; but while they\nacknowledge themselves to be unrighteous, because it cannot be denied,\nthey still arrogate to themselves some degree of righteousness. This\nvanity the Lord excellently refutes by the prophet. \u201cAsk now,\u201d saith he,\n\u201cthe priests, saying, If one bear holy flesh in the skirt of his\ngarment, and with his skirt do touch bread, or any meat, shall it be\nholy? And the priests answered and said, No. Then said Haggai, If one\nthat is unclean by a dead body touch any of these, shall it be unclean?\nAnd the priests answered and said, It shall be unclean. Then answered\nHaggai, and said, So is this people, and so is this nation before me,\nsaith the Lord; and so is every work of their hands; and that which they\noffer there is unclean.\u201d[27] I wish that this passage might either\nobtain full credit with us, or be deeply impressed on our memory. For\nthere is no one, however flagitious his whole life may be, who can\nsuffer himself to be persuaded of what the Lord here plainly declares.\nThe greatest sinner, as soon as he has performed two or three duties of\nthe law, doubts not but they are accepted of him for righteousness; but\nthe Lord positively denies that any sanctification is acquired by such\nactions, unless the heart be previously well purified; and not content\nwith this, he asserts that all the works of sinners are contaminated by\nthe impurity of their hearts. Let the name of righteousness, then, no\nlonger be given to these works which are condemned for their pollution\nby the lips of God. And by what a fine similitude does he demonstrate\nthis! For it might have been objected that what the Lord had enjoined\nwas inviolably holy. But he shows, on the contrary, that it is not to be\nwondered at, if those things which are sanctified by the law of the\nLord, are defiled by the pollution of the wicked; since an unclean hand\ncannot touch any thing that has been consecrated, without profaning it.\n\nVIII. He excellently pursues the same argument also in Isaiah: \u201cBring no\nmore vain oblations; incense is an abomination unto me; your new moons\nand your appointed feasts my soul hateth; they are a trouble unto me; I\nam weary to bear them. When ye spread forth your hands, I will hide mine\neyes from you; yea, when ye make many prayers, I will not hear: your\nhands are full of blood. Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of\nyour doings.\u201d[28] What is the reason that the Lord is so displeased at\nan obedience to his law? But, in fact, he here rejects nothing that\narises from the genuine observance of the law; the beginning of which,\nhe every where teaches, is an unfeigned fear of his name.[29] If that be\nwanting, all the oblations made to him are not merely trifles, but\nnauseous and abominable pollutions. Let hypocrites go now, and,\nretaining depravity concealed in their hearts, endeavour by their works\nto merit the favour of God. But by such means they will add provocation\nto provocation; for \u201cthe sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination to\nthe Lord; but the prayer of the upright\u201d alone \u201cis his delight.\u201d[30] We\nlay it down, therefore, as an undoubted truth, which ought to be well\nknown to such as are but moderately versed in the Scriptures, that even\nthe most splendid works of men not yet truly sanctified, are so far from\nrighteousness in the Divine view, that they are accounted sins. And\ntherefore they have strictly adhered to the truth, who have maintained\nthat the works of a man do not conciliate God\u2019s favour to his person;\nbut, on the contrary, that works are never acceptable to God, unless the\nperson who performs them has previously found favour in his sight. And\nthis order, to which the Scripture directs us, is religiously to be\nobserved. Moses relates, that \u201cThe Lord had respect unto Abel and to his\noffering.\u201d[31] Does he not plainly indicate that the Lord is propitious\nto men, before he regards their works? Wherefore the purification of the\nheart is a necessary prerequisite, in order that the works which we\nperform may be favourably received by God; for the declaration of\nJeremiah is always in force, that the \u201ceyes of the Lord are upon the\ntruth.\u201d[32] And the Holy Spirit has asserted by the mouth of Peter, that\nit is \u201cby faith\u201d alone that the \u201cheart\u201d is \u201cpurified,\u201d[33] which proves\nthat the first foundation is laid in a true and living faith.\n\nIX. Let us now examine what degree of righteousness is possessed by\nthose whom we have ranked in the fourth class. We admit, that when God,\nby the interposition of the righteousness of Christ, reconciles us to\nhimself, and having granted us the free remission of our sins, esteems\nus as righteous persons, to this mercy he adds also another blessing;\nfor he dwells in us by his Holy Spirit, by whose power our carnal\ndesires are daily more and more mortified, and we are sanctified, that\nis, consecrated to the Lord unto real purity of life, having our hearts\nmoulded to obey his law, so that it is our prevailing inclination to\nsubmit to his will, and to promote his glory alone by all possible\nmeans. But even while, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, we are\nwalking in the ways of the Lord,\u2014that we may not forget ourselves, and\nbe filled with pride, we feel such remains of imperfection, as afford us\nabundant cause for humility. The Scripture declares, that \u201cthere is not\na just man upon earth, that doeth good and sinneth not.\u201d[34] What kind\nof righteousness, then, will even believers obtain from their own works?\nIn the first place, I assert, that the best of their performances are\ntarnished and corrupted by some carnal impurity and debased by a mixture\nof some alloy. Let any holy servant of God select from his whole life\nthat which he shall conceive to have been the best of all his actions,\nand let him examine it with attention on every side; he will undoubtedly\ndiscover in it some taint of the corruption of the flesh; since our\nalacrity to good actions is never what it ought to be, but our course is\nretarded by great debility. Though we perceive that the blemishes which\ndeform the works of the saints, are not difficult to be discovered, yet\nsuppose we admit them to be very diminutive spots, will they not be at\nall offensive in the sight of God, in which even the stars are not pure?\nWe have now ascertained, that there is not a single action performed by\nthe saints, which, if judged according to its intrinsic merit, does not\njustly deserve to be rewarded with shame.\n\nX. In the next place, even though it were possible for us to perform any\nworks completely pure and perfect, yet one sin is sufficient to\nextinguish and annihilate all remembrance of antecedent righteousness,\nas is declared by the prophet.[35] With him James also agrees:\n\u201cWhosoever shall offend,\u201d says he, \u201cin one point, he is guilty of\nall.\u201d[36] Now, since this mortal life is never pure or free from sin,\nwhatever righteousness we might acquire being perpetually corrupted,\noverpowered, and destroyed by subsequent sins, it would neither be\nadmitted in the sight of God, nor be imputed to us for righteousness.\nLastly, in considering the righteousness of works, we should regard, not\nany action commanded in the law, but the commandment itself. Therefore,\nif we seek righteousness by the law, it is in vain for us to perform two\nor three works; a perpetual observance of the law is indispensably\nnecessary. Wherefore God does not impute to us for righteousness that\nremission of sins, of which we have spoken, once only, (as some\nfoolishly imagine,) in order that, having obtained pardon for our past\nlives, we may afterwards seek righteousness by the law; which would be\nonly sporting with us, and deluding us by a fallacious hope. For since\nperfection is unattainable by us, as long as we are in this mortal body,\nand the law denounces death and judgment on all whose works are not\ncompletely and universally righteous, it will always have matter of\naccusation and condemnation against us, unless it be prevented by the\nDivine mercy continually absolving us by a perpetual remission of our\nsins. Wherefore it will ever be true, as we asserted at the beginning,\nthat if we be judged according to our demerits, whatever be our designs\nor undertakings, we are nevertheless with all our endeavours and all our\npursuits, deserving of death and destruction.\n\nXI. We must strenuously insist on these two points\u2014first, that there\nnever was an action performed by a pious man, which, if examined by the\nscrutinizing eye of Divine justice, would not deserve condemnation; and\nsecondly, if any such thing be admitted, (though it cannot be the case\nwith any individual of mankind,) yet being corrupted and contaminated by\nthe sins, of which its performer is confessedly guilty, it loses every\nclaim to the Divine favour. And this is the principal hinge on which our\ncontroversy [with the Papists] turns. For concerning the beginning of\njustification, there is no dispute between us and the sounder schoolmen,\nbut we all agree, that a sinner being freely delivered from condemnation\nobtains righteousness, and that by the remission of his sins; only they,\nunder the term _justification_, comprehend that renovation in which we\nare renewed by the Spirit of God to an obedience to the law, and so they\ndescribe the righteousness of a regenerate man as consisting in\nthis\u2014that a man, after having been once reconciled to God through faith\nin Christ, is accounted righteous with God on account of his good works,\nthe merit of which is the cause of his acceptance. But the Lord, on the\ncontrary, declares, \u201cthat faith was reckoned to Abraham for\nrighteousness,\u201d[37] not during the time while he yet remained a\nworshipper of idols, but after he had been eminent during many years for\nthe sanctity of his life. Abraham, then, had for a long time worshipped\nGod from a pure heart, and performed all that obedience to the law,\nwhich a mortal man is capable of performing; yet, after all, his\nrighteousness consisted in faith. Whence we conclude, according to the\nargument of Paul, that it was not of works. So when the prophet says,\n\u201cThe just shall live by his faith,\u201d[38] he is not speaking of the\nimpious and profane, whom the Lord justifies by converting them to the\nfaith; but his address is directed to believers, and they are promised\nlife by faith. Paul also removes every doubt, when, in confirmation of\nthis sentiment, he adduces the following passage of David: \u201cBlessed are\nthey whose iniquities are forgiven.\u201d[39] But it is certain that David\nspake not of impious men, but of believers, whose characters resembled\nhis own; for he spoke from the experience of his own conscience.\nWherefore it is necessary for us, not to have this blessing for once\nonly, but to retain it as long as we live. Lastly, he asserts, that the\nmessage of a free reconciliation with God, is not only promulgated for a\nday or two, but is perpetual in the church.[40] Believers, therefore,\neven to the end of their lives, have no other righteousness than that\nwhich is there described. For the mediatorial office is perpetually\nsustained by Christ, by whom the Father is reconciled to us; and the\nefficacy of whose death is perpetually the same, consisting in ablution,\nsatisfaction, expiation, and perfect obedience, which covers all our\niniquities. And Paul does not tell the Ephesians that they are indebted\nto grace merely for the beginning of their salvation, but that they \u201care\nsaved by grace, not of works, lest any man should boast.\u201d[41]\n\nXII. The subterfuges, by which the schoolmen endeavour to evade these\narguments, are unavailing. They say, that the sufficiency of good works\nto justification arises not from their intrinsic merit, but from the\ngrace through which they are accepted. Secondly, because they are\nconstrained to acknowledge the righteousness of works to be always\nimperfect in the present state, they admit, that as long as we live we\nneed the remission of our sins, in order to supply the defects of our\nworks; but that our deficiencies are compensated by works of\nsupererogation. I reply, that what they denominate the grace through\nwhich our works are accepted, is no other than the free goodness of the\nFather, with which he embraces us in Christ, when he invests us with the\nrighteousness of Christ, and accepts it as ours, in order that, in\nconsequence of it, he may treat us as holy, pure, and righteous persons.\nFor the righteousness of Christ (which, being the only perfect\nrighteousness, is the only one that can bear the Divine scrutiny) must\nbe produced on our behalf, and judicially presented, as in the case of a\nsurety. Being furnished with this, we obtain by faith the perpetual\nremission of our sins. Our imperfections and impurities, being concealed\nby its purity, are not imputed to us, but are as it were buried, and\nprevented from appearing in the view of Divine justice, till the advent\nof that hour, when the old man being slain and utterly annihilated in\nus, the Divine goodness shall receive us into a blessed peace with the\nnew Adam, in that state to wait for the day of the Lord, when we shall\nreceive incorruptible bodies, and be translated to the glories of the\ncelestial kingdom.\n\nXIII. If these things are true, surely no works of ours can render us\nacceptable to God; nor can the actions themselves be pleasing to him,\nany otherwise than as a man, who is covered with the righteousness of\nChrist, pleases God and obtains the remission of his sins. For God has\nnot promised eternal life as a reward of certain works; he only\ndeclares, that \u201che that doeth these things shall live,\u201d[42] denouncing,\non the contrary, that memorable curse against all who continue not in\nthe observance of every one of his commands.[43] This abundantly refutes\nthe erroneous notion of a partial righteousness, since no other\nrighteousness is admitted into heaven but an entire observance of the\nlaw. Nor is there any more solidity in their pretence of a sufficient\ncompensation for imperfections by works of supererogation. For are they\nnot by this perpetually recurring to the subterfuge, from which they\nhave already been driven, that the partial observance of the law\nconstitutes, as far as it goes, a righteousness of works? They\nunblushingly assume as granted, what no man of sound judgment will\nconcede. The Lord frequently declares, that he acknowledges no\nrighteousness of works, except in a perfect obedience to his law. What\npresumption is it for us, who are destitute of this, in order that we\nmay not appear to be despoiled of all our glory, or, in other words, to\nsubmit entirely to the Lord\u2014what presumption is it for us to boast of I\nknow not what fragments of a few actions, and to endeavour to supply\ndeficiencies by other satisfactions! _Satisfactions_ have already been\nso completely demolished, that they ought not to occupy even a transient\nthought. I only remark, that those who trifle in this manner, do not\nconsider what an execrable thing sin is in the sight of God; for indeed\nthey ought to know, that all the righteousness of all mankind,\naccumulated in one mass, is insufficient to compensate for a single sin.\nWe see that man on account of one offence was rejected and abandoned by\nGod, so that he lost all means of regaining salvation.[44] They are\ndeprived, therefore, of the power of satisfaction, with which, however\nthey flatter themselves, they will certainly never be able to render a\nsatisfaction to God, to whom nothing will be pleasing or acceptable that\nproceeds from his enemies. Now, his enemies are all those to whom he\ndetermines to impute sin. Our sins, therefore, must be covered and\nforgiven, before the Lord can regard any of our works. Whence it follows\nthat the remission of sins is absolutely gratuitous, and that it is\nwickedly blasphemed by those who obtrude any _satisfactions_. Let us,\ntherefore, after the example of the apostle, \u201cforgetting those things\nwhich are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before,\npress toward the mark for the prize of our high calling.\u201d[45]\n\nXIV. But how is the pretence of works of supererogation consistent with\nthis injunction\u2014\u201cWhen ye shall have done all those things which are\ncommanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants; we have done that\nwhich was our duty to do?\u201d[46] This direction does not inculcate an act\nof simulation or falsehood, but a decision in our mind respecting that\nof which we are certain. The Lord, therefore, commands us sincerely to\nthink and consider with ourselves, that our services to him are none of\nthem gratuitous, but merely the performance of indispensable duties; and\nthat justly; for we are servants under such numerous obligations as we\ncould never discharge; even though all our thoughts and all our members\nwere devoted to the duties of the law. In saying, therefore, \u201cWhen ye\nshall have done all those things which are commanded,\u201d he supposes a\ncase of one man having attained to a degree of righteousness beyond what\nis attained by all the men in the world. How, then, while every one of\nus is at the greatest distance from this point, can we presume to glory\nthat we have completely attained to that perfect standard? Nor can any\none reasonably object, that there is nothing to prevent his efforts from\ngoing beyond his necessary obligations, who in any respect fails of\ndoing the duty incumbent on him. For we must acknowledge, that we cannot\nimagine any thing pertaining either to the service of God or to the love\nof our neighbour, which is not comprehended in the Divine law. But if it\nis a part of the law, let us not boast of voluntary liberality, where we\nare bound by necessity.\n\nXV. It is irrelevant to this subject, to allege the boasting of\nPaul,[47] that among the Corinthians he voluntarily receded from what,\nif he had chosen, he might have claimed as his right, and not only did\nwhat was incumbent on him to do, but afforded them his gratuitous\nservices beyond the requisitions of duty. They ought to attend to the\nreason there assigned, that he acted thus, \u201clest he should hinder the\ngospel of Christ.\u201d[48] For wicked and fraudulent teachers recommended\nthemselves by this stratagem of liberality, by which they endeavoured,\nboth to conciliate a favourable reception to their own pernicious\ndogmas, and to fix an odium on the gospel; so that Paul was necessitated\neither to endanger the doctrine of Christ, or to oppose these artifices.\nNow, if it be a matter of indifference to a Christian to incur an\noffence when he may avoid it, I confess that the apostle performed for\nthe Lord a work of supererogation; but if this was justly required of a\nprudent minister of the gospel, I maintain that he did what was his duty\nto do. Even if no such reason appeared, yet the observation of\nChrysostom is always true\u2014that all that we have is on the same tenure as\nthe possessions of slaves, which the law pronounces to be the property\nof their masters. And Christ has clearly delivered the same truth in the\nparable, where he inquires whether we thank a servant, when he returns\nhome in the evening, after the various labours of the day.[49] But it is\npossible that he may have laboured with greater diligence than we had\nventured to require. This may be granted; yet he has done no more than,\nby the condition of servitude, he was under an obligation to do; since\nhe belongs to us, with all the ability he has. I say nothing of the\nnature of the supererogations which these men wish to boast of before\nGod; for they are contemptible trifles, which he has never commanded,\nwhich he does not approve, nor, when they render up their account to\nhim, will he accept them. We cannot admit that there are any works of\nsupererogation, except such as those of which it is said by the prophet,\n\u201cWho hath required this at your hand?\u201d[50] But let them remember the\nlanguage of another passage respecting these things: \u201cWherefore do ye\nspend money for that which is not bread? and your labour for that which\nsatisfieth not?\u201d[51] It is easy, indeed, for these idle doctors to\ndispute concerning these things in easy chairs; but when the Judge of\nall shall ascend the judgment seat, all such empty notions must vanish\naway. The object of our inquiries ought to be, what plea we may bring\nforward with confidence at his tribunal, not what we can invent in\nschools and cloisters.\n\nXVI. On this subject our minds require to be guarded chiefly against two\npernicious principles\u2014That we place no confidence in the righteousness\nof our works, and that we ascribe no glory to them. The Scriptures every\nwhere drive us from all confidence, when they declare that all our\nrighteousnesses are odious in the Divine view, unless they are perfumed\nwith the holiness of Christ; and that they can only excite the vengeance\nof God, unless they are supported by his merciful pardon. Thus they\nleave us nothing to do, but to deprecate the wrath of our Judge with the\nconfession of David, \u201cEnter not into judgment with thy servant; for in\nthy sight shall no man living be justified.\u201d[52] And where Job says, \u201cIf\nI be wicked, woe unto me; and if I be righteous, yet will I not lift up\nmy head;\u201d[53] though he refers to that consummate righteousness of God,\ncompared to which even the angels are deficient, yet he at the same time\nshows, that when God comes to judgment, all men must be dumb. For he not\nonly means that he would rather freely recede, than incur the danger of\ncontending with the rigour of God, but signifies that he experiences in\nhimself no other righteousness than what would instantaneously vanish\nbefore the Divine presence. When confidence is destroyed, all boasting\nmust of necessity be relinquished. For who can give the praise of\nrighteousness to his works, in which he is afraid to confide in the\npresence of God? We must therefore have recourse to the Lord, in whom we\nare assured, by Isaiah, that \u201call the seed of Israel shall be justified,\nand shall glory;\u201d[54] for it is strictly true, as he says in another\nplace, that we are \u201cthe planting of the Lord, that he might be\nglorified.\u201d[55] Our minds therefore will then be properly purified, when\nthey shall in no degree confide nor glory in our works. But foolish men\nare led into such a false and delusive confidence, by the error of\nalways considering their works as the cause of their salvation.\n\nXVII. But if we advert to the four kinds of causes, which the\nphilosophers direct us to consider in the production of effects, we\nshall find none of them consistent with works in the accomplishment of\nour salvation. For the Scripture every where proclaims, that the\nefficient cause of eternal life being procured for us, was the mercy of\nour heavenly Father, and his gratuitous love towards us; that the\nmaterial cause is Christ and his obedience, by which he obtained a\nrighteousness for us; and what shall we denominate the formal and\ninstrumental cause, unless it be faith? These three John comprehends in\none sentence, when he says, that \u201cGod so loved the world that he gave\nhis only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not\nperish, but have everlasting life.\u201d[56] The final cause the apostle\ndeclares to be, both the demonstration of the Divine righteousness and\nthe praise of the Divine goodness, in a passage in which he also\nexpressly mentions the other three causes. For this is his language to\nthe Romans: \u201cAll have sinned, and come short of the glory of God, being\njustified freely by his grace:\u201d[57] here we have the original source of\nour salvation, which is the gratuitous mercy of God towards us. It\nfollows, \u201cthrough the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:\u201d here we have\nthe matter of our justification. \u201cThrough faith in his blood:\u201d here he\npoints out the instrumental cause, by which the righteousness of Christ\nis revealed to us. Lastly, he subjoins the end of all, when he says, \u201cTo\ndeclare his righteousness; that he might be just, and the justifier of\nhim which believeth in Jesus.\u201d And to suggest, by the way, that this\nrighteousness consists in reconciliation or propitiation, he expressly\nasserts that Christ was \u201cset forth to be a propitiation.\u201d So also in the\nfirst chapter to the Ephesians, he teaches that we are received into the\nfavour of God through his mere mercy; that it is accomplished by the\nmediation of Christ; that it is apprehended by faith; and that the end\nof all is, that the glory of the Divine goodness may be fully\ndisplayed.[58] When we see that every part of our salvation is\naccomplished without us, what reason have we to confide or to glory in\nour works? Nor can even the most inveterate enemies of Divine grace\nraise any controversy with us concerning the efficient or the final\ncause, unless they mean altogether to renounce the authority of the\nScripture. Over the material and formal causes they superinduce a false\ncolouring; as if our own works were to share the honour of them with\nfaith and the righteousness of Christ. But this also is contradicted by\nthe Scripture, which affirms that Christ is the sole author of our\nrighteousness and life, and that this blessing of righteousness is\nenjoyed by faith alone.\n\nXVIII. The saints often confirm and console themselves with the\nremembrance of their own innocence and integrity, and sometimes even\nrefrain not from proclaiming it. Now, this is done for two reasons;\neither that, in comparing their good cause with the bad cause of the\nimpious, they derive from such comparison an assurance of victory, not\nso much by the commendation of their own righteousness, as by the just\nand merited condemnation of their adversaries; or that, even without any\ncomparison with others, while they examine themselves before God, the\npurity of their consciences affords them some consolation and\nconfidence. To the former of these reasons we shall advert hereafter;\nlet us now briefly examine the consistency of the latter with what we\nhave before asserted, that in the sight of God we ought to place no\nreliance on the merit of works, nor glory on account of them. The\nconsistency appears in this\u2014that for the foundation and accomplishment\nof their salvation, the saints look to the Divine goodness alone,\nwithout any regard to works. And they not only apply themselves to it\nabove all things, as the commencement of their happiness, but likewise\ndepend upon it as the consummation of their felicity. A conscience thus\nfounded, built up, and established, is also confirmed by the\nconsideration of works; that is, as far as they are evidences of God\ndwelling and reigning in us. Now, this confidence of works being found\nin none but those who have previously cast all the confidence of their\nsouls on the mercy of God, it ought not to be thought contrary to that\nupon which it depends. Wherefore, when we exclude the confidence of\nworks, we only mean that the mind of a Christian should not be directed\nto any merit of works as a mean of salvation; but should altogether rely\non the gratuitous promise of righteousness. We do not forbid him to\nsupport and confirm this faith by marks of the Divine benevolence to\nhim. For if, when we call to remembrance the various gifts which God has\nconferred on us, they are all as so many rays from the Divine\ncountenance, by which we are illuminated to contemplate the full blaze\nof supreme goodness,\u2014much more the grace of good works, which\ndemonstrates that we have received the Spirit of adoption.\n\nXIX. When the saints, therefore, confirm their faith, or derive matter\nof rejoicing from the integrity of their consciences, they only\nconclude, from the fruits of vocation, that they have been adopted by\nthe Lord as his children. The declaration of Solomon, that \u201cIn the fear\nof the Lord is strong confidence;\u201d[59] and the protestation sometimes\nused by the saints to obtain a favourable audience from the Lord, that\n\u201cthey have walked before\u201d him \u201cin truth and with a perfect heart;\u201d[60]\nthese things have no concern in laying the foundation for establishing\nthe conscience; nor are they of any value, except as they are\nconsequences of the Divine vocation. For there nowhere exists that fear\nof God which can establish a full assurance, and the saints are\nconscious that their integrity is yet accompanied with many relics of\ncorruption. But as the fruits of regeneration evince that the Holy\nSpirit dwells in them, this affords them ample encouragement to expect\nthe assistance of God in all their necessities, because they experience\nhim to be their Father in an affair of such vast importance. And even\nthis they cannot attain, unless they have first apprehended the Divine\ngoodness, confirmed by no other assurance but that of the promise. For\nif they begin to estimate it by their good works, nothing will be weaker\nor more uncertain; for, if their works be estimated in themselves, their\nimperfection will menace them with the wrath of God, as much as their\npurity, however incomplete, testifies his benevolence. In a word, they\ndeclare the benefits of God, but in such a way as not to turn away from\nhis gratuitous favour, in which Paul assures us there is \u201clength, and\nbreadth, and depth, and height;\u201d as though he had said, Which way soever\nthe pious turn their views, how high soever they ascend, how widely\nsoever they expatiate, yet they ought not to go beyond the love of\nChrist, but employ themselves wholly in meditating on it, because it\ncomprehends in itself all dimensions. Therefore he says that it \u201cpasseth\nknowledge,\u201d and that when we know how much Christ has loved us, we are\n\u201cfilled with all the fulness of God.\u201d[61] So also in another place, when\nhe glories that believers are victorious in every conflict, he\nimmediately adds, as the reason of it, \u201cthrough him that loved us.\u201d[62]\n\nXX. We see now, that the confidence which the saints have in their works\nis not such as either ascribes any thing to the merit of them, (since\nthey view them only as the gifts of God, in which they acknowledge his\ngoodness, and as marks of their calling, whence they infer their\nelection,) or derogates the least from the gratuitous righteousness\nwhich we obtain in Christ; since it depends upon it, and cannot subsist\nwithout it. This is concisely and beautifully represented by Augustine,\nwhen he says, \u201cI do not say to the Lord, Despise not the works of my\nhands. I have sought the Lord with my hands, and I have not been\ndeceived. But I commend not the works of my hands; for I fear that when\nthou hast examined them, thou wilt find more sin than merit. This only I\nsay, this I ask, this I desire; Despise not the works of thy hands.\nBehold in me thy work, not mine. For if thou beholdest mine, thou\ncondemnest me; if thou beholdest thine own, thou crownest me. Because\nwhatever good works I have, they are from thee.\u201d He assigns two reasons\nwhy he ventured not to boast of his works to God; first, that if he has\nany good ones, he sees nothing of his own in them; secondly, that even\nthese are buried under a multitude of sins. Hence the conscience\nexperiences more fear and consternation than security. Therefore he\ndesires God to behold his best performances, only that he may recognize\nin them the grace of his own calling, and perfect the work which he has\nbegun.\n\nXXI. The remaining objection is, that the Scripture represents the good\nworks of believers as the causes for which the Lord blesses them. But\nthis must be understood so as not to affect what we have before proved,\nthat the efficient cause of our salvation is the love of God the Father;\nthe material cause, the obedience of the Son; the instrumental cause,\nthe illumination of the Spirit, that is, faith; and the final cause, the\nglory of the infinite goodness of God. No obstacle arises from these\nthings to prevent good works being considered by the Lord as inferior\ncauses. But how does this happen? Because those whom his mercy has\ndestined to the inheritance of eternal life, he, in his ordinary\ndispensations, introduces to the possession of it by good works. That\nwhich, in the order of his dispensations, precedes, he denominates the\ncause of that which follows. For this reason he sometimes deduces\neternal life from works; not that the acceptance of it is to be referred\nto them; but because he justifies the objects of his election, that he\nmay finally glorify them; he makes the former favour, which is a step to\nthe succeeding one, in some sense the cause of it. But whenever the true\ncause is to be assigned, he does not direct us to take refuge in works,\nbut confines our thoughts entirely to his mercy. For what does he teach\nus by the apostle? \u201cThe wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is\neternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.\u201d Why does he not oppose\nrighteousness to sin, as well as life to death? Why does he not make\nrighteousness the cause of life, as well as sin the cause of death? For\nthen the antithesis would have been complete, whereas by this variation\nit is partly destroyed. But the apostle intended by this comparison to\nexpress a certain truth\u2014that death is due to the demerits of men, and\nthat life proceeds solely from the mercy of God. Lastly, these phrases\ndenote rather the order of the Divine gifts, than the cause of them. In\nthe accumulation of graces upon graces, God derives from the former a\nreason for adding the next, that he may not omit any thing necessary to\nthe enrichment of his servants. And while he thus pursues his\nliberality, he would have us always to remember his gratuitous election,\nwhich is the source and original of all. For although he loves the gifts\nwhich he daily confers, as emanations from that fountain, yet it is our\nduty to adhere to that gratuitous acceptance, which alone can support\nour souls, and to connect the gifts of his Spirit, which he afterwards\nbestows on us, with the first cause, in such a manner as will not be\nderogatory to it.\n\nFootnote 1:\n\n  Jer. xvii. 9.\n\nFootnote 2:\n\n  Gen. vi. 5; viii. 21.\n\nFootnote 3:\n\n  Psalm xciv. 11; xxxvi. 1.\n\nFootnote 4:\n\n  Psalm xiv. 1-3. Rom. iii. 11.\n\nFootnote 5:\n\n  Gen. vi. 3.\n\nFootnote 6:\n\n  Gal. v. 19, &c.\n\nFootnote 7:\n\n  1 John v. 12.\n\nFootnote 8:\n\n  Heb. xi. 6.\n\nFootnote 9:\n\n  John v. 25.\n\nFootnote 10:\n\n  Eph. ii. 4, 5.\n\nFootnote 11:\n\n  Rom. iv. 17.\n\nFootnote 12:\n\n  Job xli. 11.\n\nFootnote 13:\n\n  Rom. xi. 35.\n\nFootnote 14:\n\n  Ephes. ii. 10.\n\nFootnote 15:\n\n  2 Tim. i. 9.\n\nFootnote 16:\n\n  Titus iii. 4, 5, 7.\n\nFootnote 17:\n\n  Rom. xi. 6.\n\nFootnote 18:\n\n  Matt. ix. 13.\n\nFootnote 19:\n\n  Isaiah lix. 15, 16.\n\nFootnote 20:\n\n  Hosea ii. 19, 23.\n\nFootnote 21:\n\n  Rom. v. 6, 10. Col. i. 21.\n\nFootnote 22:\n\n  1 John iv. 10.\n\nFootnote 23:\n\n  Hosea xiv. 4.\n\nFootnote 24:\n\n  1 Cor. vi. 11.\n\nFootnote 25:\n\n  1 Peter i. 2.\n\nFootnote 26:\n\n  Phil. i. 29.\n\nFootnote 27:\n\n  Hag. ii. 11-14.\n\nFootnote 28:\n\n  Isaiah i. 13-16.\n\nFootnote 29:\n\n  Deut. iv. 6. Psalm cxi. 10. Prov. i. 7; ix. 10.\n\nFootnote 30:\n\n  Prov. xv. 8.\n\nFootnote 31:\n\n  Gen. iv. 4.\n\nFootnote 32:\n\n  Jer. v. 3.\n\nFootnote 33:\n\n  Acts xv. 9.\n\nFootnote 34:\n\n  Eccles. vii. 20.\n\nFootnote 35:\n\n  Ezek. xviii. 24.\n\nFootnote 36:\n\n  James ii. 10.\n\nFootnote 37:\n\n  Rom. iv. 9.\n\nFootnote 38:\n\n  Hab. ii. 4.\n\nFootnote 39:\n\n  Rom. iv. 7.\n\nFootnote 40:\n\n  2 Cor. v. 18, 19.\n\nFootnote 41:\n\n  Ephes. ii. 8, 9.\n\nFootnote 42:\n\n  Lev. xviii. 5. Rom. x. 5.\n\nFootnote 43:\n\n  Deut. xxvii. 26. Gal. iii. 10.\n\nFootnote 44:\n\n  Gen. iii.\n\nFootnote 45:\n\n  Phil. iii. 13, 14.\n\nFootnote 46:\n\n  Luke xvii. 10.\n\nFootnote 47:\n\n  1 Cor. ix.\n\nFootnote 48:\n\n  1 Cor. ix. 12.\n\nFootnote 49:\n\n  Luke xvii. 9.\n\nFootnote 50:\n\n  Isaiah i. 12.\n\nFootnote 51:\n\n  Isaiah lv. 2.\n\nFootnote 52:\n\n  Psalm cxliii. 2.\n\nFootnote 53:\n\n  Job x. 15.\n\nFootnote 54:\n\n  Isaiah xlv. 25.\n\nFootnote 55:\n\n  Isaiah lxi. 3.\n\nFootnote 56:\n\n  John iii. 16.\n\nFootnote 57:\n\n  Rom. iii. 23, &c.\n\nFootnote 58:\n\n  Ephes. i. 5-7, 13.\n\nFootnote 59:\n\n  Prov. xiv. 26.\n\nFootnote 60:\n\n  2 Kings xx. 3.\n\nFootnote 61:\n\n  Ephes. iii. 18, 19.\n\nFootnote 62:\n\n  Rom. viii. 37.\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER XV.\nBOASTING OF THE MERIT OF WORKS, EQUALLY SUBVERSIVE OF GOD\u2019S GLORY IN THE\n       GIFT OF RIGHTEOUSNESS, AND OF THE CERTAINTY OF SALVATION.\n\n\nWe have now discussed the principal branch of this subject; that because\nrighteousness, if dependent on works, must inevitably be confounded in\nthe sight of God, therefore it is contained exclusively in the mercy of\nGod and the participation of Christ, and consequently in faith alone.\nNow, it must be carefully remarked that this is the principal hinge on\nwhich the argument turns, that we may not be implicated in the common\ndelusion, which equally affects the learned and the vulgar. For as soon\nas justification by faith or works becomes the subject of inquiry, they\nhave immediate recourse to those passages which seem to attribute to\nworks some degree of merit in the sight of God; as though justification\nby works would be fully evinced, if they could be proved to be of any\nvalue before God. We have already clearly demonstrated that the\nrighteousness of works consists only in a perfect and complete\nobservance of the law. Whence it follows, that no man is justified by\nworks, but he who, being elevated to the summit of perfection, cannot be\nconvicted even of the least transgression. This, therefore, is a\ndifferent and separate question, whether, although works be utterly\ninsufficient for the justification of men, they do not, nevertheless,\nmerit the grace of God.\n\nII. In the first place, with respect to the term _merit_, it is\nnecessary for me to premise, that whoever first applied it to human\nworks, as compared with the Divine judgment, showed very little concern\nfor the purity of the faith. I gladly abstain from all controversies\nabout mere words; but I could wish that this sobriety had always been\nobserved by Christian writers, that they had avoided the unnecessary\nadoption of terms not used in the Scriptures, and calculated to produce\ngreat offence, but very little advantage. For what necessity was there\nfor the introduction of the word _merit_, when the value of good works\nmight be significantly expressed without offence by a different term?\nBut the great offence contained in it, appears in the great injury the\nworld has received from it. The consummate haughtiness of its import can\nonly obscure the Divine grace, and taint the minds of men with\npresumptuous arrogance. I confess, the ancient writers of the Church\nhave generally used it, and I wish that their misuse of one word had not\nbeen the occasion of error to posterity. Yet they also declare in some\nplaces that they did not intend any thing prejudicial to the truth. For\nthis is the language of Augustine in one passage: \u201cLet human merit,\nwhich was lost by Adam, here be silent, and let the grace of God reign\nthrough Jesus Christ.\u201d Again: \u201cThe saints ascribe nothing to their own\nmerits; they will ascribe all, O God, only to thy mercy.\u201d In another\nplace: \u201cAnd when a man sees that whatever good he has, he has it not\nfrom himself, but from his God, he sees that all that is commended in\nhim proceeds not from his own merits, but from the Divine mercy.\u201d We see\nhow, by divesting man of the power of performing good actions, he\nlikewise destroys the dignity of merit. Chrysostom says, \u201cOur works, if\nthere be any consequent on God\u2019s gratuitous vocation, are a retribution\nand a debt; but the gifts of God are grace, beneficence, and immense\nliberality.\u201d Leaving the name, however, let us rather attend to the\nthing. I have before cited a passage from Bernard: \u201cAs not to presume on\nour merits is sufficiently meritorious, so to be destitute of merits is\nsufficient for the judgment.\u201d But by the explanation immediately\nannexed, he properly softens the harshness of these expressions, when he\nsays, \u201cTherefore you should be concerned to have merits; and if you have\nthem, you should know that they are given to you; you should hope for\nthe fruit, the mercy of God; and you have escaped all danger of poverty,\ningratitude, and presumption. Happy the Church which is not destitute,\neither of merits without presumption, or of presumption without merits.\u201d\nAnd just before he had fully shown how pious his meaning was. \u201cFor\nconcerning merits,\u201d he says, \u201cwhy should the Church be solicitous, which\nhas a more firm and secure foundation for glorying in the purpose of\nGod? For God cannot deny himself; he will perform what he has promised.\nThus you have no reason for inquiring, on account of what merits we may\nhope for blessings, especially when you read, \u2018Not for your sakes, but\nfor my sake;\u2019[63] it is sufficiently meritorious to know that merits are\ninsufficient.\u201d\n\nIII. The Scripture shows what all our works are capable of meriting,\nwhen it represents them as unable to bear the Divine scrutiny, because\nthey are full of impurity; and in the next place, what would be merited\nby the perfect observance of the law, if this could any where be found,\nwhen it directs us, \u201cWhen ye shall have done all those things which are\ncommanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants;\u201d[64] because we shall\nnot have conferred any favour on God, but only have performed the duties\nincumbent on us, for which no thanks are due. Nevertheless, the good\nworks which the Lord has conferred on us, he denominates our own, and\ndeclares that he will not only accept, but also reward them. It is our\nduty to be animated by so great a promise, and to stir up our minds that\nwe \u201cbe not weary in well doing,\u201d[65] and to be truly grateful for so\ngreat an instance of Divine goodness. It is beyond a doubt, that\nwhatever is laudable in our works proceeds from the grace of God; and\nthat we cannot properly ascribe the least portion of it to ourselves. If\nwe truly and seriously acknowledge this truth, not only all confidence,\nbut likewise all idea of merit, immediately vanishes. We, I say, do not,\nlike the sophists, divide the praise of good works between God and man,\nbut we preserve it to the Lord complete, entire, and uncontaminated. All\nthat we attribute to man, is, that those works which were otherwise good\nare tainted and polluted by his impurity. For nothing proceeds from the\nmost perfect man, which is wholly immaculate. Therefore let the Lord sit\nin judgment on the best of human actions, and he will indeed recognize\nin them his own righteousness, but man\u2019s disgrace and shame. Good works,\ntherefore, are pleasing to God, and not unprofitable to the authors of\nthem; and they will moreover receive the most ample blessings from God\nas their reward; not because they merit them, but because the Divine\ngoodness has freely appointed them this reward. But what wickedness is\nit, not to be content with that Divine liberality which remunerates\nworks destitute of merit with unmerited rewards, but with sacrilegious\nambition still to aim at more, that what entirely originates in the\nDivine munificence may appear to be a compensation of the merit of\nworks! Here I appeal to the common sense of every man. If he who, by the\nliberality of another, enjoys the use and profit of an estate, usurp to\nhimself also the title of proprietor, does he not by such ingratitude\ndeserve to lose the possession which he had? So also if a slave,\nmanumitted by his master, conceal his mean condition as a freed-man, and\nboast that he was free by birth, does he not deserve to be reduced to\nhis former servitude? For this is the legitimate way of enjoying a\nbenefit, if we neither arrogate more than is given us, nor defraud our\nbenefactor of his due praise; but, on the contrary, conduct ourselves in\nsuch a manner, that what he has conferred on us may appear, as it were,\nto continue with himself. If this moderation ought to be observed\ntowards men, let every one examine and consider what is due to God.\n\nIV. I know that the sophists abuse some texts in order to prove that the\nterm _merit_ is found in the Scriptures with reference to God. They cite\na passage from Ecclesiasticus: \u201cMercy shall make place for every man\naccording to the merit of his works.\u201d[66] And from the Epistle to the\nHebrews: \u201cTo do good, and to communicate, forget not; for with such\nsacrifices men merit of God.\u201d[67] My right to reject the authority of\nEcclesiasticus I at present relinquish; but I deny that they faithfully\ncite the words of the writer of Ecclesiasticus, whoever he might be; for\nin the Greek copy it is as follows: \u03a0\u03b1\u03c3\u03b7 \u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03b7\u03bc\u03bf\u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b7 \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9 \u03c4\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03bd\u00b7\n\u1f11\u03ba\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b3\u03b1\u03c1 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03c4\u03b1 \u03b5\u03c1\u03b3\u03b1 \u03b1\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b5\u1f51\u03c1\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9. \u201cHe shall make place for every\nmercy; and every man shall find according to his works.\u201d And that this\nis the genuine reading, which is corrupted in the Latin version, appears\nboth from the complexion of the words themselves and from the preceding\ncontext. In the passage quoted from the Epistle to the Hebrews, there is\nno reason why they should endeavour to insnare us by a single word, when\nthe apostle\u2019s words in the Greek imply nothing more than that \u201cwith such\nsacrifices God is well pleased.\u201d This alone ought to be abundantly\nsufficient to repress and subdue the insolence of our pride, that we\ntransgress not the scriptural rule by ascribing any dignity to human\nworks. Moreover, the doctrine of the Scripture is, that our good works\nare perpetually defiled with many blemishes, which might justly offend\nGod and incense him against us; so far are they from being able to\nconciliate his favour, or to excite his beneficence towards us; yet\nthat, because in his great mercy he does not examine them according to\nthe rigour of his justice, he accepts them as though they were\nimmaculately pure, and therefore rewards them, though void of all merit,\nwith infinite blessings both in this life and in that which is to come.\nFor I cannot admit the distinction laid down by some, who are otherwise\nmen of learning and piety, that good works merit the graces which are\nconferred on us in this life, and that eternal salvation is the reward\nof faith alone; because the Lord almost always places the reward of\nlabours and the crown of victory in heaven. Besides, to ascribe the\naccumulation of graces upon graces, given us by the Lord, to the merit\nof works, in such a manner as to detract it from grace, is contrary to\nthe doctrine of the Scripture. For though Christ says, that \u201cto every\none that hath shall be given,\u201d and that \u201cthe good and faithful servant,\nwho hath been faithful over a few things, shall be made ruler over many\nthings,\u201d[68] yet he likewise shows in another place, that the\nimprovements of believers are the gifts of his gratuitous kindness. \u201cHo,\nevery one that thirsteth,\u201d says he, \u201ccome ye to the waters, and he that\nhath no money; come ye, buy, and eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk\nwithout money and without price.\u201d[69] Whatever, therefore, is now\nconferred on believers to promote their salvation as well as their\nfuture blessedness, flows exclusively from the beneficence of God;\nnevertheless he declares, that both in the latter and in the former, he\nhas respect to our works, because, to demonstrate the magnitude of his\nlove to us, he dignifies with such honour, not only ourselves, but even\nthe gifts which he has bestowed on us.\n\nV. If these points had been handled and digested in proper order in\nformer ages, there would never have arisen so many debates and\ndissensions. Paul says, that in erecting the superstructure of Christian\ndoctrine, it is necessary to retain that foundation which he had laid\namong the Corinthians, other than which no man can lay, which is Jesus\nChrist.[70] What kind of a foundation have we in Christ? Has he begun\nour salvation, that we may complete it ourselves? and has he merely\nopened a way for us to proceed in by our own powers? By no means; but,\nas the apostle before stated, when we acknowledge him, he is \u201cmade unto\nus righteousness.\u201d[71] No man, therefore, is properly founded on Christ,\nbut he who has complete righteousness in him; since the apostle says,\nthat he was sent, not to assist us in the attainment of righteousness,\nbut to be himself our righteousness; that is to say, that we were chosen\nin him from eternity, before the formation of the world, not on account\nof any merit of ours, but according to the purpose of the Divine\nwill;[72] that by the death of Christ we are redeemed from the sentence\nof death, and liberated from perdition;[73] that in him we are adopted\nas sons and heirs by the heavenly Father,[74] to whom we have been\nreconciled by his blood; that being committed to his protection, we are\nnot in the least danger of perishing;[75] that being thus ingrafted into\nhim, we are already, as it were, partakers of eternal life, and entered\nby hope into the kingdom of God; and moreover, that having obtained such\na participation of him, however foolish we may be in ourselves, he is\nour wisdom before God; that however impure we are, he is our purity;\nthat though we are weak and exposed to Satan, yet that power is ours\nwhich is given to him in heaven and in earth,[76] by which he defeats\nSatan for us, and breaks the gates of hell; that though we still carry\nabout with us a body of death, yet he is our life; in short, that all\nthat is his belongs to us, and that we have every thing in him, but\nnothing in ourselves. On this foundation, I say, it is necessary for us\nto build, if we wish to \u201cgrow unto a holy temple in the Lord.\u201d[77]\n\nVI. But the world has long been taught a different lesson; for I know\nnot what good works of morality have been invented to render men\nacceptable to God, before they are ingrafted into Christ. As though the\nScripture were false in asserting, that \u201che that hath not the Son of\nGod, hath not life.\u201d[78] If they are destitute of life, how could they\ngenerate any cause of life? As though there were no truth in the\ndeclaration, that \u201cwhatsoever is not of faith, is sin!\u201d[79] as though an\nevil tree could produce good fruits! But what room have these most\npestilent sophists left to Christ for the exertion of his power? They\nsay that he has merited for us the first grace; that is, the opportunity\nof meriting; and that now it is our part not to miss the offered\nopportunity. What extreme impudence and impiety! Who would have expected\nthat any persons professing the name of Christ, would presume thus to\nrob him of his power, and almost to trample him under their feet? It is\nevery where testified of him, that all who believe in him are\njustified:[80] these men tell us, that the only benefit received from\nhim is, that a way is opened for all men to justify themselves. But I\nwish that they had experienced what is contained in these passages: \u201cHe\nthat hath the Son, hath life;\u201d[81] \u201che that believeth is passed from\ndeath unto life;\u201d[82] \u201cjustified by his grace,\u201d that we might \u201cbe made\nheirs of eternal life;\u201d[83] that believers have Christ abiding in them,\nby whom they are united to God;[84] that they are partakers of his life,\nand sit with him \u201cin heavenly places;\u201d[85] that they are translated into\nthe kingdom of God, and have obtained salvation;[86] and innumerable\nplaces of similar import. For they do not signify that by faith in\nChrist we merely gain the ability to attain righteousness or effect our\nsalvation, but that both are bestowed on us. Therefore, as soon as we\nare ingrafted into Christ by faith, we are already become sons of God,\nheirs of heaven, partakers of righteousness, possessors of life, and\n(the better to refute their falsehoods) we have attained, not the\nopportunity of meriting, but all the merits of Christ; for they are all\ncommunicated to us.\n\nVII. Thus the Sorbonic schools, those sources of all kinds of errors,\nhave deprived us of justification by faith, which is the substance of\nall piety. They grant, indeed, in words, that a man is justified by\nfaith formed; but this they afterwards explain to be, because faith\nrenders good works effectual to justification; so that their mention of\nfaith has almost the appearance of mockery, since it could not be passed\nover in silence, while the Scripture is so full of it, without exposing\nthem to great censure. And not content with this, they rob God of part\nof the praise of good works, and transfer it to man. Perceiving that\ngood works avail but little to the exaltation of man, and that they\ncannot properly be denominated merits if they be considered as the\neffects of Divine grace, they derive them from the power of free-will;\nwhich is like extracting oil from a stone. They contend, that though\ngrace be the principal cause of them, yet that this is not to the\nexclusion of free-will, from which all merit originates. And this is\nmaintained not only by the latter sophists, but likewise by their\nmaster, Lombard, whom, when compared with them, we may pronounce to be\nsound and sober. Truly wonderful was their blindness, with Augustine so\nfrequently in their mouths, not to see how solicitously he endeavoured\nto prevent men from arrogating the least degree of glory on account of\ngood works. Before, when we discussed the question of free-will, we\ncited from him some testimonies to this purpose; and similar ones\nfrequently recur in his writings; as when he forbids us ever to boast of\nour merits, since even they are the gifts of God; and when he says,\n\u201cthat all our merit proceeds from grace alone; that it is not obtained\nby our sufficiency, but is produced entirely by grace,\u201d &c. That Lombard\nwas blind to the light of Scripture, in which he appears not to have\nbeen so well versed, need not excite so much surprise. Yet nothing could\nbe wished for more explicit, in opposition to him and his disciples,\nthan this passage of the apostle; who, having interdicted Christians\nfrom all boasting, subjoins as a reason why boasting is unlawful, that\n\u201cwe are his (God\u2019s) workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good\nworks, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.\u201d[87]\nSince nothing good, then, can proceed from us but as we are regenerated,\nand our regeneration is, without exception, entirely of God, we have no\nright to arrogate to ourselves the smallest particle of our good works.\nLastly, while they assiduously inculcate good works, they at the same\ntime instruct the consciences of men in such a manner, that they can\nnever dare to be confident that God is propitious and favourable to\ntheir works. But, on the contrary, our doctrine, without any mention of\nmerit, animates the minds of believers with peculiar consolation, while\nwe teach them that their works are pleasing to God, and that their\npersons are undoubtedly accepted by him. And we likewise require, that\nno man attempt or undertake any work without faith; that is, unless he\ncan previously determine, with a certain confidence of mind, that it\nwill be pleasing to God.\n\nVIII. Wherefore let us not suffer ourselves to be seduced even a hair\u2019s\nbreadth from the only foundation, on which, when it is laid, wise\narchitects erect a firm and regular superstructure. For if there be a\nnecessity for doctrine and exhortation, they apprize us, that \u201cfor this\npurpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works\nof the devil; whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin:\u201d[88] \u201cthe\ntime past of our life may suffice us to have wrought the will of the\nGentiles;\u201d[89] the elect of God are vessels of mercy selected to honour,\nand therefore ought to be cleansed from all impurity.[90] But every\nthing is said at once, when it is shown that Christ chooses such for his\ndisciples as will deny themselves, take up their cross, and follow\nhim.[91] He who has denied himself, has laid the axe to the root of all\nevils, that he may no longer seek those things which are his own; he who\nhas taken up his cross, has prepared himself for all patience and\ngentleness. But the example of Christ comprehends not only these, but\nall other duties of piety and holiness. He was obedient to his Father,\neven to death; he was entirely occupied in performing the works of God;\nhe aspired with his whole soul to promote the glory of his Father; he\nlaid down his life for his brethren; he both acted and prayed for the\nbenefit of his enemies. But if there be need of consolation, these\npassages will afford it in a wonderful degree: \u201cWe are troubled on every\nside, yet not distressed; we are perplexed, but not in despair;\npersecuted, but not forsaken; cast down, but not destroyed; always\nbearing about in the body the dying of the Lord Jesus, that the life\nalso of Jesus might be made manifest in our body.\u201d[92] \u201cIf we be dead\nwith him, we shall also live with him; if we suffer, we shall also reign\nwith him.\u201d[93] \u201cBeing made conformable unto his death; if by any means I\nmight attain unto the resurrection of the dead.\u201d[94] The Father has\npredestinated all whom he has chosen in his Son \u201cto be conformed to his\nimage, that he might be the first-born among many brethren;\u201d and\ntherefore \u201cneither death, nor life, nor things present, nor things to\ncome, shall separate us from the love of God which is in Christ\nJesus;\u201d[95] but \u201call things shall work together for good\u201d[96] to us, and\nconduce to our salvation. We do not justify men by works before God; but\nwe say, that all who are of God are regenerated and made new creatures,\nthat they may depart from the kingdom of sin into the kingdom of\nrighteousness; and that by this testimony they ascertain their\nvocation,[97] and, like trees, are judged by their fruits.\n\nFootnote 63:\n\n  Ezek. xxxvi. 32.\n\nFootnote 64:\n\n  Luke xvii. 10.\n\nFootnote 65:\n\n  Gal. vi. 9. 2 Thess. iii. 13.\n\nFootnote 66:\n\n  Ecclus. xvi. 14.\n\nFootnote 67:\n\n  Heb. xiii. 16.\n\nFootnote 68:\n\n  Matt. xxv. 21, 29.\n\nFootnote 69:\n\n  Isaiah lv. 1.\n\nFootnote 70:\n\n  1 Cor. iii. 10, 11.\n\nFootnote 71:\n\n  1 Cor. i. 30.\n\nFootnote 72:\n\n  Ephes. i. 3-5.\n\nFootnote 73:\n\n  Col. i. 14, 20, 21.\n\nFootnote 74:\n\n  John i. 12.\n\nFootnote 75:\n\n  John x. 28, 29.\n\nFootnote 76:\n\n  Matt. xxviii. 18.\n\nFootnote 77:\n\n  Ephes. ii 21. Titus iii. 7.\n\nFootnote 78:\n\n  1 John v. 12.\n\nFootnote 79:\n\n  Rom. xiv. 23.\n\nFootnote 80:\n\n  Acts xiii. 39.\n\nFootnote 81:\n\n  1 John v. 12.\n\nFootnote 82:\n\n  John v. 24.\n\nFootnote 83:\n\n  Rom. iii. 24.\n\nFootnote 84:\n\n  1 John iii. 24.\n\nFootnote 85:\n\n  Ephes. ii. 6.\n\nFootnote 86:\n\n  Col. i. 13.\n\nFootnote 87:\n\n  Ephes. ii. 10.\n\nFootnote 88:\n\n  1 John iii. 8, 9.\n\nFootnote 89:\n\n  1 Peter iv. 3.\n\nFootnote 90:\n\n  2 Tim. ii. 20. Rom. ix. 23.\n\nFootnote 91:\n\n  Luke ix. 23.\n\nFootnote 92:\n\n  2 Cor. iv. 8-10.\n\nFootnote 93:\n\n  2 Tim. ii. 11, 12.\n\nFootnote 94:\n\n  Phil. iii. 10, 11.\n\nFootnote 95:\n\n  Rom. viii. 29, 38, 39.\n\nFootnote 96:\n\n  Rom. viii. 28.\n\nFootnote 97:\n\n  2 Peter i. 10.\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER XVI.\n  A REFUTATION OF THE INJURIOUS CALUMNIES OF THE PAPISTS AGAINST THIS\n                               DOCTRINE.\n\n\nThe observation with which we closed the preceding chapter is, of\nitself, sufficient to refute the impudence of some impious persons, who\naccuse us, in the first place, of destroying good works, and seducing\nmen from the pursuit of them, when we say that they are not justified by\nworks, nor saved through their own merit; and secondly, of making too\neasy a road to righteousness, when we teach that it consists in the\ngratuitous remission of sins; and of enticing men, by this allurement,\nto the practice of sin, to which they have naturally too strong a\npropensity. These calumnies, I say, are sufficiently refuted by that one\nobservation; yet I will briefly reply to them both. They allege that\njustification by faith destroys good works. I forbear any remarks on the\ncharacters of these zealots for good works, who thus calumniate us. Let\nthem rail with impunity as licentiously as they infest the whole world\nwith the impurity of their lives. They affect to lament that while faith\nis so magnificently extolled, works are degraded from their proper rank.\nWhat if they be more encouraged and established? For we never dream\neither of a faith destitute of good works, or of a justification\nunattended by them: this is the sole difference, that while we\nacknowledge a necessary connection between faith and good works, we\nattribute justification, not to works, but to faith. Our reason for this\nwe can readily explain, if we only turn to Christ, towards whom faith is\ndirected, and from whom it receives all its virtue. Why, then, are we\njustified by faith? Because by faith we apprehend the righteousness of\nChrist, which is the only medium of our reconciliation to God. But this\nyou cannot attain, without at the same time attaining to sanctification;\nfor he \u201cis made unto us wisdom and righteousness, and sanctification and\nredemption.\u201d[98] Christ therefore justifies no one whom he does not also\nsanctify. For these benefits are perpetually and indissolubly connected,\nso that whom he illuminates with his wisdom, them he redeems; whom he\nredeems, he justifies; whom he justifies, he sanctifies. But as the\npresent question relates only to righteousness and sanctification, let\nus insist upon them. We may distinguish between them, but Christ\ncontains both inseparably in himself. Do you wish, then, to obtain\nrighteousness in Christ? You must first possess Christ; but you cannot\npossess him without becoming a partaker of his sanctification; for he\ncannot be divided. Since, then, the Lord affords us the enjoyment of\nthese blessings only in the bestowment of himself, he gives them both\ntogether, and never one without the other. Thus we see how true it is\nthat we are justified, not without works, yet not by works; since union\nwith Christ, by which we are justified, contains sanctification as well\nas righteousness.\n\nII. It is also exceedingly false, that the minds of men are seduced from\nan inclination to virtue, by our divesting them of all ideas of merit.\nHere the reader must just be informed, that they impertinently argue\nfrom reward to merit, as I shall afterwards more fully explain; because,\nin fact, they are ignorant of this principle, that God is equally\nliberal in assigning a reward to good works, as in imparting an ability\nto perform them. But this I would rather defer to its proper place. It\nwill suffice, at present, to show the weakness of their objection, which\nshall be done two ways. For, first, when they say that there will be no\nconcern about the proper regulation of our life without a hope of reward\nbeing proposed, they altogether deceive themselves. If they only mean\nthat men serve God in expectation of a reward, and hire or sell their\nservices to him, they gain but little; for he will be freely worshipped\nand freely loved, and he approves of that worshipper who, after being\ndeprived of all hope of receiving any reward, still ceases not to\nworship him. Besides, if men require to be stimulated, it is impossible\nto urge more forcible arguments than those which arise from the end of\nour redemption and calling; such as the word of God adduces, when it\ninculcates, that it is the greatest and most impious ingratitude not\nreciprocally to \u201clove him who first loved us;\u201d[99] that \u201cby the blood of\nChrist our consciences are purged from dead works, to serve the living\nGod;\u201d[100] that it is a horrible sacrilege, after having been once\npurged, to defile ourselves with new pollutions, and to profane that\nsacred blood;[101] that we have been \u201cdelivered out of the hand of our\nenemies,\u201d that we \u201cmight serve him without fear, in holiness and\nrighteousness before him, all the days of our life;\u201d[102] that we are\nmade \u201cfree from sin,\u201d that with a free spirit we might \u201cbecome the\nservants of righteousness;\u201d[103] \u201cthat our old man is crucified,\u201d that\n\u201cwe should walk in newness of life.\u201d[104] Again: \u201cIf ye be risen with\nChrist,\u201d as his members indeed are, \u201cseek those things which are above,\u201d\nand conduct yourselves as \u201cpilgrims on the earth;\u201d that you may aspire\ntowards heaven, where your treasure is.[105] That \u201cthe grace of God hath\nappeared, teaching us, that denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we\nshould live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world;\nlooking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great\nGod and our Saviour.\u201d[106] Wherefore \u201cGod hath not appointed us to\nwrath, but to obtain salvation by Christ.\u201d[107] That we are the \u201ctemples\nof the Holy Ghost,\u201d which it is unlawful to profane;[108] that we are\nnot _darkness_, \u201cbut light in the Lord,\u201d whom it becomes to \u201cwalk as\nchildren of the light;\u201d[109] that \u201cGod hath not called us unto\nuncleanness, but unto holiness; for this is the will of God, even our\nsanctification, that we should abstain from fornication;\u201d[110] that our\ncalling is a holy one, which should be followed by a correspondent\npurity of life;[111] that we are \u201cmade free from sin,\u201d that we might\n\u201cbecome servants of righteousness.\u201d[112] Can we be incited to charity by\nany stronger argument than that of John, \u201cIf God so loved us, we ought\nalso to love one another?\u201d \u201cin this the children of God are manifest,\nand the children of the devil;\u201d[113] hereby the children of light, by\ntheir abiding in love, are distinguished from the children of darkness;\nor that of Paul, That if we be united to Christ, we are members of one\nbody, and ought to afford each other mutual assistance?[114] Or can we\nbe more powerfully excited to holiness, than when we are informed by\nJohn, that \u201cevery man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even\nas God is pure?\u201d[115] Or when Paul says, \u201cHaving therefore these\npromises, (relative to our adoption,) let us cleanse ourselves from all\nfilthiness of the flesh and spirit?\u201d[116] or than when we hear Christ\nproposing himself as our example, that we should follow his steps?[117]\n\nIII. These few instances, indeed, I have given as a specimen; for if I\nwere disposed to quote every particular passage, I should produce a\nlarge volume. The apostles are quite full of admonitions, exhortations,\nand reproofs, to \u201cfurnish the man of God unto all good works,\u201d[118] and\nthat without any mention of merit. But they rather deduce their\nprincipal exhortations from this consideration, That our salvation\ndepends not on any merit of ours, but merely on the mercy of God. As\nPaul, after having very largely shown that we can have no hope of life,\nbut from the righteousness of Christ, when he proceeds to exhortations,\nbeseeches us \u201cby the mercies of God\u201d with which we have been\nfavoured.[119] And indeed this one reason ought to be enough; that God\nmay be glorified in us.[120] But if any persons be not so powerfully\naffected by the glory of God, yet the remembrance of his benefits should\nbe amply sufficient to incite them to rectitude of conduct. But these\nmen, who by the obtrusion of merit extort some servile and constrained\nacts of obedience to the law, are guilty of falsehood when they affirm\nthat we have no arguments to enforce the practice of good works, because\nwe do not proceed in the same way; as though, truly, such obedience were\nvery pleasing to God, who declares that he \u201cloveth a cheerful giver;\u201d\nand forbids any thing to be given \u201cgrudgingly, or of necessity.\u201d[121]\nNor do I say this, because I either reject or neglect that kind of\nexhortation, which the Scripture frequently uses, that no method of\nanimating us to our duty may be omitted. It mentions the reward which\n\u201cGod will render to every man according to his works;\u201d[122] but that\nthis is the only argument, or the principal one, I deny. In the next\nplace, I assert that we ought not to begin with it. Moreover, I contend\nthat it has no tendency to establish the merit preached by these men, as\nwe shall afterwards see; and, lastly, that it is entirely useless,\nunless preceded by this doctrine, That we are justified solely on\naccount of the merit of Christ, apprehended by faith, and not on account\nof any merit in our own works; because none can be capable of the\npursuit of holiness, but such as have previously imbibed this doctrine.\nThis sentiment is beautifully suggested by the Psalmist when he thus\naddresses the Lord: \u201cThere is forgiveness with thee, that thou mayest be\nfeared;\u201d[123] for he shows that there is no worship of God without an\nacknowledgment of his mercy, on which alone it is both founded and\nestablished. And this well deserves to be remarked, in order that we may\nknow, not only that the true worship of God arises from a reliance on\nhis mercy, but that the fear of God (which the Papists hold to be\nmeritorious) cannot be dignified with the title of _merit_, because it\nis founded in the pardon and remission of sins.\n\nIV. But the most futile of all their calumnies is, that men are\nencouraged to the practice of sin by our maintaining the gratuitous\nremission of sins, in which we make righteousness to consist. For we say\nthat so great a blessing could never be compensated by any virtue of\nours, and that therefore it could never be obtained, unless it were\ngratuitously bestowed; moreover, that it is gratuitous to us indeed, but\nnot so to Christ, whom it cost so much, even his own most sacred blood,\nbeside which no price sufficiently valuable could be paid to Divine\njustice. When men are taught in this manner, they are apprized that it\nis not owing to them that this most sacred blood is not shed as often as\nthey sin. Besides, we learn that such is our pollution, that it can\nnever be washed away, except in the fountain of this immaculate blood.\nMust not persons who hear these things conceive a greater horror of sin,\nthan if it were said to be cleansed by a sprinkling of good works? And\nif they have any fear of God, will they not dread, after being once\npurified, to plunge themselves again into the mire, and thereby to\ndisturb and infect, as far as they can, the purity of this fountain? \u201cI\nhave washed my feet,\u201d (says the believing soul in Solomon,) \u201chow shall I\ndefile them?\u201d[124] Now, it is plain which party better deserves the\ncharge of degrading the value of remission of sins, and prostituting the\ndignity of righteousness. They pretend that God is appeased by their\nfrivolous _satisfactions_, which are no better than dung; we assert,\nthat the guilt of sin is too atrocious to be expiated by such\ninsignificant trifles; that the displeasure of God is too great to be\nappeased by these worthless satisfactions; and therefore that this is\nthe exclusive prerogative of the blood of Christ. They say, that\nrighteousness, if it ever be defective, is restored and repaired by\nworks of satisfaction. We think it so valuable that no compensation of\nworks can be adequate to it; and therefore that for its restitution we\nmust have recourse to the mercy of God alone. The remaining particulars\nthat pertain to the remission of sins may be found in the next chapter.\n\nFootnote 98:\n\n  1 Cor. i. 30.\n\nFootnote 99:\n\n  1 John iv. 10, 19.\n\nFootnote 100:\n\n  Heb. ix. 14.\n\nFootnote 101:\n\n  Heb. x. 29.\n\nFootnote 102:\n\n  Luke i. 74, 75.\n\nFootnote 103:\n\n  Rom. vi. 18.\n\nFootnote 104:\n\n  Rom. vi. 4, 6.\n\nFootnote 105:\n\n  Col. iii. 1. Heb. xi. 13. 1 Peter ii. 11.\n\nFootnote 106:\n\n  Titus ii. 11-13.\n\nFootnote 107:\n\n  1 Thess. v. 9.\n\nFootnote 108:\n\n  1 Cor. iii. 16, 17; vi. 19. Ephes. ii. 21.\n\nFootnote 109:\n\n  Ephes. v. 8.\n\nFootnote 110:\n\n  1 Thess. iv. 3, 7.\n\nFootnote 111:\n\n  2 Tim. i. 9. 1 Peter i. 15.\n\nFootnote 112:\n\n  Rom. vi. 18.\n\nFootnote 113:\n\n  1 John iv. 11; iii. 10.\n\nFootnote 114:\n\n  1 Cor. xii. 12, &c.\n\nFootnote 115:\n\n  1 John iii. 3.\n\nFootnote 116:\n\n  2 Cor. vii. 1.\n\nFootnote 117:\n\n  Matt. xi. 29. John xiii. 15.\n\nFootnote 118:\n\n  2 Tim. iii. 17.\n\nFootnote 119:\n\n  Rom. xii. 1.\n\nFootnote 120:\n\n  Matt. v. 16.\n\nFootnote 121:\n\n  2 Cor. ix. 7.\n\nFootnote 122:\n\n  Matt. xvi. 27. Rom. ii. 6.\n\nFootnote 123:\n\n  Psalm cxxx. 4.\n\nFootnote 124:\n\n  Cant. v. 3.\n\n\n\n\n                             CHAPTER XVII.\n  THE HARMONY BETWEEN THE PROMISES OF THE LAW AND THOSE OF THE GOSPEL.\n\n\nLet us now pursue the other arguments with which Satan by his satellites\nattempts to destroy or to weaken justification by faith. I think we have\nalready gained this point with these calumniators\u2014that they can no\nlonger accuse us of being enemies to good works. For we reject the\nnotion of justification by works, not that no good works may be done, or\nthat those which are performed may be denied to be good, but that we may\nneither confide in them, nor glory in them, nor ascribe salvation to\nthem. For this is our trust, this is our glory, and the only anchor of\nour salvation, That Christ the Son of God is ours, and that we are\nlikewise, in him, sons of God and heirs of the celestial kingdom; being\ncalled, not for our worthiness, but by the Divine goodness, to the hope\nof eternal felicity. But since they assail us besides, as we have\nobserved, with other weapons, let us also proceed to the repulsion of\nthem. In the first place, they return to the legal promises which the\nLord gave to the observers of his law, and inquire whether we suppose\nthem to be entirely vain, or of any validity. As it would be harsh and\nridiculous to say they are vain, they take it for granted that they have\nsome efficacy. Hence they argue, that we are not justified by faith\nalone. For thus saith the Lord, \u201cWherefore it shall come to pass, if ye\nhearken to these judgments, and keep and do them, that the Lord thy God\nshall keep unto thee the covenant and the mercy which he sware unto thy\nfathers; and he will love thee, and bless thee, and multiply thee.\u201d[125]\nAgain: \u201cIf ye thoroughly amend your ways and your doings; if ye\nthoroughly execute judgment between a man and his neighbour; if ye\noppress not, neither walk after other gods; then will I cause you to\ndwell in this place,\u201d &c.[126] I am not willing to recite a thousand\npassages of the same kind, which, not being different in sense, will be\nelucidated by an explanation of these. The sum of all is declared by\nMoses, who says that in the law are proposed \u201ca blessing and a curse,\nlife and death.\u201d[127] Now, they argue, either that this blessing becomes\ninefficacious and nugatory, or that justification is not by faith alone.\nWe have already shown, how, if we adhere to the law, being destitute of\nevery blessing, we are obnoxious to the curse which is denounced on all\ntransgressors. For the Lord promises nothing, except to the perfect\nobservers of his law, of which description not one can be found. The\nconsequence then is, that all mankind are proved by the law to be\nobnoxious to the curse and wrath of God; in order to be saved from\nwhich, they need deliverance from the power of the law, and emancipation\nfrom its servitude; not a carnal liberty, which would seduce us from\nobedience to the law, invite to all kinds of licentiousness, break down\nthe barriers of inordinate desire, and give the reins to every lawless\npassion; but a spiritual liberty, which will console and elevate a\ndistressed and dejected conscience, showing it to be delivered from the\ncurse and condemnation under which it was held by the law. This\nliberation from subjection to the law, and manumission, (if I may use\nthe term,) we attain, when we apprehend by faith the mercy of God in\nChrist, by which we are assured of the remission of sins, by the sense\nof which the law penetrated us with compunction and remorse.\n\nII. For this reason all the promises of the law would be ineffectual and\nvain, unless we were assisted by the goodness of God in the gospel. For\nthe condition of a perfect obedience to the law, on which they depend,\nand in consequence of which alone they are to be fulfilled, will never\nbe performed. Now, the Lord affords this assistance, not by leaving a\npart of righteousness in our works, and supplying part from his mercy,\nbut by appointing Christ alone for the completion of righteousness. For\nthe apostle, having said that he and other Jews, \u201cknowing that a man is\nnot justified by the works of the law, believed in Christ,\u201d adds as a\nreason, not that they might be assisted to obtain a complete\nrighteousness by faith in Christ, but \u201cthat they might be justified by\nthe faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law.\u201d[128] If the\nfaithful pass from the law to faith, to find righteousness in the\nlatter, which they perceive to be wanting in the former, they certainly\nrenounce the righteousness of the law. Therefore let whosoever will now\namplify the rewards which are said to await the observer of the law;\nonly let him remark, that our depravity prevents us from receiving any\nbenefit from them, till we have obtained by faith another righteousness.\nThus David, after having mentioned the reward which the Lord has\nprepared for his servants, immediately proceeds to the acknowledgment of\nsins, by which it is annulled. In the nineteenth psalm, likewise, he\nmagnificently celebrates the benefits of the law; but immediately\nexclaims, \u201cWho can understand his errors? cleanse thou me from secret\nfaults.\u201d[129] This passage perfectly accords with that before referred\nto, where, after having said, \u201cAll the paths of the Lord are mercy and\ntruth unto such as keep his covenant and his testimonies,\u201d he adds, \u201cFor\nthy name\u2019s sake, O Lord, pardon mine iniquity; for it is great.\u201d[130] So\nwe ought also to acknowledge, that the Divine favour is offered to us in\nthe law, if we could purchase it by our works; but that no merit of ours\ncan ever obtain it.\n\nIII. What, then, it will be said, were those promises given, to vanish\naway without producing any effect? I have already declared that this is\nnot my opinion. I assert, indeed, that they have no efficacy with\nrespect to us as long as they are referred to the merit of works;\nwherefore, considered in themselves, they are in some sense abolished.\nThus that grand promise, \u201cKeep my statutes and judgments; which if a man\ndo, he shall live in them;\u201d[131] the apostle maintains to be of no value\nto us, if we rest upon it, and that it will be no more beneficial to us\nthan if it had never been given; because it is inapplicable to the\nholiest of God\u2019s servants, who are all far from fulfilling the law, and\nare encompassed with a multitude of transgressions.[132] But when these\nare superseded by the evangelical promises, which proclaim the\ngratuitous remission of sins, the consequence is, that not only our\npersons, but also our works, are accepted by God; and not accepted only,\nbut followed by those blessings, which were due by the covenant to the\nobservance of the law. I grant, therefore, that the works of believers\nare rewarded by those things which the Lord has promised in his law to\nthe followers of righteousness and holiness; but in this retribution it\nis always necessary to consider the cause, which conciliates such favour\nto those works. Now, this we perceive to be threefold: The first is,\nThat God, averting his eyes from the actions of his servants, which are\ninvariably more deserving of censure than of praise, receives and\nembraces them in Christ, and by the intervention of faith alone\nreconciles them to himself without the assistance of works. The second\nis, That in his paternal benignity and indulgence, he overlooks the\nintrinsic worth of these works, and exalts them to such honour, that he\nesteems them of some degree of value. The third cause is, That he\npardons these works as he receives them, not imputing the imperfection\nwith which they are all so defiled, that they might otherwise be\naccounted rather sins than virtues. Hence it appears how great has been\nthe delusion of the sophists, who thought that they had dexterously\navoided all absurdities by saying that works are sufficient to merit\nsalvation, not on account of their own intrinsic goodness, but by reason\nof the covenant, because the Lord in his mercy has estimated them so\nhighly. But at the same time, they had not observed how far the works,\nwhich they styled _meritorious_, fell short of the condition of the\npromise; unless they were preceded by justification founded on faith\nalone, and by remission of sins, by which even good works require to be\npurified from blemishes. Therefore, of the three causes of the Divine\ngoodness, in consequence of which the works of believers are accepted,\nthey only noticed one, and suppressed two others, and those the\nprincipal.\n\nIV. They allege the declaration of Peter, which Luke recites in the\nActs: \u201cOf a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons; but in\nevery nation he that worketh righteousness is accepted with him.\u201d[133]\nAnd hence they conclude, what they think admits of no doubt, that if a\nman by rectitude of conduct conciliate to himself the favour of God, the\ngrace of God is not the sole cause of his salvation; moreover, that God\nof his own mercy assists a sinner in such a manner, as to be influenced\nto the exercise of mercy by his works. But we cannot by any means\nreconcile the Scriptures with themselves, unless we observe a twofold\nacceptance of man with God. For God finds nothing in man, in his native\ncondition, to incline him to mercy, but mere misery. If, then, it is\nevident that man is entirely destitute of all good, and full of every\nkind of evil, when he is first received by God, by what good qualities\nshall we pronounce him entitled to the heavenly calling? Let us reject,\ntherefore, all vain imagination of merits, where God so evidently\ndisplays his unmerited clemency. The declaration of the angel to\nCornelius in the same passage, \u201cThy prayers and thine alms are come up\nfor a memorial before God,\u201d they most wickedly pervert to prove that the\npractice of good works prepares a man to receive the grace of God. For\nCornelius must have been already illuminated with the Spirit of wisdom,\nsince he was endued with the fear of God, which is true wisdom; and he\nmust have been sanctified by the same Spirit, since he was a follower of\nrighteousness, which the apostle represents as one of the Spirit\u2019s most\ncertain fruits.[134] It was from the grace of God, then, that he derived\nall these things in which he is said to have pleased him; so far was he\nfrom preparing himself to receive it by the exercise of his own powers.\nThere cannot indeed be adduced a single syllable of the Scripture, which\nis not in harmony with this doctrine; That there is no other cause for\nGod\u2019s reception of man into his love, than his knowledge that man, if\nabandoned by him, would be utterly lost; and because it is not his will\nto abandon him to perdition, he displays his mercy in his deliverance.\nNow, we see that this acceptance is irrespective of the righteousness of\nman, but is an unequivocal proof of the Divine goodness towards\nmiserable sinners, who are infinitely unworthy of so great a favour.\n\nV. After the Lord has recovered a man from the abyss of perdition, and\nseparated him to himself by the grace of adoption,\u2014because he has\nregenerated him, and raised him to a new life, he now receives and\nembraces him, as a new creature, with the gifts of his Spirit. This is\nthe acceptance mentioned by Peter, in which even the works of believers\nafter their vocation are approved by God; for the Lord cannot but love\nand accept those good effects which are produced in them by his Spirit.\nBut it must always be remembered, that they are accepted by God in\nconsequence of their works, only because, for their sakes and the favour\nwhich he bears to them, he deigns to accept whatever goodness he has\nliberally communicated to their works. For whence proceeds the goodness\nof their works, but from the Lord\u2019s determination to adorn with true\npurity those whom he has chosen as vessels of honour? And how is it that\nthey are accounted good, as though they were free from all imperfection,\nexcept from the mercy of their Father, who pardons the blemishes which\nadhere to them? In a word, Peter intends nothing else in this passage,\nbut that God accepts and loves his children, in whom he beholds the\nmarks and lineaments of his own countenance; for we have elsewhere shown\nthat regeneration is a reparation of the Divine image in us. Wherever\nthe Lord contemplates his own likeness, he justly both loves and honours\nit. The life of his children, therefore, being devoted to holiness and\nrighteousness, is truly represented as pleasing to him. But as the\nfaithful, while they are surrounded with mortal flesh, are still\nsinners, and all their works are imperfect, and tainted with the vices\nof the flesh, he cannot be propitious either to their persons or to\ntheir works, without regarding them in Christ rather than in themselves.\nIt is in this sense that those passages must be understood, which\ndeclare God to be merciful and compassionate to the followers of\nrighteousness. Moses said to the Israelites, \u201cThe Lord thy God, which\nkeepeth covenant and mercy with them that love him and keep his\ncommandments, to a thousand generations\u201d[135]\u2014a sentence which was\nafterwards in frequent use among that people. Thus Solomon, in his\nsolemn prayer: \u201cLord God of Israel, who keepest covenant and mercy with\nthy servants that walk before thee with all their heart.\u201d[136] The same\nlanguage is also repeated by Nehemiah.[137] For as, in all the covenants\nof his mercy, the Lord stipulates with his servants for integrity and\nsanctity in their lives, that his goodness may not become an object of\ncontempt, and that no man infected with a vain confidence in his\nmercy,[138] may bless himself in his mind while walking in the depravity\nof his heart, so he designs by these means to confine to their duty all\nthat are admitted to the participation of his covenant; yet,\nnevertheless, the covenant is originally constituted and perpetually\nremains altogether gratuitous. For this reason, David, though he\ndeclares that he had been rewarded for the purity of his hands, does not\noverlook that original source which I have mentioned: \u201cHe delivered me,\nbecause he delighted in me;\u201d[139] where he commends the goodness of his\ncause, so as not to derogate from the gratuitous mercy which precedes\nall the gifts that originate from it.\n\nVI. And here it will be useful to remark, by the way, what difference\nthere is between such forms of expression and the legal promises. By\nlegal promises I intend, not all those which are contained in the books\nof Moses,\u2014since in those books there likewise occur many evangelical\nones,\u2014but such as properly pertain to the ministry of the law. Such\npromises, by whatever appellation they may be distinguished, proclaim\nthat a reward is ready to be bestowed, on condition that we perform what\nis commanded. But when it is said that \u201cthe Lord keepeth covenant and\nmercy with them that love him,\u201d this rather designates the characters of\nhis servants, who have faithfully received his covenant, than expresses\nthe causes of his beneficence to them. Now, this is the way to prove it:\nAs the Lord favours us with the hope of eternal life, in order that he\nmay be loved, reverenced, and worshipped by us, therefore all the\npromises of mercy contained in the Scriptures are justly directed to\nthis end, that we may revere and worship the Author of our blessings.\nWhenever, therefore, we hear of his beneficence to them who observe his\nlaws, let us remember that the children of God are designated by the\nduty in which they ought always to be found; and that we are adopted as\nhis children, in order that we may venerate him as our Father.\nTherefore, that we may not renounce the privilege of our adoption, we\nought to aim at that which is the design of our vocation. On the other\nhand, however, we may be assured, that the accomplishment of God\u2019s mercy\nis independent of the works of believers; but that he fulfils the\npromise of salvation to them whose vocation is followed by a\ncorrespondent rectitude of life, because in them who are directed by his\nSpirit to good works, he recognizes the genuine characters of his\nchildren. To this must be referred what is said of the citizens of the\nChurch: \u201cLord, who shall abide in thy tabernacle? who shall dwell in thy\nholy hill? He that walketh uprightly, and worketh righteousness,\u201d\n&c.[140] And in Isaiah: \u201cWho shall dwell with the devouring fire? He\nthat walketh righteously, and speaketh uprightly,\u201d &c.[141] For these\npassages describe, not the foundation which supports the faithful before\nGod, but the manner in which their most merciful Father introduces them\ninto communion with him, and preserves and confirms them in it. For as\nhe detests sin, and loves righteousness, those whom he unites to him he\npurifies by his Spirit, in order to conform them to himself and his\nkingdom. Therefore, if it be inquired what is the first cause which\ngives the saints an entrance into the kingdom of God, and which makes\ntheir continuance in it permanent, the answer is ready; Because the Lord\nin his mercy has once adopted and perpetually defends them. But if the\nquestion relate to the manner in which he does this, it will then be\nnecessary to advert to regeneration and its fruits, which are enumerated\nin the psalm that we have just quoted.\n\nVII. But there appears to be much greater difficulty in those places\nwhich dignify good works with the title of _righteousness_, and assert\nthat a man is justified by them. Of the former kind there are many,\nwhere the observance of the commands is denominated _justification_ or\n_righteousness_. An example of the other kind we find in Moses: \u201cAnd it\nshall be our righteousness, if we observe to do all these\ncommandments.\u201d[142] If it be objected that this is a legal promise,\nwhich, having an impossible condition annexed to it, proves\nnothing,\u2014there are other passages which will not admit of a similar\nreply; such as, \u201cIn case thou shalt deliver him the pledge, &c., it\nshall be righteousness unto thee before the Lord.\u201d[143] Similar to this\nis what the Psalmist says, that the zeal of Phinehas in avenging the\ndisgrace of Israel, \u201cwas counted unto him for righteousness.\u201d[144]\nTherefore the Pharisees of our day suppose that these passages afford\nample ground for their clamour against us. For when we say, that if the\nrighteousness of faith be established, there is an end of justification\nby works,\u2014they argue, in the same manner, that if righteousness be by\nworks, then it is not true that we are justified by faith alone. Though\nI grant that the precepts of the law are termed _righteousness_, there\nis nothing surprising in this; for they are so in reality. The reader,\nhowever, ought to be apprized that the Hebrew word \u05d7\u05e7\u05d9\u05dd (_commandments_)\nis not well translated by the Greek word \u03b4\u03b9\u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1, (_righteousness_.)\nBut I readily relinquish all controversy respecting the word. Nor do we\ndeny that the Divine law contains perfect righteousness. For although,\nbeing under an obligation to fulfil all its precepts, we should, even\nafter a perfect obedience to it, only be unprofitable servants,\u2014yet,\nsince the Lord has honoured the observance of it with the title of\n_righteousness_, we would not detract from what he has given. We freely\nacknowledge, therefore, that the perfect obedience of the law is\nrighteousness, and that the observance of every particular command is a\npart of righteousness; since complete righteousness consists of all the\nparts. But we deny that such a kind of righteousness any where exists.\nAnd therefore we reject the righteousness of the law; not that it is of\nitself defective and mutilated, but because, on account of the debility\nof our flesh,[145] it is no where to be found. It may be said, that the\nScripture not only calls the Divine precepts _righteousnesses_, but\ngives this appellation also to the works of the saints. As where it\nrelates of Zacharias and his wife, that \u201cthey were both righteous before\nGod, walking in all his commandments:\u201d[146] certainly, when it speaks\nthus, it estimates their works rather according to the nature of the\nlaw, than according to the actual condition of the persons. Here it is\nnecessary to repeat the observation which I have just made, that no rule\nis to be drawn from the incautiousness of the Greek translator. But as\nLuke has not thought proper to alter the common version, neither will I\ncontend for it. Those things which are commanded in the law, God has\nenjoined upon man as necessary to righteousness; but that righteousness\nwe do not fulfil without observing the whole law, which is broken by\nevery act of transgression. Since the law, therefore, only prescribes a\nrighteousness, if we contemplate the law itself, all its distinct\ncommands are parts of righteousness; if we consider men, by whom they\nare performed, they cannot obtain the praise of righteousness from one\nact, while they are transgressors in many, and while that same act is\npartly vicious by reason of its imperfection.\n\nVIII. But I proceed to the second class of texts, in which the principal\ndifficulty lies. Paul urges nothing more forcible in proof of\njustification by faith, than what is stated respecting Abraham\u2014that he\n\u201cbelieved God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.\u201d[147]\nSince the action of Phinehas, therefore, is said to have been \u201ccounted\nunto him for righteousness,\u201d[148] we may also use the same argument\nconcerning works, which Paul insists on respecting faith. Therefore our\nadversaries, as though they had established the point, determine that we\nare justified neither without faith, nor by faith alone; and that our\nrighteousness is completed by works. Therefore I conjure believers, if\nthey know that the true rule of righteousness is to be sought in the\nScripture alone, to accompany me in a serious and solemn examination how\nthe Scripture may be properly reconciled with itself without any\nsophistry. Paul, knowing the righteousness of faith to be the refuge of\nthose who are destitute of any righteousness of their own, boldly infers\nthat all who are justified by faith, are excluded from the righteousness\nof works. It being likewise evident, on the other hand, that this is\ncommon to all believers, he with equal confidence concludes that no man\nis justified by works, but rather, on the contrary, that we are\njustified independently of all works. But it is one thing to dispute\nconcerning the intrinsic value of works, and another, to argue\nrespecting the place they ought to hold after the establishment of the\nrighteousness of faith. If we are to determine the value of works by\ntheir own worthiness, we say that they are unworthy to appear in the\nsight of God; that there is nothing in our works of which we can glory\nbefore God; and consequently, that being divested of all assistance from\nworks, we are justified by faith alone. Now, we describe this\nrighteousness in the following manner: That a sinner, being admitted to\ncommunion with Christ, is by his grace reconciled to God; while, being\npurified by his blood, he obtains remission of sins, and being clothed\nwith his righteousness, as if it were his own, he stands secure before\nthe heavenly tribunal. Where remission of sins has been previously\nreceived, the good works which succeed are estimated far beyond their\nintrinsic merit; for all their imperfections are covered by the\nperfection of Christ, and all their blemishes are removed by his purity,\nthat they may not be scrutinized by the Divine judgment. The guilt,\ntherefore, of all transgressions, by which men are prevented from\noffering any thing acceptable to God being obliterated, and the\nimperfection, which universally deforms even the good works of\nbelievers, being buried in oblivion, their works are accounted\nrighteous, or, which is the same thing, are imputed for righteousness.\n\nIX. Now, if any one urge this to me as an objection, to oppose the\nrighteousness of faith, I will first ask him, Whether a man is reputed\nrighteous on account of one or two holy works, who is in the other\nactions of his life a transgressor of the law. This would be too absurd\nto be pretended. I shall next inquire, If he is reputed righteous on\naccount of many good works, while he is found guilty of any instance of\ntransgression. This, likewise, my adversary will not presume to\nmaintain, in opposition to the sanction of the law, which denounces a\ncurse on all those who do not fulfil every one of its precepts.[149] I\nwill further inquire, If there is any work which does not deserve the\ncharge of impurity or imperfection.[150] But how could this be possible\nbefore those eyes, in which the stars are not sufficiently pure, nor the\nangels sufficiently righteous? Thus he will be compelled to concede,\nthat there is not a good work to be found, which is not too much\npolluted, both by its own imperfection and by the transgressions with\nwhich it is attended, to have any claim to the honourable appellation of\n_righteousness_. Now, if it be evidently in consequence of justification\nby faith, that works, otherwise impure and imperfect, unworthy of the\nsight of God, and much more of his approbation, are imputed for\nrighteousness,\u2014why do they attempt, by boasting of the righteousness of\nworks, to destroy the righteousness of faith, from which all\nrighteousness of works proceeds? But do they wish to produce a viperous\noffspring to destroy the parent? For such is the true tendency of this\nimpious doctrine. They cannot deny that justification by faith is the\nbeginning, foundation, cause, motive, and substance of the righteousness\nof works; yet they conclude, that a man is not justified by faith\nbecause good works also are imputed for righteousness. Let us therefore\nleave these impertinences, and acknowledge the real state of the case;\nif all the righteousness which can be attributed to works depends on\njustification by faith, the latter is not only not diminished, but, on\nthe contrary, is confirmed by it; since its influence appears the more\nextensive. But let us not suppose that works, subsequent to gratuitous\njustification, are so highly esteemed, that they succeed to the office\nof justifying men, or divide that office with faith. For unless\njustification by faith remain always unimpaired, the impurity of their\nworks will be detected. Nor is there any absurdity in saying, that a man\nis so justified by faith, that he is not only righteous himself, but\nthat even his works are accounted righteous beyond what they deserve.\n\nX. In this way we will admit, not only a partial righteousness of works,\nwhich our opponents maintain, but such as is approved by God, as though\nit were perfect and complete. A remembrance of the foundation on which\nit stands will solve every difficulty. For no work is ever acceptable,\ntill it be received with pardon. Now, whence proceeds pardon, but from\nGod\u2019s beholding us and all our actions in Christ? When we are ingrafted\ninto Christ, therefore, as our persons appear righteous before God,\nbecause our iniquities are covered by his righteousness, so our works\nare accounted righteous, because the sinfulness otherwise belonging to\nthem is not imputed, being all buried in the purity of Christ. So we may\njustly assert, that not only our persons, but even our works, are\njustified by faith alone. Now, if this righteousness of works, whatever\nbe its nature, is consequent and dependent on faith and gratuitous\njustification, it ought to be included under it, and subordinated to it,\nas an effect to its cause; so far is it from deserving to be exalted,\neither to destroy or to obscure the righteousness of faith. Thus Paul,\nto evince that our blessedness depends on the mercy of God, and not on\nour works, chiefly urges this declaration of David: \u201cBlessed are they\nwhose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is\nthe man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.\u201d[151] If, in opposition to\nthis, the numerous passages be adduced where blessedness seems to be\nattributed to works; such as, \u201cBlessed is the man that feareth the\nLord;[152] that hath mercy on the poor;[153] that walketh not in the\ncounsel of the ungodly;[154] that endureth temptation;\u201d[155] \u201cBlessed\nare they that keep judgment;[156] the undefiled,[157] the poor in\nspirit, the meek, the merciful,\u201d &c.;[158] they will not at all weaken\nthe truth of what is advanced by Paul. For since no man ever attains all\nthese characters, so as thereby to gain the Divine approbation, it\nappears that men are always miserable till they are delivered from\nmisery by the pardon of their sins. Since all the beatitudes celebrated\nin the Scriptures are of no avail, and no man can derive any benefit\nfrom them, till he has obtained blessedness by the remission of his\nsins, which then makes room for the other beatitudes, it follows that\nthis is not merely the noblest and principal, but the only blessedness;\nunless, indeed, we suppose it to be diminished by those which are\ndependent on it. Now, we have much less reason to be disturbed by the\nappellation of _righteous_, which is generally given to believers. I\nacknowledge that they are denominated _righteous_ from the sanctity of\ntheir lives; but as they rather devote themselves to the pursuit of\nrighteousness than actually attain to righteousness itself, it is proper\nthat this righteousness, such as it is, should be subordinate to\njustification by faith, from which it derives its origin.\n\nXI. But our adversaries say that we have yet more difficulty with James,\nsince he contradicts us in express terms. For he teaches, that \u201cAbraham\nwas justified by works,\u201d and that we are all \u201cjustified by works, and\nnot by faith only.\u201d[159] What then? Will they draw Paul into a\ncontroversy with James? If they consider James as a minister of Christ,\nhis declarations must be understood in some sense not at variance with\nChrist when speaking by the mouth of Paul. The Spirit asserts, by the\nmouth of Paul, that Abraham obtained righteousness by faith, not by\nworks; we likewise teach, that we are all justified by faith without the\nworks of the law. The same Spirit affirms by James, that both Abraham\u2019s\nrighteousness and ours consists in works, and not in faith only. That\nthe Spirit is not inconsistent with himself is a certain truth. But what\nharmony can there be between these two apparently opposite assertions?\nOur adversaries would be satisfied, if they could totally subvert the\nrighteousness of faith, which we wish to be firmly established; but to\nafford tranquillity to the disturbed conscience, they feel very little\nconcern. Hence we perceive, that they oppose the doctrine of\njustification by faith, but at the same time fix no certain rule of\nrighteousness, by which the conscience may be satisfied. Let them\ntriumph then as they please, if they can boast no other victory but that\nof having removed all certainty of righteousness. And this miserable\nvictory, indeed, they will obtain, where, after having extinguished the\nlight of truth, they are permitted by the Lord to spread the shades of\nerror. But, wherever the truth of God remains, they will not prevail. I\ndeny, therefore, that the assertion of James, which they hold up against\nus as an impenetrable shield, affords them the least support. To evince\nthis, we shall first examine the scope of the apostle, and then remark\nwherein they are deceived. Because there were many persons at that time,\nand the Church is perpetually infested with similar characters, who, by\nneglecting and omitting the proper duties of believers, manifestly\nbetrayed their real infidelity, while they continued to glory in the\nfalse pretence of faith, James here exposes the foolish confidence of\nsuch persons. It is not his design, then, to diminish, in any respect,\nthe virtue of true faith, but to show the folly of these triflers, who\nwere content with arrogating to themselves the vain image of it, and\nsecurely abandoned themselves to every vice. This statement being\npremised, it will be easy to discover where lies the error of our\nadversaries. For they fall into two fallacies; one respecting the word\n\u201cfaith,\u201d the other respecting the word \u201cjustification.\u201d When the apostle\ngives the appellation of _faith_ to a vain notion, widely different from\ntrue faith, it is a concession which derogates nothing from the\nargument; this he shows from the beginning in these words: \u201cWhat doth it\nprofit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not\nworks?\u201d[160] He does not say, If any one have faith without works; but,\nIf any one boast of having it. He speaks still more plainly just after,\nwhere he ridicules it by representing it as worse than the knowledge of\ndevils; and lastly, when he calls it _dead_. But his meaning may be\nsufficiently understood from the definition he gives: \u201cThou believest,\u201d\nsays he, \u201cthat there is one God.\u201d Indeed, if nothing be contained in\nthis creed but a belief of the Divine existence, it is not at all\nsurprising that it is inadequate to justification. And we must not\nsuppose this denial to be derogatory to Christian faith, the nature of\nwhich is widely different. For how does true faith justify, but by\nuniting us to Christ, that, being made one with him, we may participate\nhis righteousness? It does not, therefore, justify us, by attaining a\nknowledge of God\u2019s existence, but by a reliance on the certainty of his\nmercy.\n\nXII. But we shall not have ascertained the whole scope of the apostle,\ntill we have exposed the other fallacy; for he attributes justification\npartly to works. If we wish to make James consistent with the rest of\nthe Scriptures, and even with himself, we must understand the word\n\u201cjustify\u201d in a different signification from that in which it is used by\nPaul. For we are said by Paul to be justified, when the memory of our\nunrighteousness is obliterated, and we are accounted righteous. If James\nhad alluded to this, it would have been preposterous for him to make\nthat quotation from Moses: \u201cAbraham believed God,\u201d &c.[161] For he\nintroduces it in the following manner: Abraham obtained righteousness by\nworks, because he hesitated not to sacrifice his son at the command of\nGod. And thus was the Scripture fulfilled, which saith, Abraham believed\nGod, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness. If an effect\nantecedent to its cause be an absurdity, either Moses falsely asserts in\nthat place, that Abraham\u2019s faith was imputed to him for righteousness,\nor Abraham did not obtain righteousness by his obedience, displayed in\nthe oblation of his son. Abraham was justified by faith, while Ishmael,\nwho arrived at adolescence before the birth of Isaac, was not yet\nconceived. How, then, can we ascribe his justification to an act of\nobedience performed so long after? Wherefore, either James improperly\ninverted the order of events, (which it is unlawful to imagine,) or, by\nsaying that Abraham was justified, he did not mean that the patriarch\ndeserved to be accounted righteous. What, then, was his meaning? He\nevidently appears to speak of a declaration of righteousness before men,\nand not of an imputation of it in the sight of God; as though he had\nsaid, They who are justified by true faith, prove their justification,\nnot by a barren and imaginary resemblance of faith, but by obedience and\ngood works. In a word, he is not disputing concerning the method of\njustification, but requiring of believers a righteousness manifested in\ngood works. And as Paul contends for justification independent of works,\nso James will not allow those to be accounted righteous, who are\ndestitute of good works. The consideration of this object will extricate\nus from every difficulty. For the principal mistake of our adversaries\nconsists in supposing, that James describes the method of justification,\nwhile he only endeavours to destroy the corrupt security of those who\nmake vain pretences to faith, in order to excuse their contempt of good\nworks. Into whatever forms, therefore, they pervert the words of James,\nthey will extort nothing but these two truths\u2014that a vain notion of\nfaith cannot justify; and that the faithful, not content with such an\nimagination, manifest their righteousness by their good works.\n\nXIII. Nor can they derive the least support from a similar passage which\nthey cite from Paul, that \u201cNot the hearers of the law, but the doers of\nthe law, shall be justified.\u201d[162] I have no wish to evade it by the\nexplanation of Ambrose, that this is spoken, because faith in Christ is\nthe fulfilling of the law. For this I conceive to be a mere subterfuge,\nwhich is totally unnecessary. The apostle in that place is demolishing\nthe foolish confidence of the Jews, who boasted of possessing the\nexclusive knowledge of the law, whilst at the same time they were the\ngreatest despisers of it. To prevent such great self-complacence on\naccount of a mere acquaintance with the law, he admonishes them, that if\nrighteousness be sought by the law, it is requisite not only to know but\nto observe it. We certainly do not question that the righteousness of\nthe law consists in works, nor that this righteousness consists in the\nworthiness and merit of works. But still it cannot be proved that we are\njustified by works, unless some person be produced who has fulfilled the\nlaw. That Paul had no other meaning, is sufficiently evident from the\ncontext. After having condemned the Gentiles and Jews indiscriminately\nfor unrighteousness, he proceeds particularly to inform us, that \u201cas\nmany as have sinned without law shall also perish without law;\u201d which\nrefers to the Gentiles; and that \u201cas many as have sinned in the law\nshall be judged by the law;\u201d which belongs to the Jews. Moreover,\nbecause they shut their eyes against their transgressions, and gloried\nin their mere possession of the law, he adds, what is exceedingly\napplicable, that the law was not given that men might be justified\nmerely by hearing its voice, but by obeying it; as though he had said,\nDo you seek righteousness by the law? Plead not your having heard it,\nwhich of itself is a very small advantage, but produce works as an\nevidence that the law has not been given to you in vain. Since in this\nrespect they were all deficient, they were consequently deprived of\ntheir glorying in the law. The meaning of Paul, therefore, rather\nfurnishes an opposite argument: Legal righteousness consists in perfect\nworks; no man can boast of having satisfied the law by his works;\ntherefore there is no righteousness by the law.\n\nXIV. Our adversaries proceed to adduce those passages in which the\nfaithful boldly offer their righteousness to the examination of Divine\njustice, and desire to be judged according to it. Such are the\nfollowing: \u201cJudge me, O Lord, according to my righteousness, and\naccording to mine integrity that is in me.\u201d[163] Again: \u201cHear the right,\nO Lord. Thou hast proved mine heart; thou hast visited me in the night;\nthou hast tried me, and shalt find nothing.\u201d[164] Again: \u201cI have kept\nthe ways of the Lord, and have not wickedly departed from my God. I was\nalso upright before him, and I kept myself from mine iniquity. Therefore\nhath the Lord recompensed me according to my righteousness, according to\nthe cleanness of my hands.\u201d[165] Again: \u201cJudge me, O Lord, for I have\nwalked in mine integrity. I have not sat with vain persons; neither will\nI go in with dissemblers. Gather not my soul with sinners, nor my life\nwith bloody men; in whose hands is mischief, and their right hand is\nfull of bribes. But as for me, I will walk in mine integrity.\u201d[166] I\nhave already spoken of the confidence which the saints appear to derive\nfrom their works. The passages now adduced will form no objection to our\ndoctrine, when they are explained according to the occasion of them.\nNow, this is twofold. For believers who have expressed themselves in\nthis manner, have no wish to submit to a general examination, to be\ncondemned or absolved according to the whole tenor of their lives, but\nthey bring forward a particular cause to be judged; and they attribute\nrighteousness to themselves, not with reference to the Divine\nperfection, but in comparison with men of impious and abandoned\ncharacters. In the first place, in order to a man\u2019s being justified, it\nis requisite that he should have, not only a good cause in some\nparticular instance, but a perpetual consistency of righteousness\nthrough life. But the saints, when they implore the judgment of God in\napprobation of their innocence, do not present themselves as free from\nevery charge, and absolutely guiltless; but having fixed their\ndependence on his goodness alone, and confiding in his readiness to\navenge the poor who are unlawfully and unjustly afflicted, they\nsupplicate his regard to the cause in which the innocent are oppressed.\nBut when they place themselves and their adversaries before the Divine\ntribunal, they boast not an innocence, which, on a severe examination,\nwould be found correspondent to the purity of God; but knowing that\ntheir sincerity, justice, simplicity, and purity, are pleasing and\nacceptable to God, in comparison with the malice, wickedness, fraud, and\niniquity of their enemies, they are not afraid to invoke Him to judge\nbetween them. Thus, when David said to Saul, \u201cThe Lord render to every\nman his righteousness and his faithfulness\u201d[167] he did not mean that\nthe Lord should examine every individual by himself, and reward him\naccording to his merits; but he called the Lord to witness the greatness\nof his innocence in comparison with the iniquity of Saul. Nor did Paul,\nwhen he gloried in having \u201cthe testimony of\u201d his \u201cconscience\u201d that he\nhad conducted himself in the Church \u201cwith simplicity and godly\nsincerity,\u201d[168] intend to rely on this before God; but the calumnies of\nthe impious constrained him to oppose all their slanderous aspersions by\nasserting his fidelity and probity, which he knew to be acceptable to\nthe Divine goodness. For we know what he says in another place: \u201cI am\nconscious to myself of nothing; yet am I not hereby justified.\u201d[169]\nBecause, indeed, he was certain, that the judgment of God far\ntranscended the narrow comprehension of man. However, therefore, the\npious may vindicate their innocence against the hypocrisy of the\nimpious, by invoking God to be their witness and judge, yet in their\nconcerns with God alone, they all with one voice exclaim, \u201cIf thou,\nLord, shouldst mark iniquities, O Lord, who shall stand?\u201d[170] Again:\n\u201cEnter not into judgment with thy servant, for in thy sight shall no man\nliving be justified.\u201d[171] And, diffident of their own works, they\ngladly sing, \u201cThy loving-kindness is better than life.\u201d[172]\n\nXV. There are likewise other passages, similar to the preceding, on\nwhich some person may yet insist. Solomon says, \u201cThe just man walketh in\nhis integrity.\u201d[173] Again: \u201cIn the way of righteousness there is life;\nand in the pathway thereof there is no death.\u201d[174] Thus also Ezekiel\ndeclares, that he who \u201cdoth that which is lawful and right, shall surely\nlive.\u201d[175] We neither deny nor obscure any of these. But let one of the\nsons of Adam produce such an integrity. If no one can, they must either\nperish from the presence of God, or flee to the asylum of mercy. Nor do\nwe deny, that to believers their integrity, however imperfect, is a step\ntoward immortality. But what is the cause of this, unless it be that\nwhen the Lord has admitted any persons into the covenant of his grace,\nhe does not scrutinize their works according to their intrinsic merit,\nbut embraces them with paternal benignity? By this we mean, not merely\nwhat is taught by the schoolmen, \u201cthat works receive their value from\nthe grace which accepts them;\u201d for they suppose, that works, otherwise\ninadequate to the attainment of salvation by the legal covenant, are\nrendered sufficient for this by the Divine acceptance of them. But I\nassert, that they are so defiled, both by other transgressions and by\ntheir own blemishes, that they are of no value at all, except as the\nLord pardons both; and this is no other than bestowing on a man\ngratuitous righteousness. It is irrelevant to this subject, to allege\nthose prayers of the apostle, in which he desires such perfection for\nbelievers, that they may be unblamable and irreprovable in the day of\nChrist.[176] These passages, indeed, the Celestines formerly perverted,\nin order to prove a perfection of righteousness in the present life. We\nthink it sufficient briefly to reply, with Augustine, \u201cthat all the\npious ought, indeed, to aspire to this object, to appear one day\nimmaculate and guiltless before the presence of God; but since the\nhighest excellency in this life is nothing more than a progress towards\nperfection, we shall never attain it, till, being divested at once of\nmortality and sin, we shall fully adhere to the Lord.\u201d Nevertheless, I\nshall not pertinaciously contend with any person who chooses to\nattribute to the saints the character of perfection, provided he also\ndefines it in the words of Augustine himself; who says, \u201cWhen we\ndenominate the virtue of the saints perfect, to this perfection itself\nbelongs the acknowledgment of imperfection, both in truth and in\nhumility.\u201d\n\nFootnote 125:\n\n  Deut. vii. 12, 13.\n\nFootnote 126:\n\n  Jer. vii. 5-7.\n\nFootnote 127:\n\n  Deut. xi. 26; xxx. 15.\n\nFootnote 128:\n\n  Gal. ii. 16.\n\nFootnote 129:\n\n  Psalm xix. 12.\n\nFootnote 130:\n\n  Psalm xxv. 10, 11.\n\nFootnote 131:\n\n  Lev. xviii. 5.\n\nFootnote 132:\n\n  Rom. x. 5, &c.\n\nFootnote 133:\n\n  Acts x. 34, 35.\n\nFootnote 134:\n\n  Gal. v. 5.\n\nFootnote 135:\n\n  Deut. vii. 9.\n\nFootnote 136:\n\n  1 Kings viii. 23.\n\nFootnote 137:\n\n  Neh. i. 5.\n\nFootnote 138:\n\n  Deut. xxix. 19, 20.\n\nFootnote 139:\n\n  2 Sam. xxii. 20, 21.\n\nFootnote 140:\n\n  Psalm xv. 1, 2.\n\nFootnote 141:\n\n  Isaiah xxxiii. 14, 15.\n\nFootnote 142:\n\n  Deut. vi. 25.\n\nFootnote 143:\n\n  Deut. xxiv. 13.\n\nFootnote 144:\n\n  Psalm cvi. 30, 31.\n\nFootnote 145:\n\n  Rom. viii. 3.\n\nFootnote 146:\n\n  Luke i. 6.\n\nFootnote 147:\n\n  Rom. iv. 3. Gal. iii. 6.\n\nFootnote 148:\n\n  Psalm cvi. 31.\n\nFootnote 149:\n\n  Deut. xxvii. 26.\n\nFootnote 150:\n\n  Job iv. 18; xv. 15; xxv. 5.\n\nFootnote 151:\n\n  Rom. iv. 7, 8. Psalm xxxii. 1, 2.\n\nFootnote 152:\n\n  Psalm cxii. 1.\n\nFootnote 153:\n\n  Prov. xiv. 21.\n\nFootnote 154:\n\n  Psalm i. 1.\n\nFootnote 155:\n\n  James i. 12.\n\nFootnote 156:\n\n  Psalm cvi. 3.\n\nFootnote 157:\n\n  Psalm cxix. 1.\n\nFootnote 158:\n\n  Matt. v. 3, 5, 7.\n\nFootnote 159:\n\n  James ii. 21, 24.\n\nFootnote 160:\n\n  James ii. 14.\n\nFootnote 161:\n\n  James ii. 21-23. Gen. xv. 6.\n\nFootnote 162:\n\n  Rom. ii. 13.\n\nFootnote 163:\n\n  Psalm vii. 8.\n\nFootnote 164:\n\n  Psalm xvii. 1, 3.\n\nFootnote 165:\n\n  Psalm xviii. 21, 23, 24.\n\nFootnote 166:\n\n  Psalm xxvi. 1, 4, 9-11.\n\nFootnote 167:\n\n  1 Sam. xxvi. 23.\n\nFootnote 168:\n\n  2 Cor. i. 12.\n\nFootnote 169:\n\n  1 Cor. iv. 4.\n\nFootnote 170:\n\n  Psalm cxxx. 3.\n\nFootnote 171:\n\n  Psalm cxliii. 2.\n\nFootnote 172:\n\n  Psalm lxiii. 3.\n\nFootnote 173:\n\n  Prov. xx. 7.\n\nFootnote 174:\n\n  Prov. xii. 28.\n\nFootnote 175:\n\n  Ez. xxxiii. 14, 15.\n\nFootnote 176:\n\n  1 Thess. iii. 13, et alibi.\n\n\n\n\n                             CHAPTER XVIII.\nJUSTIFICATION BY WORKS NOT TO BE INFERRED FROM THE PROMISE OF A REWARD.\n\n\nLet us now proceed to those passages which affirm that \u201cGod will render\nto every man according to his deeds;\u201d[177] that \u201cevery one may receive\nthe things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it\nbe good or bad.\u201d[178] \u201cTribulation and anguish upon every soul that\ndoeth evil; but glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh\ngood.\u201d[179] And, \u201cAll shall come forth; they that have done good, unto\nthe resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the\nresurrection of damnation.\u201d[180] \u201cCome, ye blessed of my Father; for I\nwas a hungered, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me\ndrink,\u201d &c.[181] And with these let us also connect those which\nrepresent eternal life as the reward of works, such as the following:\n\u201cThe recompense of a man\u2019s hands shall be rendered unto him.\u201d[182] \u201cHe\nthat feareth the commandment shall be rewarded.\u201d[183] \u201cRejoice and be\nexceeding glad; for great is your reward in heaven.\u201d[184] \u201cEvery one\nshall receive his own reward, according to his own labour.\u201d[185] The\ndeclaration, that God will render to every one according to his works,\nis easily explained. For that phrase indicates the order of events,\nrather than the cause of them. But it is beyond all doubt, that the Lord\nproceeds to the consummation of our salvation by these several\ngradations of mercy: \u201cWhom he hath predestinated, them he calls; whom he\nhath called, he justifies; and whom he hath justified, he finally\nglorifies.\u201d[186] Though he receives his children into eternal life,\ntherefore, of his mere mercy, yet since he conducts them to the\npossession of it through a course of good works, that he may fulfil his\nwork in them in the order he has appointed, we need not wonder if they\nare said to be rewarded according to their works, by which they are\nundoubtedly prepared to receive the crown of immortality. And for this\nreason, they are properly said to \u201cwork out their own salvation,\u201d[187]\nwhile, devoting themselves to good works, they aspire to eternal life;\njust as in another place they are commanded to \u201clabor for the meat which\nperisheth not,\u201d when they obtain eternal life by believing in Christ;\nand yet it is immediately added, \u201cwhich the Son of man shall give unto\nyou.\u201d[188] Whence it appears that the word _work_ is not opposed to\ngrace, but refers to human endeavours; and therefore it does not follow,\neither that believers are the authors of their own salvation, or that\nsalvation proceeds from their works. But as soon as they are introduced,\nby the knowledge of the gospel and the illumination of the Holy Spirit,\ninto communion with Christ, eternal life is begun in them. Now, \u201cthe\ngood work which\u201d God \u201chath begun in\u201d them, \u201che will perform until the\nday of Jesus Christ.\u201d[189] And it is performed, when they prove\nthemselves to be the genuine children of God by their resemblance to\ntheir heavenly Father in righteousness and holiness.\n\nII. We have no reason to infer from the term _reward_, that good works\nare the cause of salvation. First, let this truth be established in our\nminds, that the kingdom of heaven is not the stipend of servants, but\nthe inheritance of children, which will be enjoyed only by those whom\nthe Lord adopts as his children, and for no other cause than on account\nof this adoption. \u201cFor the son of the bond-woman shall not be heir with\nthe son of the free-woman.\u201d[190] And, therefore, in the same passages in\nwhich the Holy Spirit promises eternal life as the reward of works, by\nexpressly denominating it \u201can inheritance,\u201d he proves it to proceed from\nanother cause. Thus Christ enumerates the works which he compensates by\nthe reward of heaven, when he calls the elect to the possession of it;\nbut at the same time adds, that it is to be enjoyed by right of\ninheritance.[191] So Paul encourages servants, who faithfully discharge\ntheir duty, to hope for a reward from the Lord; but at the same time\ncalls it \u201cthe reward of the inheritance.\u201d[192] We see how they, almost\nin express terms, caution us against attributing eternal life to works,\ninstead of ascribing it to Divine adoption. Why, then, it may be asked,\ndo they at the same time make mention of works? This question shall be\nelucidated by one example from the Scripture. Before the nativity of\nIsaac, there had been promised to Abraham a seed in whom all the nations\nof the earth were to be blessed, a multiplication of his posterity,\nwhich would equal the stars of heaven and the sands of the sea, and\nother similar blessings.[193] Many years after, in consequence of a\nDivine command, Abraham prepares to sacrifice his son. After this act of\nobedience, he receives this promise: \u201cBy myself have I sworn, saith the\nLord, for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy\nson, thine only son; that in blessing I will bless thee, and in\nmultiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as\nthe sand which is upon the sea-shore; and thy seed shall possess the\ngate of his enemies; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth\nbe blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice.\u201d[194] What? did Abraham\nby his obedience merit that blessing which had been promised him before\nthe command was delivered? Here, then, it appears, beyond all doubt,\nthat the Lord rewards the works of believers with those blessings which\nhe had already given them before their works were thought of, and while\nhe had no reason for his beneficence, but his own mercy.\n\nIII. Nor does the Lord deceive or trifle with us, when he says that he\nwill requite works with what he had freely given previously to the\nperformance of them. For since it is his pleasure that we be employed in\ngood works, while aspiring after the manifestation or enjoyment of those\nthings which he has promised, and that they constitute the road in which\nwe should travel to endeavour to attain the blessed hope proposed to us\nin heaven, therefore the fruit of the promises, to the perfection of\nwhich fruit those works conduct us, is justly assigned to them. The\napostle beautifully expressed both those ideas, when he said that the\nColossians applied themselves to the duties of charity, \u201cfor the hope\nwhich was laid up for them in heaven, whereof they heard before in the\nword, of the truth of the gospel.\u201d[195] For his assertion, that they\nknew from the gospel, that there was hope laid up for them in heaven, is\nequivalent to a declaration that it depended not on any works, but on\nChrist alone; which perfectly accords with the observation of Peter,\nthat believers \u201care kept by the power of God through faith unto\nsalvation, ready to be revealed in the last time.\u201d[196] When it is said\nthat they must labour for it, it implies, that in order to attain to it,\nbelievers have a race to run, which terminates only with their lives.\nBut that we might not suppose the reward promised us by the Lord to be\nregulated according to the proportion of merit, he proposes a parable,\nin which he has represented himself under the character of a\nhouseholder, who employs all the persons he meets in the cultivation of\nhis vineyard; some he hires at the first hour of the day, others at the\nsecond, others at the third, and some even at the eleventh hour; in the\nevening he pays them all the same wages.[197] A brief and just\nexplanation of this parable is given by the ancient writer, whoever he\nwas, of the treatise \u201cOn the Calling of the Gentiles,\u201d which bears the\nname of Ambrose. I shall adopt his words in preference to my own. \u201cBy\nthe example of this comparison, (says he,) the Lord has shown a variety\nof manifold vocation pertaining to the same grace. They who, having been\nadmitted into the vineyard at the eleventh hour, are placed on an\nequality with them who had laboured the whole day, represent the state\nof those whom, to magnify the excellence of grace, God, in his mercy,\nhas rewarded in the decline of the day, and at the conclusion of life;\nnot paying them the wages due to their labour, but sending down the\nriches of his goodness, in copious effusions, on them whom he has chosen\nwithout works; that even they who have laboured the most, and have\nreceived no more than the last, may understand theirs to be a reward of\ngrace, not of works.\u201d Lastly, it is also worthy of being observed, that\nin those places where eternal life is called a reward of works, it is\nnot to be understood simply of that communion which we have with God, as\nthe prelude to a happy immortality, when he embraces us in Christ with\npaternal benevolence; but of the possession or fruition of ultimate\nblessedness, as the very words of Christ import\u2014\u201cin the world to come,\neternal life.\u201d[198] And in another place, \u201cCome, inherit the kingdom,\u201d\n&c.[199] For the same reason, Paul applies the term _adoption_ to the\nrevelation of adoption, which shall be made in the resurrection; and\nafterwards explains it to be \u201cthe redemption of our body.\u201d[200]\nOtherwise, as alienation from God is eternal death, so when a man is\nreceived into the favour of God so as to enjoy communion with him and\nbecome united to him, he is translated from death to life; which is\nsolely the fruit of adoption. And if they insist, with their accustomed\npertinacity, on the reward of works, we may retort against them that\npassage of Peter, where eternal life is called \u201cthe end (or reward) of\nfaith.\u201d[201]\n\nIV. Let us not, therefore, imagine, that the Holy Spirit by these\npromises commends the worthiness of our works, as though they merited\nsuch a reward. For the Scripture leaves us nothing that can exalt us in\nthe Divine presence. Its whole tendency is rather to repress our\narrogance, and to inspire us with humility, dejection, and contrition.\nBut such promises assist our weakness, which otherwise would immediately\nslide and fall, if it did not sustain itself by this expectation, and\nalleviate its sorrows by this consolation. First, let every one reflect,\nhow difficult it is for a man to relinquish and renounce, not only all\nthat belongs to him, but even himself. And yet this is the first lesson\nwhich Christ teaches his disciples, that is to say, all the pious.\nAfterwards he gives them such tuition during the remainder of their\nlives, under the discipline of the cross, that their hearts may not fix\neither their desires or their dependence on present advantages. In\nshort, he generally manages them in such a manner, that whithersoever\nthey turn their views throughout the world, nothing but despair presents\nitself to them on every side; so that Paul says, \u201cIf in this life only\nwe have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.\u201d[202] To\npreserve them from sinking under these afflictions, they have the\npresence of the Lord, who encourages them to raise their heads higher,\nand to extend their views further, by assurances that they will find in\nhim that blessedness which they cannot see in the world. This\nblessedness he calls _a reward_, _a recompense_; not attributing any\nmerit to their works, but signifying that it is a compensation for their\noppressions, sufferings, and disgrace. Wherefore there is no objection\nagainst our following the example of the Scripture in calling eternal\nlife _a reward_; since in that state the Lord receives his people from\nlabor into rest; from affliction into prosperity and happiness; from\nsorrow into joy; from poverty into affluence; from ignominy into glory;\nand commutes all the evils which they have endured for blessings of\nsuperior magnitude. So, likewise, it will occasion no inconvenience, if\nwe consider holiness of life as the way, not which procures our\nadmission into the glory of the heavenly kingdom, but through which the\nelect are conducted by their God to the manifestation of it; since it is\nhis good pleasure to glorify them whom he has sanctified. Only let us\nnot imagine a reciprocal relation of merit and reward, which is the\nerror into which the sophists fell, for want of considering the end\nwhich we have stated. But how preposterous is it, when the Lord calls\nour attention to one end, for us to direct our views to another! Nothing\nis clearer, than that the promise of a reward to good works is designed\nto afford some consolation to the weakness of our flesh, but not to\ninflate our minds with vain-glory. Whoever, therefore, infers from this,\nthat there is any merit in works, or balances the work against the\nreward, errs very widely from the true design of God.\n\nV. Therefore, when the Scripture says, that \u201cthe Lord, the righteous\nJudge, shall give\u201d to his people \u201ca crown of righteousness,\u201d[203] I not\nonly reply with Augustine\u2014\u201cTo whom could the righteous Judge have given\na crown, if the Father of mercies had never given grace? and how would\nit have been an act of righteousness, if not preceded by that grace\nwhich justifies the ungodly? how could these due rewards be rendered,\nunless those unmerited blessings were previously bestowed?\u201d but I\nfurther inquire\u2014How could he impute righteousness to our works, unless\nhis indulgent mercy had concealed their unrighteousness? How could he\nesteem them worthy of a reward, unless his infinite goodness had\nabolished all their demerit of punishment? Augustine is in the habit of\ndesignating eternal life by the word _grace_, because, when it is given\nas the reward of works, it is conferred on the gratuitous gifts of God.\nBut the Scripture humbles us more, and at the same time exalts us. For\nbeside prohibiting us to glory in works, because they are the gratuitous\ngifts of God, it likewise teaches us that they are always defiled by\nsome pollutions; so that they cannot satisfy God, if examined according\nto the rule of his judgment; but it is also added, to prevent our\ndespondency, that they please him merely through his mercy. Now, though\nAugustine expresses himself somewhat differently from us, yet that there\nis no real difference of sentiment will appear from his language to\nBoniface. After a comparison between two men, the one of a life holy and\nperfect even to a miracle, the other a man of probity and integrity, yet\nnot so perfect but that many defects might be discovered, he at length\nmakes this inference: \u201cThe latter, whose character appears inferior to\nthe former, on account of the true faith in God by which he lives, and\naccording to which he accuses himself in all his delinquencies, and in\nall his good works praises God, ascribing the glory to him, the ignominy\nto himself, and deriving from him both the pardon of his sins and the\nlove of virtue; this man, I say, when delivered from this life, removes\ninto the presence of Christ. Wherefore, but on account of faith? which,\nthough no man be saved by it without works, (for it is not a reprobate\nfaith, but such as works by love,) yet produces remission of sins, for\nthe just lives by faith;[204] but without it, works apparently good are\nperverted into sins.\u201d Here he avows, without any obscurity, that for\nwhich we so strenuously contend\u2014that the righteousness of good works\ndepends on their acceptance by the Divine mercy.\n\nVI. Very similar to the foregoing passages is the import of the\nfollowing: \u201cMake to yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness;\nthat, when ye fail, they may receive you into everlasting\nhabitations.\u201d[205] \u201cCharge them that are rich in this world, that they\nbe not high-minded, nor trust in uncertain riches, but in the living\nGod; that they do good, that they be rich in good works; laying up in\nstore for themselves a good foundation against the time to come, that\nthey may lay hold on eternal life.\u201d [206] Here good works are compared\nto riches, which we may enjoy in the happiness of eternal life. I reply,\nthat we shall never arrive at the true meaning of these passages, unless\nwe advert to the design of the Spirit in such language. If Christ\u2019s\ndeclaration be true, that \u201cwhere our treasure is, there will our heart\nbe also,\u201d[207]\u2014as the children of this world are generally intent on the\nacquisition of those things which conduce to the comfort of the present\nlife, so it ought to be the concern of believers, after they have been\ntaught that this life will ere long vanish like a dream, to transmit\nthose things which they really wish to enjoy, to that place where they\nshall possess a perfect and permanent life. It behoves us, therefore, to\nimitate the conduct of those who determine to migrate to any new\nsituation, where they have chosen to reside during the remainder of\ntheir lives; they send their property before them, without regarding the\ninconvenience of a temporary absence from it; esteeming their happiness\nthe greater in proportion to the wealth which they possess in the place\nwhich they intend for their permanent residence. If we believe heaven to\nbe our country, it is better for us to transmit our wealth thither, than\nto retain it here, where we may lose it by a sudden removal. But how\nshall we transmit it? Why, if we communicate to the necessities of the\npoor; whatever is bestowed on them, the Lord considers as given to\nhimself.[208] Whence that celebrated promise, \u201cHe that hath pity upon\nthe poor, lendeth unto the Lord.\u201d[209] Again: \u201cHe which soweth\nbountifully shall reap also bountifully.\u201d[210] For all things that are\nbestowed on our brethren in a way of charity, are so many deposits in\nthe hand of the Lord; which he, as a faithful depositary, will one day\nrestore with ample interest. Are our acts of duty, then, it will be\nasked, so valuable in the sight of God, that they are like riches\nreserved in his hand for us? And who can be afraid to assert this, when\nthe Scripture so frequently and plainly declares it? But if any one,\nfrom the mere goodness of God, would infer the merit of works, these\ntestimonies will afford no countenance to such an error. For we can\ninfer nothing from them except the indulgence which God in his mercy is\ndisposed to show us, since, in order to animate us to rectitude of\nconduct, though the duties we perform are unworthy of the least notice\nfrom him, yet he suffers not one of them to go unrewarded.\n\nVII. But they insist more on the words of the apostle, who, to console\nthe Thessalonians under their tribulations, tells them that the design\nof their infliction is, \u201cthat they may be counted worthy of the kingdom\nof God, for which they also suffer. Seeing,\u201d says he, \u201cit is a righteous\nthing with God to recompense tribulation to them that trouble you; and\nto you who are troubled, rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be\nrevealed from heaven.\u201d[211] And the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews\nsays, \u201cGod is not unrighteous to forget your work and labour of love,\nwhich ye have showed toward his name, in that ye have ministered to the\nsaints.\u201d[212] To the first passage I reply, That it indicates no\nworthiness of merit; but since it is the will of God the Father, that\nthose whom he has chosen as his children be conformed to Christ his\nfirst begotten Son;[213] as it was necessary for him first to suffer and\nthen to enter into the glory destined for him;[214] so \u201cwe must through\nmuch tribulation enter into the kingdom of God.\u201d[215] The tribulations,\ntherefore, which we suffer for the name of Christ, are, as it were,\ncertain marks impressed on us by which God usually distinguishes the\nsheep of his flock. For this reason, then, we are accounted worthy of\nthe kingdom of God, because we bear in our body the marks of our Lord\nand Master,[216] which are the badges of the children of God. The same\nsentiment is conveyed in the following passages: \u201cBearing about in the\nbody the dying of the Lord Jesus, that the life also of Jesus might be\nmade manifest in our body.\u201d[217] \u201cBeing made conformable unto his death,\nif by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead.\u201d[218]\nThe reason which the apostle subjoins tends not to establish any merit,\nbut to confirm the hope of the kingdom of God; as though he had said, As\nit is consistent with the judgment of God to avenge on your enemies\nthose vexations with which they have harassed you, so it is also to\ngrant you respite and repose from those vexations. Of the other passage,\nwhich represents it as becoming the righteousness of God not to forget\nour services, so as almost to imply that he would be unrighteous if he\ndid forget them, the meaning is, that in order to arouse our indolence,\nGod has assured us that the labour which we undergo for the glory of his\nname shall not be in vain. And we should always remember that this\npromise, as well as all others, would be fraught with no benefit to us,\nunless it were preceded by the gratuitous covenant of mercy, on which\nthe whole certainty of our salvation must depend. But relying on that\ncovenant, we may securely confide, that our services, however unworthy,\nwill not go without a reward from the goodness of God. To confirm us in\nthat expectation, the apostle asserts that God is not unrighteous, but\nwill perform the promise he has once made. This righteousness,\ntherefore, refers rather to the truth of the Divine promise, than to the\nequity of rendering to us any thing that is our due. To this purpose\nthere is a remarkable observation of Augustine; and as that holy man has\nnot hesitated frequently to repeat it as deserving of remembrance, so I\ndeem it not unworthy of a constant place in our minds. \u201cThe Lord,\u201d says\nhe, \u201cis faithful, who has made himself our debtor, not by receiving any\nthing from us, but by promising all things to us.\u201d\n\nVIII. Our Pharisees adduce the following passages of Paul: \u201cThough I\nhave all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity,\nI am nothing.\u201d Again: \u201cNow abideth faith, hope, charity, these three;\nbut the greatest of these is charity.\u201d[219] Again: \u201cAbove all these\nthings, put on charity, which is the bond of perfectness.\u201d[220] From the\nfirst two passages they contend that we are justified rather by charity\nthan by faith; that is, by the superior virtue, as they express it. But\nthis argument is easily overturned. For we have already shown, that what\nis mentioned in the first passage, has no reference to true faith. The\nsecond we explain to signify true faith, than which he calls charity\ngreater, not as being more meritorious, but because it is more fruitful,\nmore extensive, more generally serviceable, and perpetual in its\nduration; whereas the use of faith is only temporary. In respect of\nexcellence, the pre\u00ebminence must be given to the love of God, which is\nnot in this place the subject of Paul\u2019s discourse. For the only point\nwhich he urges is, that with reciprocal charity we mutually edify one\nanother in the Lord. But let us suppose that charity excels faith in all\nrespects, yet what person possessed of sound judgment, or even of the\ncommon exercise of reason, would argue from this that it has a greater\nconcern in justification? The power of justifying, attached to faith,\nconsists not in the worthiness of the act. Our justification depends\nsolely on the mercy of God and the merit of Christ, which when faith\napprehends, it is said to justify us. Now, if we ask our adversaries in\nwhat sense they attribute justification to charity, they will reply,\nthat because it is a duty pleasing to God, the merit of it, being\naccepted by the Divine goodness, is imputed to us for righteousness.\nHere we see how curiously their argument proceeds. We assert that faith\njustifies, not by procuring us a righteousness through its own merit,\nbut as the instrument by which we freely obtain the righteousness of\nChrist. These men, passing over in silence the mercy of God, and making\nno mention of Christ, in whom is the substance of righteousness, contend\nthat we are justified by the virtue of charity, because it is more\nexcellent than faith; just as though any one should insist that a king,\nin consequence of his superior rank, is more expert at making a shoe\nthan a shoemaker. This one argument affords an ample proof that all the\nSorbonic schools are destitute of the least experience of justification\nby faith. But if any wrangler should yet inquire, why we understand Paul\nto use the word _faith_ in different acceptations in the same discourse,\nI am prepared with a substantial reason for such an interpretation. For\nsince those gifts which Paul enumerates, are in some respect connected\nwith faith and hope, because they relate to the knowledge of God, he\nsummarily comprises them all under those two words; as though he had\nsaid, The end of prophecy, and of tongues, of knowledge, and of the gift\nof interpretation, is to conduct us to the knowledge of God. But we know\nGod in this life only by hope and faith. Therefore, when I mention faith\nand hope, I comprehend all these things under them. \u201cAnd now abideth\nfaith, hope, charity, these three;\u201d that is, all gifts, whatever may be\ntheir variety, are referred to these. \u201cBut the greatest of these is\ncharity.\u201d From the third passage they infer, that if \u201ccharity is the\nbond of perfectness,\u201d it is therefore the bond of righteousness, which\nis no other than perfection. Now, to refrain from observing that what\nPaul calls _perfectness_, is the mutual connection which subsists\nbetween the members of a well-constituted church, and to admit that\ncharity constitutes our perfection before God; yet what new advantage\nwill they gain? On the contrary, I shall always object, that we never\narrive at that perfection, unless we fulfil all the branches of charity;\nand hence I shall infer, that since all men are at an immense distance\nfrom complete charity, they are destitute of all hope of perfection.\n\nIX. I have no inclination to notice all the passages of Scripture, which\nthe folly of the modern Sorbonists seizes as they occur, and without any\nreason employs against us. For some of them are so truly ridiculous,\nthat I could not even mention them, unless I wished to be accounted a\nfool. I shall therefore conclude this subject after having explained a\nsentence uttered by Christ, with which they are wonderfully pleased. To\na lawyer, who asked him what was necessary to salvation, he replied, \u201cIf\nthou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.\u201d[221] What can we wish\nmore, say they, when the Author of grace himself commands to obtain the\nkingdom of heaven by an observance of the commandments? As though it\nwere not evident, that Christ adapted his replies to those with whom he\nconversed. Here a doctor of the law inquires the method of obtaining\nhappiness, and that not simply, but what men must _do_ in order to\nattain it. Both the character of the speaker and the inquiry itself\ninduced the Lord to make this reply. The inquirer, persuaded of the\nrighteousness of the law, possessed a blind confidence in his works.\nBesides, he only inquired what were those works of righteousness by\nwhich salvation might be procured. He is therefore justly referred to\nthe law, which contains a perfect mirror of righteousness. We also\nexplicitly declare, that if life be sought by works, it is indispensably\nrequisite to keep the commandments. And this doctrine is necessary to be\nknown by Christians; for how should they flee for refuge to Christ, if\nthey did not acknowledge themselves to have fallen from the way of life\nupon the precipice of death? And how could they know how far they have\nwandered from the way of life, without a previous knowledge of what that\nway of life is? It is then, therefore, that Christ is presented to them\nas the asylum of salvation, when they perceive the vast difference\nbetween their own lives and the Divine righteousness, which consists in\nthe observance of the law. The sum of the whole is, that if we seek\nsalvation by works, we must keep the commandments, by which we are\ntaught perfect righteousness. But to stop here, would be failing in the\nmidst of our course; for to keep the commandments is a task to which\nnone of us are equal. Being excluded, then, from the righteousness of\nthe law, we are under the necessity of resorting to some other refuge,\nnamely, to faith in Christ. Wherefore, as the Lord, knowing this doctor\nof the law to be inflated with a vain confidence in his works, recalls\nhis attention to the law, that it may teach him his own character as a\nsinner, obnoxious to the tremendous sentence of eternal death, so, in\nanother place, addressing those who have already been humbled under this\nknowledge, he omits all mention of the law, and consoles them with a\npromise of grace\u2014\u201cCome unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden,\nand I will give you rest; and ye shall find rest unto your souls.\u201d[222]\n\nX. At length, after our adversaries have wearied themselves with\nperversions of Scripture, they betake themselves to subtleties and\nsophisms. They cavil, that faith is in some places called a work,[223]\nand hence they infer that we improperly oppose faith to works. As though\nfaith procured righteousness for us by its intrinsic merit, as an act of\nobedience to the Divine will, and not rather because, by embracing the\nDivine mercy, it seals to our hearts the righteousness of Christ, which\nthat mercy offers to us in the preaching of the gospel. The reader will\npardon me for not dwelling on the confutation of such follies; for they\nrequire nothing to refute them but their own weakness. But I wish\nbriefly to answer one objection, which has some appearance of reason, to\nprevent its being the source of any difficulty to persons who have had\nbut little experience. Since common sense dictates that opposites are\nsubject to similar rules, and as all sins are imputed to us for\nunrighteousness, they maintain it to be reasonable, on the other hand,\nthat all good works should be imputed to us for righteousness. Those who\nreply, that the condemnation of men proceeds from unbelief alone, and\nnot from particular sins, do not satisfy me. I agree with them, that\nincredulity is the fountain and root of all evils. For it is the\noriginal defection from God, which is afterwards followed by particular\ntransgressions of the law. But as they appear to fix one and the same\nrule for good and evil works in forming a judgment of righteousness or\nunrighteousness, here I am obliged to dissent from them. For the\nrighteousness of works is the perfect obedience of the law. We cannot\ntherefore be righteous by works, unless we follow this straight line\nthroughout the whole of our lives. The first deviation from it is a\nlapse into unrighteousness. Hence it appears that righteousness arises\nnot from one or a few works, but from an inflexible and indefatigable\nobservance of the Divine will. But the rule of judging of\nunrighteousness is very different. For he who has committed fornication\nor theft, is for one transgression liable to the sentence of death,\nbecause he has offended against the divine Majesty. These disputants of\nours, therefore, fall into an error for want of adverting to the\ndecision of James, that \u201cwhosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet\noffend in one point, he is guilty of all.\u201d For he that said, \u201cDo not\ncommit adultery,\u201d said also, \u201cDo not kill,\u201d &c.[224] It ought not,\ntherefore, to be deemed absurd, when we say, that death is the reward\njustly due to every sin, because they are all and every one deserving of\nthe indignation and vengeance of God. But it will be a weak argument to\ninfer, on the contrary, that one good work will reconcile a man to God,\nwhose wrath he has incurred by a multitude of sins.\n\nFootnote 177:\n\n  Rom. ii. 6. Matt. xvi. 27.\n\nFootnote 178:\n\n  2 Cor. v. 10.\n\nFootnote 179:\n\n  Rom. ii. 9, 10.\n\nFootnote 180:\n\n  John v. 29.\n\nFootnote 181:\n\n  Matt. xxv. 34-36.\n\nFootnote 182:\n\n  Prov. xii. 14.\n\nFootnote 183:\n\n  Prov. xiii. 13.\n\nFootnote 184:\n\n  Matt. v. 12. Luke vi. 23.\n\nFootnote 185:\n\n  1 Cor. iii. 8.\n\nFootnote 186:\n\n  Rom. viii. 30.\n\nFootnote 187:\n\n  Phil. ii. 12.\n\nFootnote 188:\n\n  John vi. 27.\n\nFootnote 189:\n\n  Phil. i. 6.\n\nFootnote 190:\n\n  Gal. iv. 30.\n\nFootnote 191:\n\n  Matt. xxv. 34.\n\nFootnote 192:\n\n  Col. iii. 24.\n\nFootnote 193:\n\n  Gen. xii. 2, 3; xiii. 16; xv. 5.\n\nFootnote 194:\n\n  Gen. xxii. 16-18.\n\nFootnote 195:\n\n  Col. i. 4, 5.\n\nFootnote 196:\n\n  1 Peter i. 5.\n\nFootnote 197:\n\n  Matt. xx. 1, &c.\n\nFootnote 198:\n\n  Mark x. 30.\n\nFootnote 199:\n\n  Matt. xxv. 34.\n\nFootnote 200:\n\n  Rom. viii. 23.\n\nFootnote 201:\n\n  1 Peter i. 9.\n\nFootnote 202:\n\n  1 Cor. xv. 19.\n\nFootnote 203:\n\n  2 Tim. iv. 8.\n\nFootnote 204:\n\n  Heb. x. 38.\n\nFootnote 205:\n\n  Luke xvi. 9.\n\nFootnote 206:\n\n  1 Tim. vi. 17-19.\n\nFootnote 207:\n\n  Matt. vi. 21.\n\nFootnote 208:\n\n  Matt. xxv. 40.\n\nFootnote 209:\n\n  Prov. xix. 17.\n\nFootnote 210:\n\n  2 Cor. ix. 6.\n\nFootnote 211:\n\n  2 Thess. i. 5-7.\n\nFootnote 212:\n\n  Heb. vi. 10.\n\nFootnote 213:\n\n  Rom. viii. 29.\n\nFootnote 214:\n\n  Luke xxiv. 26.\n\nFootnote 215:\n\n  Acts xiv. 22.\n\nFootnote 216:\n\n  Gal. vi. 17.\n\nFootnote 217:\n\n  2 Cor. iv. 10.\n\nFootnote 218:\n\n  Phil. iii. 10, 11.\n\nFootnote 219:\n\n  1 Cor. xiii. 2, 13.\n\nFootnote 220:\n\n  Col. iii. 14.\n\nFootnote 221:\n\n  Matt. xix. 17.\n\nFootnote 222:\n\n  Matt. xi. 28, 29.\n\nFootnote 223:\n\n  John vi. 29.\n\nFootnote 224:\n\n  James ii. 10, 11.\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER XIX.\n                         ON CHRISTIAN LIBERTY.\n\n\nWe have now to treat of Christian liberty, an explanation of which ought\nnot to be omitted in a treatise which is designed to comprehend a\ncompendious summary of evangelical doctrine. For it is a subject of the\nfirst importance, and unless it be well understood, our consciences\nscarcely venture to undertake any thing without doubting, experience in\nmany things hesitation and reluctance, and are always subject to\nfluctuations and fears. But especially it is an appendix to\njustification, and affords no small assistance towards the knowledge of\nits influence. Hence they who sincerely fear God will experience the\nincomparable advantage of that doctrine, which impious scoffers pursue\nwith their railleries; because in the spiritual intoxication with which\nthey are seized, they allow themselves the most unbounded impudence.\nWherefore this is the proper time to introduce the subject; and though\nwe have slightly touched upon it on some former occasions, yet it was\nuseful to defer the full discussion of it to this place; because, as\nsoon as any mention is made of Christian liberty, then either inordinate\npassions rage, or violent emotions arise, unless timely opposition be\nmade to those wanton spirits, who most nefariously corrupt things which\nare otherwise the best. For some, under the pretext of this liberty,\ncast off all obedience to God, and precipitate themselves into the most\nunbridled licentiousness; and some despise it, supposing it to be\nsubversive of all moderation, order, and moral distinctions. What can we\ndo in this case, surrounded by such difficulties? Shall we entirely\ndiscard Christian liberty, and so preclude the occasion of such dangers?\nBut, as we have observed, unless this be understood, there can be no\nright knowledge of Christ, or of evangelical truth, or of internal peace\nof mind. We should rather exert ourselves to prevent the suppression of\nsuch a necessary branch of doctrine, and at the same time to obviate\nthose absurd objections which are frequently deduced from it.\n\nII. Christian liberty, according to my judgment, consists of three\nparts. The first part is, that the consciences of believers, when\nseeking an assurance of their justification before God, should raise\nthemselves above the law, and forget all the righteousness of the law.\nFor since the law, as we have elsewhere demonstrated, leaves no man\nrighteous, either we must be excluded from all hope of justification, or\nit is necessary for us to be delivered from it, and that so completely\nas not to have any dependence on works. For he who imagines, that in\norder to obtain righteousness he must produce any works, however small,\ncan fix no limit or boundary, but renders himself a debtor to the whole\nlaw. Avoiding, therefore, all mention of the law, and dismissing all\nthought of our own works, in reference to justification, we must embrace\nthe Divine mercy alone, and turning our eyes from ourselves, fix them\nsolely on Christ. For the question is, not how we can be righteous, but\nhow, though unrighteous and unworthy, we can be considered as righteous.\nAnd the conscience that desires to attain any certainty respecting this,\nmust give no admission to the law. Nor will this authorize any one to\nconclude, that the law is of no use to believers, whom it still\ncontinues to instruct and exhort, and stimulate to duty, although it has\nno place in their consciences before the tribunal of God. For these two\nthings, being very different, require to be properly and carefully\ndistinguished by us. The whole life of Christians ought to be an\nexercise of piety, since they are called to sanctification.[225] It is\nthe office of the law to remind them of their duty, and thereby to\nexcite them to the pursuit of holiness and integrity. But when their\nconsciences are solicitous how God may be propitiated, what answer they\nshall make, and on what they shall rest their confidence, if called to\nhis tribunal, there must then be no consideration of the requisitions of\nthe law, but Christ alone must be proposed for righteousness, who\nexceeds all the perfection of the law.\n\nIII. On this point turns almost the whole argument of the Epistle to the\nGalatians. For that they are erroneous expositors, who maintain, that\nPaul there contends only for liberty from ceremonies, may be proved from\nthe topics of his reasoning. Such as these: \u201cChrist hath redeemed us\nfrom the curse of the law, being made a curse for us.\u201d[226] Again:\n\u201cStand fast, therefore, in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us\nfree, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage. Behold, I\nPaul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you\nnothing. Every man that is circumcised is a debtor to do the whole law.\nChrist is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified\nby the law; ye are fallen from grace.\u201d[227] These passages certainly\ncomprehend something more exalted than a freedom from ceremonies. I\nconfess, indeed, that Paul is there treating of ceremonies, because he\nis contending with the false apostles, who attempted to introduce again\ninto the Christian Church the ancient shadows of the law, which had been\nabolished by the advent of Christ. But for the decision of this question\nit was necessary to discuss some higher topics, in which the whole\ncontroversy lay. First, because the brightness of the gospel was\nobscured by those Jewish shadows, he shows that in Christ we have a\ncomplete exhibition of all those things which were adumbrated by the\nceremonies of Moses. Secondly, because these impostors instilled into\nthe people the very pernicious opinion, that this ceremonial obedience\nwas sufficient to merit the Divine favour, he principally contends, that\nbelievers ought not to suppose that they can obtain righteousness before\nGod by any works of the law, much less by those inferior elements. And\nhe at the same time teaches, that from the condemnation of the law,\nwhich otherwise impends over all men, they are delivered by the cross of\nChrist, that they may rely with perfect security on him alone\u2014a topic\nwhich properly belongs to our present subject. Lastly, he asserts the\nliberty of the consciences of believers, which ought to be laid under no\nobligation in things that are not necessary.\n\nIV. The second part of Christian liberty, which is dependent on the\nfirst, is, that their consciences do not observe the law, as being under\nany legal obligation; but that, being liberated from the yoke of the\nlaw, they yield a voluntary obedience to the will of God. For being\npossessed with perpetual terrors, as long as they remain under the\ndominion of the law, they will never engage with alacrity and\npromptitude in the service of God, unless they have previously received\nthis liberty. We shall more easily and clearly discover the design of\nthese things from an example. The precept of the law is, \u201cThou shalt\nlove the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and\nwith all thy might.\u201d[228] That this command may be fulfilled, our soul\nmust be previously divested of every other perception and thought, our\nheart must be freed from all desires, and our might must be collected\nand contracted to this one point. Those who, compared with others, have\nmade a very considerable progress in the way of the Lord, are yet at an\nimmense distance from this perfection. For though they love God with\ntheir soul, and with sincere affection of heart, yet they have still\nmuch of their heart and soul occupied by carnal desires, which retard\ntheir progress towards God. They do indeed press forward with strong\nexertions, but the flesh partly debilitates their strength, and partly\nattracts it to itself. What can they do in this case, when they perceive\nthat they are so far from observing the law? They wish, they aspire,\nthey endeavour, but they do nothing with the perfection that is\nrequired. If they advert to the law, they see that every work they\nattempt or meditate is accursed. Nor is there the least reason for any\nperson to deceive himself, by concluding that an action is not\nnecessarily altogether evil, because it is imperfect, and that therefore\nthe good part of it is accepted by God. For the law, requiring perfect\nlove, condemns all imperfection, unless its rigour be mitigated. Let him\nconsider his work, therefore, which he wished to be thought partly good,\nand he will find that very work to be a transgression of the law,\nbecause it is imperfect.\n\nV. See how all our works, if estimated according to the rigour of the\nlaw, are subject to its curse. How, then, could unhappy souls apply\nthemselves with alacrity to any work for which they could expect to\nreceive nothing but a curse? On the contrary, if they are liberated from\nthe severe exaction of the law, or rather from the whole of its rigour,\nand hear God calling them with paternal gentleness, then with\ncheerfulness and prompt alacrity they will answer to his call and follow\nhis guidance. In short, they who are bound by the yoke of the law, are\nlike slaves who have certain daily tasks appointed by their masters.\nThey think they have done nothing, and presume not to enter into the\npresence of their masters without having finished the work prescribed to\nthem. But children, who are treated by their parents in a more liberal\nmanner, hesitate not to present to them their imperfect, and in some\nrespects faulty works, in confidence that their obedience and\npromptitude of mind will be accepted by them, though they have not\nperformed all that they wished. Such children ought we to be, feeling a\ncertain confidence that our services, however small, rude, and\nimperfect, will be approved by our most indulgent Father. This he also\nconfirms to us by the prophet: \u201cI will spare them,\u201d saith he, \u201cas a man\nspareth his own son that serveth him;\u201d[229] where it is evident, from\nthe mention of _service_, that the word _spare_ is used to denote\nindulgence, or an overlooking of faults. And we have great need of this\nconfidence, without which all our endeavours will be vain; for God\nconsiders us as serving him in none of our works, but such as are truly\ndone by us to his honour. But how can this be done amidst those terrors,\nwhere it is a matter of doubt whether our works offend God or honour\nhim?\n\nVI. This is the reason why the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews\nrefers to faith, and estimates only by faith, all the good works which\nare recorded of the holy patriarchs.[230] On this liberty there is a\nremarkable passage in the Epistle to the Romans, where Paul reasons that\nsin ought not to have dominion over us, because we are not under the\nlaw, but under grace.[231] For after he had exhorted believers, \u201cLet not\nsin, therefore, reign in your mortal body; neither yield ye your members\nas instruments of unrighteousness; but yield yourselves unto God, as\nthose that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of\nrighteousness unto God,\u201d[232]\u2014they might, on the contrary, object that\nthey yet carried about with them the flesh full of inordinate desires,\nand that sin dwelt in them; but he adds the consolation furnished by\ntheir liberty from the law; as though he had said, Although you do not\nyet experience sin to be destroyed, and righteousness living in you in\nperfection, yet you have no cause for terror and dejection of mind, as\nif God were perpetually offended on account of your remaining sin;\nbecause by grace you are emancipated from the law, that your works may\nnot be judged according to that rule. But those, who infer that we may\ncommit sin because we are not under the law, may be assured that they\nhave no concern with this liberty, the end of which is to animate us to\nvirtue.\n\nVII. The third part of Christian liberty teaches us, that we are bound\nby no obligation before God respecting external things, which in\nthemselves are indifferent; but that we may indifferently sometimes use,\nand at other times omit them. And the knowledge of this liberty also is\nvery necessary for us; for without it we shall have no tranquillity of\nconscience, nor will there be any end of superstitions. Many in the\npresent age think it a folly to raise any dispute concerning the free\nuse of meats, of days, and of habits, and similar subjects, considering\nthese things as frivolous and nugatory; but they are of greater\nimportance than is generally believed. For when the conscience has once\nfallen into the snare, it enters a long and inextricable labyrinth, from\nwhich it is afterwards difficult to escape; if a man begin to doubt the\nlawfulness of using flax in sheets, shirts, handkerchiefs, napkins, and\ntable cloths, neither will he be certain respecting hemp, and at last he\nwill doubt of the lawfulness of using tow; for he will consider with\nhimself whether he cannot eat without table cloths or napkins, whether\nhe cannot do without handkerchiefs. If any one imagine delicate food to\nbe unlawful, he will ere long have no tranquillity before God in eating\nbrown bread and common viands, while he remembers that he might support\nhis body with meat of a quality still inferior. If he hesitate\nrespecting good wine, he will afterwards be unable with any peace of\nconscience to drink the most vapid; and at last he will not presume even\nto touch purer and sweeter water than others. In short, he will come to\nthink it criminal to step over a twig that lies across his path. For\nthis is the commencement of no trivial controversy; but the dispute is\nwhether the use of certain things be agreeable to God, whose will ought\nto guide all our resolutions and all our actions. The necessary\nconsequence is, that some are hurried by despair into a vortex of\nconfusion, from which they see no way of escape; and some, despising\nGod, and casting off all fear of him, make a way of ruin for themselves.\nFor all, who are involved in such doubts, which way soever they turn\ntheir views, behold something offensive to their consciences presenting\nitself on every side.\n\nVIII. \u201cI know,\u201d says Paul, \u201cthat there is nothing unclean of itself; but\nto him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is\nunclean.\u201d[233] In these words he makes all external things subject to\nour liberty, provided that our minds have regard to this liberty before\nGod. But if any superstitious notion cause us to scruple, those things\nwhich were naturally pure become contaminated to us. Wherefore he\nsubjoins, \u201cHappy is he that condemneth not himself in that which he\nalloweth. And he that doubteth is condemned if he eat, because he eateth\nnot of faith; for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.\u201d[234] Are not they,\nwho in these perplexities show their superior boldness by the security\nof their presumption, guilty of departing from God? whilst they who are\ndeeply affected with the true fear of God, when they are even\nconstrained to admit many things to which their own consciences are\naverse, are filled with terror and consternation. No persons of this\ndescription receive any of the gifts of God with thanksgiving, by which\nalone Paul, nevertheless, declares them to be all sanctified to our\nuse.[235] I mean a thanksgiving proceeding from a mind which\nacknowledges the beneficence and goodness of God in the blessings he\nbestows. For many of them, indeed, apprehend the good things which they\nuse to be from God, whom they praise in his works; but not being\npersuaded that they are _given_ to them, how could they give thanks to\nGod as the giver of them? We see, in short, the tendency of this\nliberty, which is, that without any scruple of conscience or\nperturbation of mind, we should devote the gifts of God to that use for\nwhich he has given them; by which confidence our souls may have peace\nwith him, and acknowledge his liberality towards us. For this\ncomprehends all ceremonies, the observation of which is left free, that\nthe conscience may not be bound by any obligation to observe them, but\nmay remember that by the goodness of God it may use them, or abstain\nfrom them, as shall be most conducive to edification.\n\nIX. Now, it must be carefully observed, that Christian liberty is in all\nits branches a spiritual thing; all the virtue of which consists in\nappeasing terrified consciences before God, whether they are disquieted\nand solicitous concerning the remission of their sins, or are anxious to\nknow if their works, which are imperfect and contaminated by the\ndefilements of the flesh, be acceptable to God; or are tormented\nconcerning the use of things that are indifferent. Wherefore they are\nguilty of perverting its meaning, who either make it the pretext of\ntheir irregular appetites, that they may abuse the Divine blessings to\nthe purposes of sensuality, or who suppose that there is no liberty but\nwhat is used before men, and therefore in the exercise of it totally\ndisregard their weak brethren. The former of these sins is the more\ncommon in the present age. There is scarcely any one, whom his wealth\npermits to be sumptuous, who is not delighted with luxurious splendour\nin his entertainments, in his dress, and in his buildings; who does not\ndesire a pre\u00ebminence in every species of luxury; who does not strangely\nflatter himself on his elegance. And all these things are defended under\nthe pretext of Christian liberty. They allege that they are things\nindifferent; this I admit, provided they be indifferently used. But\nwhere they are too ardently coveted, proudly boasted, or luxuriously\nlavished, these things, of themselves otherwise indifferent, are\ncompletely polluted by such vices. This passage of Paul makes an\nexcellent distinction respecting things which are indifferent: \u201cUnto the\npure all things are pure; but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving\nis nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled.\u201d[236]\nFor why are curses denounced on rich men, who \u201creceive their\nconsolation,\u201d who are \u201csatiated,\u201d who \u201cnow laugh,\u201d who \u201clie on beds of\nivory,\u201d who \u201cjoin field to field,\u201d who \u201chave the harp, and the lyre, and\nthe tabret, and wine in their feasts?\u201d[237] Ivory and gold, and riches\nof all kinds, are certainly blessings of Divine Providence, not only\npermitted, but expressly designed for the use of men; nor are we any\nwhere prohibited to laugh, or to be satiated with food, or to annex new\npossessions to those already enjoyed by ourselves or by our ancestors,\nor to be delighted with musical harmony, or to drink wine. This indeed\nis true; but amidst an abundance of all things, to be immersed in\nsensual delights, to inebriate the heart and mind with present\npleasures, and perpetually to grasp at new ones,\u2014these things are very\nremote from a legitimate use of the Divine blessings. Let them banish,\ntherefore, immoderate cupidity, excessive profusion, vanity, and\narrogance; that with a pure conscience they may make a proper use of the\ngifts of God. When their hearts shall be formed to this sobriety, they\nwill have a rule for the legitimate enjoyment of them. On the contrary,\nwithout this moderation, even common and ordinary pleasures are\nchargeable with excess. For it is truly observed, that a proud heart\nfrequently dwells under coarse and ragged garments, and that simplicity\nand humility are sometimes concealed under purple and fine linen. Let\nall men, in their respective stations, whether of poverty, of\ncompetence, or of splendour, live in the remembrance of this truth, that\nGod confers his blessings on them for the support of life, not for\nluxury; and let them consider this as the law of Christian liberty, that\nthey learn the lesson which Paul had learned, when he said, \u201cI have\nlearned, in whatsoever state I am, therewith to be content. I know both\nhow to be abased, and I know how to abound: every where and in all\nthings I am instructed, both to be full and to be hungry, both to abound\nand to suffer need.\u201d[238]\n\nX. Many persons err likewise in this respect, that, as if their liberty\nwould not be perfectly secure unless witnessed by men, they make an\nindiscriminate and imprudent use of it\u2014a disorderly practice, which\noccasions frequent offence to their weak brethren. There are some to be\nfound, in the present day, who imagine their liberty would be abridged,\nif they were not to enter on the enjoyment of it by eating animal food\non Friday. Their eating is not the subject of my reprehension; but their\nminds require to be divested of this false notion; for they ought to\nconsider, that they obtain no advantage from their liberty before men,\nbut with God; and that it consists in abstinence as well as in use. If\nthey apprehend it to be immaterial in God\u2019s view, whether they eat\nanimal food or eggs, whether their garments be scarlet or black, it is\nquite sufficient. The conscience, to which the benefit of this liberty\nwas due, is now emancipated. Therefore, though they abstain from flesh,\nand wear but one color, during all the rest of their lives, this is no\ndiminution of their freedom. Nay, because they are free, they therefore\nabstain with a free conscience. But they fall into a very pernicious\nerror in disregarding the infirmity of their brethren, which it becomes\nus to bear, so as not rashly to do any thing which would give them the\nleast offence. But it will be said, that it is sometimes right to assert\nour liberty before men. This I confess; yet the greatest caution and\nmoderation must be observed, lest we cast off all concern for the weak,\nwhom God has so strongly recommended to our regards.\n\nXI. I shall now, therefore, make some observations concerning offences;\nhow they are to be discriminated, what are to be avoided, and what are\nto be disregarded; whence we may afterwards determine what room there is\nfor our liberty in our intercourse with mankind. I approve of the common\ndistinction between an offence given and an offence taken, since it is\nplainly countenanced by Scripture, and is likewise sufficiently\nsignificant of the thing intended to be expressed. If you do any thing\nat a wrong time or place, or with an unseasonable levity, or wantonness,\nor temerity, by which the weak and inexperienced are offended, it must\nbe termed an offence given by you; because it arises from your fault.\nAnd an offence is always said to be given in any action, the fault of\nwhich proceeds from the performer of that action. An offence taken is,\nwhen any transaction, not otherwise unseasonable or culpable, is,\nthrough malevolence, or some perverse disposition, construed into an\noccasion of offence. For in this instance the offence is not given, but\ntaken without reason by such perverseness of construction. The first\nspecies of offence affects none but the weak; the second is created by\nmoroseness of temper, and Pharisaical superciliousness. Wherefore we\nshall denominate the former, the offence of the weak, the latter, that\nof Pharisees; and we shall so temper the use of our liberty, that it\nought to submit to the ignorance of weak brethren, but not at all to the\nausterity of Pharisees. For our duty to the weak, Paul fully shows in\nmany places. \u201cHim that is weak in the faith receive ye.\u201d Again: \u201cLet us\nnot therefore judge one another any more; but judge this rather, that no\nman put a stumbling-block or an occasion to fall in his brother\u2019s\nway;\u201d[239] and much more to the same import, which were better examined\nin its proper connection than recited here. The sum of all is, that \u201cwe,\nthen, that are strong, ought to bear the infirmities of the weak, and\nnot to please ourselves. Let every one of us please his neighbour for\nhis good to edification.\u201d[240] In another place: \u201cBut take heed lest by\nany means this liberty of yours become a stumbling-block to them that\nare weak.\u201d[241] Again: \u201cWhatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat;\nasking no questions for conscience\u2019 sake; conscience, I say, not thine\nown, but of the other.\u201d In short, \u201cGive none offence, neither to the\nJews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the Church of God.\u201d[242] In another\nplace also: \u201cBrethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not\nliberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one\nanother.\u201d[243] The meaning of this is, that our liberty is not given us\nto be used in opposition to our weak neighbours, to whom charity obliges\nus to do every possible service; but rather in order that, having peace\nwith God in our minds, we may also live peaceably among men. But how\nmuch attention should be paid to an offence taken by Pharisees, we learn\nfrom our Lord\u2019s injunction, \u201cLet them alone; they be blind leaders of\nthe blind.\u201d[244] The disciples had informed him, that the Pharisees were\noffended with his discourse. He replies that they are to be let alone,\nand their offence disregarded.\n\nXII. But the subject is still pending in uncertainty, unless we know\nwhom we are to account weak, and whom we are to consider as Pharisees;\nwithout which distinction, I see no use of liberty in the midst of\noffences, but such as must be attended with the greatest danger. But\nPaul appears to me to have very clearly decided, both by doctrine and\nexamples, how far our liberty should be either moderated or asserted on\nthe occurrence of offences. When he made Timothy his associate, he\ncircumcised him;[245] but could not be induced to circumcise Titus.[246]\nHere was a difference in his proceedings, but no change of mind or of\npurpose. In the circumcision of Timothy, \u201cthough he was free from all\nmen, yet he made himself servant unto all;\u201d and says he, \u201cUnto the Jews\nI became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under\nthe law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the\nlaw: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save\nsome.\u201d[247] Thus we have a proper moderation of liberty, if it may be\nindifferently restricted with any advantage. His reason for resolutely\nrefraining from circumcising Titus, he declares in the following words:\n\u201cBut neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be\ncircumcised; and that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who\ncame in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus,\nthat they might bring us into bondage; to whom we gave place by\nsubjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might\ncontinue with you.\u201d[248] We also are under the necessity of vindicating\nour liberty, if it be endangered in weak consciences by the iniquitous\nrequisitions of false apostles. We must at all times study charity, and\nkeep in view the edification of our neighbour. \u201cAll things (says Paul)\nare lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are\nlawful for me, but all things edify not. Let no man seek his own, but\nevery man another\u2019s.\u201d[249] Nothing can be plainer than this rule, that\nour liberty should be used, if it conduces to our neighbour\u2019s\nedification; but that if it be not beneficial to our neighbour, it\nshould be abridged. There are some, who pretend to imitate the prudence\nof Paul in refraining from the exercise of liberty, while they are doing\nany thing but exercising the duties of charity. For to promote their own\ntranquillity, they wish all mention of liberty to be buried; whereas it\nis no less advantageous to our neighbours sometimes to use our liberty\nto their benefit and edification, than at other times to moderate it for\ntheir accommodation. But a pious man considers this liberty in external\nthings as granted him in order that he may be the better prepared for\nall the duties of charity.\n\nXIII. But whatever I have advanced respecting the avoidance of offences,\nI wish to be referred to indifferent and unimportant things; for\nnecessary duties must not be omitted through fear of any offence: as our\nliberty should be subject to charity, so charity itself ought to be\nsubservient to the purity of faith. It becomes us, indeed, to have\nregard to charity; but we must not offend God for the love of our\nneighbour. We cannot approve the intemperance of those who do nothing\nbut in a tumultuous manner, and who prefer violent measures to lenient\nones. Nor must we listen to those, who, while they show themselves the\nleaders in a thousand species of impiety, pretend that they are obliged\nto act in such a manner, that they may give no offence to their\nneighbours; as though they are not at the same time fortifying the\nconsciences of their neighbours in sin; especially since they are always\nsticking in the same mire without any hope of deliverance. And whether\ntheir neighbour is to be instructed by doctrine or by example, they\nmaintain that he ought to be fed with milk, though they are infecting\nhim with the worst and most pernicious notions. Paul tells the\nCorinthians, \u201cI have fed you with milk;\u201d[250] but if the Popish mass had\nbeen then introduced among them, would he have united in that pretended\nsacrifice in order to feed them with milk? Certainly not; for milk is\nnot poison. They are guilty of falsehood, therefore, in saying that they\nfeed those whom they cruelly murder under the appearance of such\nflatteries. But admitting that such dissimulation is to be approved for\na time, how long will they feed their children with the same milk? For\nif they never grow, so as to be able to bear even some light meat, it is\na clear proof that they were never fed with milk. I am prevented from\npushing this controversy with them any further at present, by two\nreasons\u2014first, because their absurdities scarcely deserve a refutation,\nbeing justly despised by all men of sound understanding; secondly,\nhaving done this at large in particular treatises, I am unwilling to\ntravel the same ground over again. Only let the readers remember, that\nwith whatever offences Satan and the world may endeavour to divert us\nfrom the ordinances of God, or to retard our pursuit of what he enjoins,\nyet we must nevertheless strenuously advance; and moreover, that\nwhatever dangers threaten us, we are not at liberty to deviate even a\nhair\u2019s breadth from his command, and that it is not lawful under any\npretext to attempt any thing but what he permits.\n\nXIV. Now, since the consciences of believers, being privileged with the\nliberty which we have described, have been delivered by the favour of\nChrist from all necessary obligation to the observance of those things\nin which the Lord has been pleased they should be left free, we conclude\nthat they are exempt from all human authority. For it is not right that\nChrist should lose the acknowledgments due to such kindness, or our\nconsciences the benefit of it. Neither is that to be accounted a trivial\nthing, which we see cost Christ so much; which he estimated not with\ngold or silver, but with his own blood;[251] so that Paul hesitates not\nto assert, that his death is rendered vain, if we suffer our souls to be\nin subjection to men.[252] For his sole object in some chapters of his\nEpistle to the Galatians is to prove that Christ is obscured, or rather\nabolished, with respect to us, unless our consciences continue in their\nliberty; from which they are certainly fallen, if they can be insnared\nin the bonds of laws and ordinances at the pleasure of men.[253] But as\nit is a subject highly worthy of being understood, so it needs a more\ndiffuse and perspicuous explanation. For as soon as a word is mentioned\nconcerning the abrogation of human establishments, great tumults are\nexcited, partly by seditious persons, partly by cavillers; as though all\nobedience of men were at once subverted and destroyed.\n\nXV. To prevent any one from falling into this error, let us therefore\nconsider, in the first place, that man is under two kinds of\ngovernment\u2014one spiritual, by which the conscience is formed to piety and\nthe service of God; the other political, by which a man is instructed in\nthe duties of humanity and civility, which are to be observed in an\nintercourse with mankind. They are generally, and not improperly,\ndenominated the spiritual and the temporal jurisdiction; indicating that\nthe former species of government pertains to the life of the soul, and\nthat the latter relates to the concerns of the present state; not only\nto the provision of food and clothing, but to the enactment of laws to\nregulate a man\u2019s life among his neighbours by the rules of holiness,\nintegrity, and sobriety. For the former has its seat in the interior of\nthe mind, whilst the latter only directs the external conduct: one may\nbe termed a spiritual kingdom, and the other a political one. But these\ntwo, as we have distinguished them, always require to be considered\nseparately; and while the one is under discussion, the mind must be\nabstracted from all consideration of the other. For man contains, as it\nwere, two worlds, capable of being governed by various rulers and\nvarious laws. This distinction will prevent what the gospel inculcates\nconcerning spiritual liberty from being misapplied to political\nregulations; as though Christians were less subject to the external\ngovernment of human laws, because their consciences have been set at\nliberty before God; as though their freedom of spirit necessarily\nexempted them from all carnal servitude. Again, because even in those\nconstitutions which seem to pertain to the spiritual kingdom, there may\npossibly be some deception, it is necessary to discriminate between\nthese also; which are to be accounted legitimate, as according with the\nDivine word, and which, on the contrary, ought not to be received among\nbelievers. Of civil government I shall treat in another place. Of\necclesiastical laws also I forbear to speak at present; because a full\ndiscussion of them will be proper in the Fourth Book, where we shall\ntreat of the power of the Church. But we shall conclude the present\nargument in the following manner: The question, which, as I have\nobserved, is in itself not very obscure or intricate, greatly perplexes\nmany, because they do not distinguish with sufficient precision between\nthe external jurisdiction and the court of conscience. The difficulty is\nincreased by Paul\u2019s injunction to obey magistrates \u201cnot only for wrath,\nbut also for conscience\u2019 sake;\u201d[254] from which it should follow, that\nthe conscience also is bound by political laws. But if this were true,\nit would supersede all that we have already said, or are now about to\nsay, respecting spiritual government. For the solution of this\ndifficulty, it will be of use, first, to know what conscience is. And\nthe definition of it must be derived from the etymology of the word. For\nas, when men apprehend the knowledge of things in the mind and\nunderstanding, they are thence said _scire_, \u201cto know,\u201d whence is\nderived the word _scientia_, \u201cscience\u201d or \u201cknowledge;\u201d so when they have\na sense of Divine justice, as an additional witness, which permits them\nnot to conceal their sins, or to elude accusation at the tribunal of the\nsupreme Judge, this sense is termed _conscientia_, \u201cconscience.\u201d For it\nis a kind of medium between God and man; because it does not suffer a\nman to suppress what he knows within himself, but pursues him till it\nbrings him to conviction. This is what Paul means by \u201ctheir conscience\nalso bearing witness, and their thoughts accusing, or else excusing, one\nanother.\u201d[255] Simple knowledge might remain, as it were, confined\nwithin a man. This sentiment, therefore, which places man before the\nDivine tribunal, is appointed, as it were, to watch over man, to observe\nand examine all his secrets, that nothing may remain enveloped in\ndarkness. Hence the old proverb, Conscience is as a thousand witnesses.\nFor the same reason Peter speaks of \u201cthe answer of a good conscience\ntowards God,\u201d[256] to express our tranquillity of mind, when, persuaded\nof the favour of Christ, we present ourselves with boldness in the\npresence of God. And the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews expresses\nabsolution or freedom from every future charge of sin, by \u201chaving no\nmore conscience of sin.\u201d[257]\n\nXVI. Therefore, as works respect men, so conscience regards God; so that\na good conscience is no other than inward integrity of heart. In which\nsense Paul says, that \u201cthe end of the commandment is charity, out of a\npure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned.\u201d[258]\nAfterwards also, in the same chapter, he shows how widely it differs\nfrom understanding, saying, that \u201csome, having put away a good\nconscience, concerning faith have made shipwreck.\u201d[259] For these words\nindicate that it is a lively inclination to the service of God, and a\nsincere pursuit of piety and holiness of life. Sometimes, indeed, it is\nlikewise extended to men; as when the same apostle declares, \u201cHerein do\nI exercise myself, to have always a conscience void of offence toward\nGod and toward men.\u201d[260] But the reason of this assertion is, that the\nfruits of a good conscience reach even to men. But in strict propriety\nof speech it has to do with God alone, as I have already observed. Hence\nit is that a law, which simply binds a man without relation to other\nmen, or any consideration of them, is said to bind the conscience. For\nexample, God not only enjoins the preservation of the mind chaste and\npure from every libidinous desire, but prohibits all obscenity of\nlanguage and external lasciviousness. The observance of this law is\nincumbent on my conscience, though there were not another man existing\nin the world. Thus he who transgresses the limits of temperance, not\nonly sins by giving a bad example to his brethren, but contracts guilt\non his conscience before God. Things in themselves indifferent are to be\nguided by other considerations. It is our duty to abstain from them, if\nthey tend to the least offence, yet without violating our liberty of\nconscience. So Paul speaks concerning meat consecrated to idols: \u201cIf any\nman say unto you, This is offered in sacrifice to idols, eat not for\nconscience\u2019 sake; conscience, I say, not thine own, but of the\nother.\u201d[261] A pious man would be guilty of sin, who, being previously\nadmonished, should, nevertheless, eat such meat. But though, with\nrespect to his brother, abstinence is necessary for him, as it is\nenjoined by God, yet he ceases not to retain liberty of conscience. We\nsee, then, how this law, though it binds the external action, leaves the\nconscience free.\n\nFootnote 225:\n\n  Ephes. i. 4. 1 Thess. iv. 3, 7.\n\nFootnote 226:\n\n  Gal. iii. 13.\n\nFootnote 227:\n\n  Gal. v. 1-4.\n\nFootnote 228:\n\n  Deut. vi. 5.\n\nFootnote 229:\n\n  Mal. iii. 17.\n\nFootnote 230:\n\n  Heb. xi. 2.\n\nFootnote 231:\n\n  Rom. vi. 14.\n\nFootnote 232:\n\n  Rom. vi. 12, 13.\n\nFootnote 233:\n\n  Rom. xiv. 14.\n\nFootnote 234:\n\n  Rom. xiv. 22, 23.\n\nFootnote 235:\n\n  1 Tim. iv. 5.\n\nFootnote 236:\n\n  Titus i. 15.\n\nFootnote 237:\n\n  Luke vi. 24, 25. Amos vi. 1, &c. Isaiah v. 8, &c.\n\nFootnote 238:\n\n  Phil. iv. 11, 12.\n\nFootnote 239:\n\n  Rom. xiv. 1, 13.\n\nFootnote 240:\n\n  Rom. xv. 1, 2.\n\nFootnote 241:\n\n  1 Cor. viii. 9.\n\nFootnote 242:\n\n  1 Cor x. 25, 29, 32.\n\nFootnote 243:\n\n  Gal. v. 13.\n\nFootnote 244:\n\n  Matt. xv. 14.\n\nFootnote 245:\n\n  Acts xvi. 3.\n\nFootnote 246:\n\n  Gal. ii. 3.\n\nFootnote 247:\n\n  1 Cor. ix. 19, 20, 22.\n\nFootnote 248:\n\n  Gal. ii. 3-5.\n\nFootnote 249:\n\n  1 Cor. x. 23, 24.\n\nFootnote 250:\n\n  1 Cor. iii. 2.\n\nFootnote 251:\n\n  1 Peter i. 18, 19.\n\nFootnote 252:\n\n  Gal. v. 1, 4.\n\nFootnote 253:\n\n  1 Cor. vii. 23.\n\nFootnote 254:\n\n  Rom. xiii. 1, 5.\n\nFootnote 255:\n\n  Rom. ii. 15.\n\nFootnote 256:\n\n  1 Peter iii. 21.\n\nFootnote 257:\n\n  Heb. x. 2.\n\nFootnote 258:\n\n  1 Tim. i. 5.\n\nFootnote 259:\n\n  1 Tim. i. 19.\n\nFootnote 260:\n\n  Acts xxiv. 16.\n\nFootnote 261:\n\n  1 Cor. x. 28, 29.\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER XX.\nON PRAYER, THE PRINCIPAL EXERCISE OF FAITH, AND THE MEDIUM OF OUR DAILY\n                     RECEPTION OF DIVINE BLESSINGS.\n\n\nFrom the subjects already discussed, we clearly perceive how utterly\ndestitute man is of every good, and in want of all the means of\nsalvation. Wherefore, if he seek for relief in his necessities, he must\ngo out of himself, and obtain it from some other quarter. It has been\nsubsequently stated, that the Lord voluntarily and liberally manifests\nhimself in his Christ, in whom he offers us all felicity instead of our\nmisery, and opulence instead of our poverty; in whom he opens to our\nview the treasures of heaven, that our faith may be wholly engaged in\nthe contemplation of his beloved Son, that all our expectation may\ndepend upon him, and that in him all our hope may rest and be fully\nsatisfied. This, indeed, is that secret and recondite philosophy, which\ncannot be extracted from syllogisms; but is well understood by those\nwhose eyes God has opened, that in his light they may see light. But\nsince we have been taught by faith to acknowledge, that whatever we want\nfor the supply of our necessities is in God and our Lord Jesus Christ,\nin whom it has pleased the Father all the fulness of his bounty should\ndwell, that we may all draw from it, as from a most copious fountain, it\nremains for us to seek in him, and by prayers to implore of him, that\nwhich we have been informed resides in him. Otherwise to know God as the\nLord and Giver of every good, who invites us to supplicate him, but\nneither to approach him nor to supplicate him, would be equally\nunprofitable, as for a man to neglect a treasure discovered to him\nburied in the earth. Wherefore the apostle, to show that true faith\ncannot but be engaged in calling upon God, has laid down this\norder\u2014that, as faith is produced by the gospel, so by faith our hearts\nare brought to invoke the name of the Lord.[262] And this is the same as\nhe had a little before said, that the \u201cSpirit of adoption,\u201d who seals\nthe testimony of the gospel in our hearts, encourages our spirits, so\nthat they venture to pour out their desires before God, excite\n\u201cgroanings that cannot be uttered,\u201d and cry with confidence, \u201cAbba,\nFather.\u201d[263] This last subject, therefore, having been before only\ncursorily mentioned and slightly touched, requires now to be treated\nmore at large.\n\nII. By means of prayer, then, we penetrate to those riches which are\nreserved with our heavenly Father for our use. For between God and men\nthere is a certain communication; by which they enter into the sanctuary\nof heaven, and in his immediate presence remind him of his promises, in\norder that his declarations, which they have implicitly believed, may in\ntime of necessity be verified in their experience. We see, therefore,\nthat nothing is revealed to us, to be expected from the Lord, for which\nwe are not likewise enjoined to pray; so true is it, that prayer digs\nout those treasures, which the gospel of the Lord discovers to our\nfaith. Now, the necessity and various utility of the exercise of prayer\nno language can sufficiently explain. It is certainly not without reason\nthat our heavenly Father declares, that the only fortress of salvation\nconsists in invocation of his name; by which we call to our aid the\npresence of his providence, which watches over all our concerns; of his\npower, which supports us when weak and ready to faint; and of his\ngoodness, which receives us into favour, though miserably burdened with\nsins; in which, finally, we call upon him to manifest his presence with\nus in all his attributes. Hence our consciences derive peculiar peace\nand tranquillity; for when the affliction which oppressed us is\nrepresented to the Lord, we feel abundant composure even from this\nconsideration\u2014that none of our troubles are concealed from him, whom we\nknow to possess both the greatest readiness and the greatest ability to\npromote our truest interest.\n\nIII. But some will say, Does he not, without information, know both our\ntroubles and our necessities; so that it may appear unnecessary to\nsolicit him with our prayers, as if he were inattentive or sleeping,\ntill aroused by our voice? But such reasoners advert not to the Lord\u2019s\nend in teaching his people to pray; for he has appointed it not so much\nfor his own sake as for ours. It is his pleasure indeed, as is highly\nreasonable, that his right be rendered to him, by their considering him\nas the Author of all that is desired and found useful by men, and by\ntheir acknowledgments of this in their prayers. But the utility of this\nsacrifice, by which he is worshipped, returns to us. The greater the\nconfidence, therefore, with which the ancient saints gloried in the\nDivine benefits to themselves and others, with so much the more\nearnestness were they incited to pray. The single example of Elijah\nshall suffice, who, though certain of God\u2019s design, having already with\nsufficient authority promised rain to king Ahab, yet anxiously prays\nbetween his knees, and sends his servant seven times to look for\nit;[264] not with an intention to discredit the Divine oracle, but under\na conviction of his duty to prevent his faith becoming languid and\ntorpid, by pouring out his prayers before God. Wherefore, although, when\nwe are stupid and insensible to our own miseries, he vigilantly watches\nand guards us, and sometimes affords us unsolicited succour, yet it\nhighly concerns us assiduously to supplicate him, that our heart may be\nalways inflamed with a serious and ardent desire of seeking, loving, and\nworshipping him, while we accustom ourselves in all our necessities to\nresort to him as our sheet anchor. Further, that no desire or wish,\nwhich we should be ashamed for him to know, may enter our minds; when we\nlearn to present our wishes, and so to pour out our whole heart in his\npresence. Next, that we may be prepared to receive his blessings with\ntrue gratitude of soul, and even with grateful acknowledgments; being\nreminded by our praying that they come from his hand. Moreover, that\nwhen we have obtained what we sought, the persuasion that he has\nanswered our requests may excite us to more ardent meditations on his\ngoodness, and produce a more joyful welcome of those things which we\nacknowledge to be the fruits of our prayers. Lastly, that use and\nexperience itself may yield our minds a confirmation of his providence\nin proportion to our imbecility, while we apprehend that he not only\npromises never to forsake us, and freely opens a way of access for our\naddressing him in the very moment of necessity; but that his hand is\nalways extended to assist his people, whom he does not feed with mere\nwords, but supports with present aid. On these accounts our most\nmerciful Father, though liable to no sleep or languor, yet frequently\nappears as if he were sleepy or languid, in order to exercise us, who\nare otherwise slothful and inactive, in approaching, supplicating, and\nearnestly importuning him to our own advantage. It is extremely absurd,\ntherefore, in them who, with a view to divert the minds of men from\npraying to God, pretend that it is useless for us by our interruptions\nto weary the Divine Providence, which is engaged in the conservation of\nall things; whereas the Lord declares, on the contrary, that he \u201cis nigh\nto all that call upon him in truth.\u201d[265] And equally nugatory is the\nobjection of others, that it is superfluous to petition for those things\nwhich the Lord is ready voluntarily to bestow; whereas even those very\nthings, which flow to us from his spontaneous liberality, he wishes us\nto consider as granted to our prayers. This is evinced by that memorable\npassage in the Psalms, as well as by many other correspondent\ntexts,\u2014\u201cThe eyes of the Lord are upon the righteous, and his ears are\nopen unto their cry;\u201d[266] which celebrates the Divine Providence as\nspontaneously engaged to accomplish the salvation of believers; yet does\nnot omit the exercise of faith, by which sloth is expelled from the\nminds of men. The eyes of God, then, are vigilant to succour the\nnecessity of the blind; but he is likewise willing to hear our groans,\nto give a better proof of his love towards us. And thus it is equally\ntrue, that \u201che that keepeth Israel neither slumbers nor sleeps,\u201d and yet\nthat he remains, as it were, forgetful of us, while he beholds us\nslothful and dumb.\n\nIV. Now, for conducting prayer in a right and proper manner, the first\nrule is, that our heart and mind be composed to a suitable frame,\nbecoming those who enter into conversation with God. This state of mind\nwe shall certainly attain, if, divested of all carnal cares and\nthoughts, that tend to divert and seduce it from a right and clear view\nof God, it not only devotes itself entirely to the solemn exercise, but\nis likewise as far as possible elevated and carried above itself. Nor do\nI here require a mind so disengaged as to be disturbed by no solicitude;\nsince there ought, on the contrary, most anxiously to be kindled within\nus a fervency of prayer, (as we see the holy servants of God discover\ngreat solicitude, and even anguish, when they say they utter their\ncomplaints to the Lord from the deep abysses of affliction and the very\njaws of death.) But I maintain the necessity of dismissing all foreign\nand external cares, by which the wandering mind may be hurried hither\nand thither, and dragged from heaven down to earth. It ought to be\nelevated above itself, that it may not intrude into the Divine presence\nany of the imaginations of our blind and foolish reason, nor confine\nitself within the limits of its own vanity, but rise to purity worthy of\nGod.\n\nV. Both these things are highly worthy of observation\u2014first, that\nwhoever engages in prayer, should apply all his faculties and attention\nto it, and not be distracted, as is commonly the case, with wandering\nthoughts; nothing being more contrary to a reverence for God than such\nlevity, which indicates a licentious spirit, wholly unrestrained by\nfear. In this case our exertions must be great in proportion to the\ndifficulty we experience. For no man can be so intent on praying, but he\nmay perceive many irregular thoughts intruding on him, and either\ninterrupting, or by some oblique digression retarding, the course of his\ndevotions. But here let us consider what an indignity it is, when God\nadmits us to familiar intercourse with him, to abuse such great\ncondescension by a mixture of things sacred and profane, while our\nthoughts are not confined to him by reverential awe; but as if we were\nconversing with a mean mortal, we quit him in the midst of our prayer,\nand make excursions on every side. We may be assured, therefore, that\nnone are rightly prepared for the exercise of prayer, but those who are\nso affected by the Divine Majesty as to come to it divested of all\nearthly cares and affections. And this is indicated by the ceremony of\nlifting up the hands, that men may remember that they are at a great\ndistance from God, unless they lift up their thoughts on high. As it is\nalso expressed in the psalm, \u201cUnto thee do I lift up my soul.\u201d[267] And\nthe Scripture frequently uses this mode of expression, \u201cto lift up one\u2019s\nprayer;\u201d that they, who desire to be heard by God, may not sink into\nlethargic inactivity. To sum up the whole, the greater the liberality of\nGod towards us, in gently inviting us to disburden ourselves of our\ncares by casting them on him, the less excusable are we, unless his\nsignal and incomparable favour preponderate with us beyond every thing\nelse, and attract us to him in a serious application of all our\nfaculties and attention to the duty of prayer; which cannot be done\nunless our mind by strenuous exertion rise superior to every impediment.\nOur second proposition is, that we must pray for no more than God\npermits. For though he enjoins us to pour out our hearts before\nhim,[268] yet he does not carelessly give the reins to affections of\nfolly and depravity; and when he promises to \u201cfulfil the desire\u201d[269] of\nbelievers, he does not go to such an extreme of indulgence, as to\nsubject himself to their caprice. But offences against both these rules\nare common and great; for most men not only presume, without modesty or\nreverence, to address God concerning their follies, and impudently to\nutter at his tribunal whatever has amused them in their reveries or\ndreams, but so great is their folly or stupidity, that they dare to\nobtrude upon God all their foulest desires, which they would be\nexceedingly ashamed to reveal to men. Some heathens have ridiculed and\neven detested this presumption, but the vice itself has always\nprevailed; and hence it was that the ambitious chose Jupiter as their\npatron; the avaricious, Mercury; the lovers of learning, Apollo and\nMinerva; the warlike, Mars; and the libidinous, Venus; just as in the\npresent age (as I have lately hinted) men indulge a greater license to\ntheir unlawful desires in their prayers, than if they were conversing in\na jocular manner with their equals. God suffers not his indulgence to be\nso mocked, but asserts his power, and subjects our devotions to his\ncommands. Therefore we ought to remember this passage in John: \u201cThis is\nthe confidence that we have in him, that, if we ask any thing according\nto his will, he heareth us.\u201d[270] But as our abilities are very unequal\nto such great perfection, we must seek some remedy to relieve us. As the\nattention of the mind ought to be fixed on God, so it is necessary that\nit should be followed by the affection of the heart. But they both\nremain far below this elevation; or rather, to speak more consistently\nwith truth, they grow weary and fail in the ascent, or are carried a\ncontrary course. Therefore, to assist this imbecility, God gives us the\nSpirit, to be the director of our prayers, to suggest what is right, and\nto regulate our affections. For \u201cthe Spirit helpeth our infirmities; for\nwe know not what we should pray for as we ought; but the Spirit itself\nmaketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered;\u201d[271]\nnot that he really prays or groans; but he excites within us confidence,\ndesires, and sighs, to the conception of which our native powers were\naltogether inadequate. Nor is it without reason that Paul terms those\n\u201cgroanings,\u201d which arise from believers under the influence of the\nSpirit, \u201cunutterable;\u201d because they who are truly engaged in prayers,\nare not ignorant that they are so perplexed with dubious anxieties, that\nthey can scarcely decide what it is expedient to utter; and even while\nthey are attempting to lisp, they stammer and hesitate; whence it\nfollows that the ability of praying rightly is a peculiar gift. These\nthings are not said in order that we may indulge our own indolence,\nresigning the office of prayer to the Spirit of God, and growing torpid\nin that negligence to which we are too prone; according to the impious\nerrors of some, that we should wait in indolent supineness till he call\nour minds from other engagements and draw them to himself; but rather\nthat, wearied with our sloth and inactivity, we may implore such\nassistance of the Spirit. Nor does the apostle, when he exhorts us to\n\u201cpray in the Holy Ghost,\u201d[272] encourage us to remit our vigilance;\nsignifying, that the inspiration of the Spirit operates in the formation\nof our prayers, so as not in the least to impede or retard our own\nexertions; since it is the will of God to prove in this instance the\nefficacious influence of faith on our hearts.\n\nVI. Let this be the second rule: That in our supplications we should\nhave a real and permanent sense of our indigence, and seriously\nconsidering our necessity of all that we ask, should join with the\npetitions themselves a serious and ardent desire of obtaining them. For\nmultitudes carelessly recite a form of prayer, as though they were\ndischarging a task imposed on them by God; and though they confess that\nthis is a remedy necessary for their calamities, since it would be\ncertain destruction to be destitute of the Divine aid which they\nimplore, yet that they perform this duty merely in compliance with\ncustom, is evident from the coldness of their hearts, and their\ninattention to the nature of their petitions. They are led to this by\nsome general and confused sense of their necessity, which nevertheless\ndoes not excite them to implore a relief for their great need as a case\nof present urgency. Now, what can we imagine more odious or execrable to\nGod than this hypocrisy, when any man prays for the pardon of sins, who\nat the same time thinks he is not a sinner, or at least does not think\nthat he is a sinner? which is an open mockery of God himself. But such\ndepravity, as I have before observed, pervades the whole human race,\nthat as a matter of form they frequently implore of God many things\nwhich they either expect to receive from some other source independent\nof his goodness, or imagine themselves already to possess. The crime of\nsome others appears to be smaller, but yet too great to be tolerated;\nwho, having only imbibed this principle, that God must be propitiated by\ndevotions, mutter over their prayers without meditation. But believers\nought to be exceedingly cautious, never to enter into the presence of\nGod to present any petition, without being inflamed with a fervent\naffection of soul, and feeling an ardent desire to obtain it from him.\nMoreover, although in those things which we request only for the Divine\nglory, we do not at the first glance appear to regard our own necessity,\nyet it is incumbent on us to pray for them with equal fervour and\nvehemence of desire. As when we pray that his name may be hallowed, or\nsanctified, we ought (so to speak) ardently to hunger and thirst for\nthat sanctification.\n\nVII. If any man object, that we are not always urged to pray by the same\nnecessity, this I grant, and this distinction is usefully represented to\nus by James: \u201cIs any among you afflicted? let him pray. Is any merry?\nlet him sing psalms.\u201d[273] Common sense itself therefore dictates, that\nbecause of our extreme indolence, we are the more vigorously stimulated\nby God to earnestness in prayer according to the exigencies of our\ncondition. And this David calls \u201ca time when God may be found,\u201d[274]\nbecause (as he teaches in many other places) the more severely we are\noppressed by troubles, disasters, fears, and other kinds of temptations,\nwe have the greater liberty of access to God, as though he then\nparticularly invited us to approach him. At the same time, it is equally\ntrue that we ought to be, as Paul says, \u201cpraying always,\u201d[275] because,\nhow great soever we may believe the prosperity of our affairs, and\nthough we are surrounded on every side by matter of joy, yet there is no\nmoment of time in which our necessity does not furnish incitements to\nprayer. Does any one abound in wine and corn? Since he cannot enjoy a\nmorsel of bread but by the continual favour of God, his cellars or barns\nafford no objection to his praying for daily bread. Now, if we reflect\nhow many dangers threaten us every moment, fear itself will teach us\nthat there is no time in which prayer is unsuitable to us. Yet this may\nbe discovered still better in spiritual concerns. For when will so many\nsins, of which we are conscious, suffer us to remain in security,\nwithout humbly deprecating both the guilt and the punishment? When will\ntemptations grant us a truce, so that we need not be in haste to obtain\nassistance? Besides, an ardent desire of the Divine kingdom and glory\nought irresistibly to attract us, not by intervals, but without\nintermission, rendering every season equally suitable. It is not in\nvain, therefore, that assiduity in prayer is so frequently enjoined. I\nspeak not yet of perseverance, which shall be mentioned hereafter; but\nthe scriptural admonitions to \u201cpray without ceasing\u201d are so many\nreproofs of our sloth; because we feel not our need of this care and\ndiligence. This rule precludes and banishes from prayer, hypocrisy,\nsubtilty, and falsehood. God promises that he will be near to all who\ncall upon him in truth, and declares he will be found by those who seek\nhim with their whole heart. But to this, persons pleased with their own\nimpurity never aspire. Legitimate prayer, therefore, requires\nrepentance. Whence it is frequently said in the Scriptures, that God\nhears not the wicked, and that their prayers are an abomination; as are\nalso their sacrifices; for it is reasonable, that they who shut up their\nown hearts, should find the ears of God closed against them; and God\nshould be inflexible to them who provoke his rigour by their obduracy.\nIn Isaiah, he threatens thus: \u201cWhen ye make many prayers, I will not\nhear: your hands are full of blood.\u201d[276] Again in Jeremiah: \u201cI\nprotested, yet they inclined not their ear. Therefore, though they shall\ncry unto me, I will not hearken unto them.\u201d[277] Because he considers\nhimself grossly insulted by the wicked boasting of his covenant, while\nthey are continually dishonouring his sacred name. Wherefore he\ncomplains, in Isaiah, \u201cThis people draw near me with their mouth, but\nhave removed their heart far from me.\u201d[278] He does not restrict this\nsolely to prayer; but asserts his abhorrence of hypocrisy in every\nbranch of his worship. Which is the meaning of this passage in James:\n\u201cYe ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may consume it\nupon your lusts.\u201d[279] It is true, indeed, (as we shall presently again\nsee,) that the prayers of the faithful depend not on their personal\nworthiness; yet this does not supersede the admonition of John:\n\u201cWhatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his\ncommandments;\u201d[280] because an evil conscience shuts the gate against\nus. Whence it follows, that none pray aright, and that no others are\nheard, but the sincere worshippers of God. Whosoever therefore engages\nin prayer, should be displeased with himself on account of his sins, and\nassume, what he cannot do without repentance, the character and\ndisposition of a beggar.\n\nVIII. To these must be added a third rule\u2014That whoever presents himself\nbefore God for the purpose of praying to him, must renounce every idea\nof his own glory, reject all opinion of his own merit, and, in a word,\nrelinquish all confidence in himself, giving, by this humiliation of\nhimself, all the glory entirely to God; lest, arrogating any thing,\nthough ever so little, to ourselves, we perish from his presence in\nconsequence of our vanity. Of this submission, which prostrates every\nhigh thought, we have frequent examples in the servants of God; of whom\nthe most eminent for holiness feel the greatest consternation on\nentering into the presence of the Lord. Thus Daniel, whom the Lord\nhimself has so highly commended, said, \u201cWe do not present our\nsupplications before thee for our righteousness, but for thy great\nmercies. O Lord, hear; O Lord, forgive; O Lord, hearken and do; defer\nnot, for thine own sake, O my God; for thy city and thy people are\ncalled by thy name.\u201d[281] Nor does he, as is generally the case,\nconfound himself with the multitude, as one of the people; but makes a\nseparate confession of his own guilt, resorting as a suppliant to the\nasylum of pardon; as he expressly declares, \u201cWhilst I was confessing my\nsin, and the sin of my people.\u201d[282] We are taught the same humility\nalso by the example of David: \u201cEnter not into judgment with thy servant;\nfor in thy sight shall no man living be justified.\u201d[283] In this manner\nIsaiah prays: \u201cBehold, thou art wroth; for we have sinned: in thy ways\nis continuance, and we shall be saved. For we are all as an unclean\nthing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do\nfade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.\nAnd there is none that calleth upon thy name, that stirreth up himself\nto take hold of thee; for thou hast hid thy face from us, and hast\nconsumed us, because of our iniquities. But now, O Lord, thou art our\nFather; we are the clay, and thou our potter; and we all are the work of\nthy hand. Be not wroth very sore, O Lord, neither remember iniquity for\never; behold, see, we beseech thee, we are all thy people.\u201d[284]\nObserve, they have no dependence but this; that considering themselves\nas God\u2019s children, they despair not of his future care of them. Thus\nJeremiah: \u201cThough our iniquities testify against us, do thou it for thy\nname\u2019s sake.\u201d[285] For that is equally consistent with the strictest\ntruth and holiness, which was written by an uncertain author, but is\nascribed to the prophet Baruch: \u201cA soul sorrowful and desolate for the\ngreatness of its sin, bowed down and infirm, a hungry soul and fainting\neyes give glory to thee, O Lord. Not according to the righteousnesses of\nour fathers do we pour out our prayers in thy sight, and ask mercy\nbefore thy face, O Lord, our God; but because thou art merciful, have\nmercy upon us, for we have sinned against thee.\u201d[286]\n\nIX. Finally, the commencement and even introduction to praying rightly\nis a supplication for pardon with an humble and ingenuous confession of\nguilt. For neither is there any hope that even the holiest of men can\nobtain any blessing of God till he be freely reconciled to him, nor is\nit possible for God to be propitious to any, but those whom he pardons.\nIt is no wonder, then, if believers with this key open to themselves the\ngate of prayer; as we learn from many places in the Psalms. For David,\nwhen requesting another thing, says, \u201cRemember not the sins of my youth,\nnor my transgressions: according to thy mercy remember thou me, for thy\ngoodness\u2019 sake, O Lord.\u201d Again: \u201cLook upon mine affliction and my pain;\nand forgive all my sins.\u201d[287] Where we likewise perceive, that it is\nnot sufficient for us to call ourselves to a daily account for recent\nsins, unless we remember those which might seem to have been long buried\nin oblivion. For the same Psalmist, in another place,[288] having\nconfessed one grievous crime, takes occasion thence to revert to his\nmother\u2019s womb, where he had contracted his original pollution; not in\norder to extenuate his guilt by the corruption of his nature, but that,\naccumulating all the sins of his life, he may find God the more ready to\nlisten to his prayers in proportion to the severity of his\nself-condemnation. But though the saints do not always in express terms\npray for remission of sins, yet if we diligently examine their prayers\nrecited in the Scriptures, it will easily appear, as I assert, that they\nderived their encouragement to pray from the mere mercy of God, and so\nalways began by deprecating his displeasure; for if every man examine\nhis own conscience, he is so far from presuming familiarly to\ncommunicate his cares to God, that he trembles at every approach to him,\nexcept in a reliance on his mercy and forgiveness. There is also,\nindeed, another special confession, when they wish for an alleviation of\npunishments, which is tacitly praying for the pardon of their sins;\nbecause it were absurd to desire the removal of an effect, while the\ncause remains. For we must beware of imitating foolish patients, who are\nonly solicitous for the cure of the symptoms, but neglect the radical\ncause of the disease. Besides, we should first seek for God to be\npropitious to us, previously to any external testimonies of his favour;\nbecause it is his own will to observe this order, and it would be of\nlittle advantage to us to receive benefits from him, unless a discovery\nto the conscience of his being appeased towards us rendered him\naltogether amiable in our view. Of this we are likewise apprized by the\nreply of Christ; for when he had determined to heal a paralytic person,\nhe said, \u201cThy sins be forgiven thee;\u201d[289] thereby calling our attention\nto that which ought to be the chief object of desire, that God may\nreceive us into his favour, and then, by affording us assistance,\ndiscover the effect of reconciliation. But beside the special confession\nof present guilt, in which believers implore the pardon of every sin and\nthe remission of every punishment, that general preface, which\nconciliates a favourable attention to our prayers, is never to be\nomitted; because, unless they be founded on God\u2019s free mercy, they will\nall be unavailing. To this topic we may refer that passage of John\u2014\u201cIf\nwe confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and\nto cleanse us from all unrighteousness.\u201d[290] Wherefore, under the law,\nprayers are required to be consecrated by an atonement of blood, to\nrender them acceptable, and to remind the people that they were unworthy\nof so great and honourable a privilege, till, purified from their\npollutions, they should derive confidence in prayer from the mere mercy\nof God.\n\nX. But when the saints sometimes appear to urge their own righteousness\nas an argument in their supplications with God,\u2014as when David says,\n\u201cPreserve my soul; for I am holy;\u201d[291] and Hezekiah, \u201cI beseech thee, O\nLord, remember now how I have walked before thee in truth, and have done\nthat which is good in thy sight,\u201d[292]\u2014their only design in such modes\nof expression is, from their regeneration to prove themselves to be\nservants and sons of God, to whom he declares he will be propitious. He\ntells us by the Psalmist, (as we have already seen,) that \u201chis eyes are\nupon the righteous, and that his ears are open unto their cry;\u201d[293] and\nagain, by the apostle, that \u201cwhatsoever we ask, we receive of him,\nbecause we keep his commandments;\u201d[294] in which passages he does not\ndetermine the value of prayer according to the merit of works; but\nintends by them to establish the confidence of those who are conscious\nto themselves, as all believers ought to be, of unfeigned integrity and\ninnocence. For the observation in John, made by the blind man who\nreceived his sight, that \u201cGod heareth not sinners,\u201d[295] is a principle\nof Divine truth, if we understand the word _sinners_, in the common\nacceptation of Scripture, to signify those who are all asleep and\ncontent in their sins, without any desire of righteousness; since no\nheart can ever break out into a sincere invocation of God, unaccompanied\nwith aspirations after piety. To such promises, therefore, correspond\nthose declarations of the saints, in which they introduce the mention of\ntheir own purity or innocence, that they may experience a manifestation\nto themselves of what is to be expected by all the servants of God.\nBesides, they are generally found in the use of this species of prayer,\nwhen before the Lord they compare themselves with their enemies, from\nwhose iniquity they desire him to deliver them. Now, in this comparison,\nwe need not wonder, if they produce their righteousness and simplicity\nof heart, in order to prevail upon him by the justice of their cause to\nyield the more ready assistance. We object not, therefore, to the pious\nheart of a good man making use before the Lord of the consciousness of\nhis own purity for his confirmation in the promises which the Lord has\ngiven for the consolation and support of his true worshippers; but his\nconfidence of success we wish to be independent of every consideration\nof personal merit, and to rest solely on the Divine clemency.\n\nXI. The fourth and last rule is, That thus prostrate with true humility,\nwe should nevertheless be animated to pray by the certain hope of\nobtaining our requests. It is indeed an apparent contradiction, to\nconnect a certain confidence of God\u2019s favour with a sense of his\nrighteous vengeance; though these two things are perfectly consistent,\nif persons oppressed by their own guilt be encouraged solely by the\nDivine goodness. For as we have before stated, that repentance and\nfaith, of which one terrifies, and the other exhilarates, are\ninseparably connected, so their union is necessary in prayer. And this\nagreement is briefly expressed by David: \u201cI will come (says he) into thy\nhouse in the multitude of thy mercy; and in thy fear will I worship\ntoward thy holy temple.\u201d[296] Under the \u201cgoodness of God,\u201d he\ncomprehends faith, though not to the exclusion of fear; for his majesty\nnot only commands our reverence, but our own unworthiness makes us\nforget all pride and security, and fills us with fear. I do not mean a\nconfidence which delivers the mind from all sense of anxiety, and\nsoothes it into pleasant and perfect tranquillity; for such a placid\nsatisfaction belongs to those whose prosperity is equal to their wishes,\nwho are affected by no care, corroded by no desire, and alarmed by no\nfear. And the saints have an excellent stimulus to calling upon God,\nwhen their necessities and perplexities harass and disquiet them, and\nthey are almost despairing in themselves, till faith opportunely\nrelieves them; because, amidst such troubles, the goodness of God is so\nglorious in their view, that though they groan under the pressure of\npresent calamities, and are likewise tormented with the fear of greater\nin future, yet a reliance on it alleviates the difficulty of bearing\nthem, and encourages a hope of deliverance. The prayers of a pious man,\ntherefore, must proceed from both these dispositions, and must also\ncontain and discover them both; though he must groan under present\nevils, and is anxiously afraid of new ones, yet at the same time he must\nresort for refuge to God, not doubting his readiness to extend the\nassistance of his hand. For God is highly incensed by our distrust, if\nwe supplicate him for blessings which we have no expectation of\nreceiving. There is nothing, therefore, more suitable to the nature of\nprayers, than that they be conformed to this rule\u2014not to rush forward\nwith temerity, but to follow the steps of faith. To this principle\nChrist calls the attention of us all in the following passage: \u201cI say\nunto you, What things soever ye desire, when ye pray, believe that ye\nreceive them, and ye shall have them.\u201d[297] This he confirms also in\nanother place: \u201cWhatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall\nreceive.\u201d[298] With which James agrees: \u201cIf any of you lack wisdom, let\nhim ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not.\nBut let him ask in faith, nothing wavering.\u201d[299] Where, by opposing\n\u201cfaith\u201d to \u201cwavering,\u201d he very aptly expresses its nature. And equally\nworthy of attention is what he adds, that they avail nothing, who call\nupon God in perplexity and doubt, and are uncertain in their minds\nwhether they shall be heard or not; whom he even compares to waves,\nwhich are variously tossed and driven about with the wind. Whence he\nelsewhere calls a legitimate prayer \u201cthe prayer of faith.\u201d[300] Besides,\nwhen God so frequently affirms, that he will give to every man according\nto his faith, he implies that we can obtain nothing without faith.\nFinally, it is faith that obtains whatever is granted in answer to\nprayer. This is the meaning of that famous passage of Paul, to which\ninjudicious men pay little attention: \u201cHow shall they call on him, in\nwhom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in him, of whom\nthey have not heard? So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the\nword of God.\u201d[301] For by a regular deduction of prayer originally from\nfaith, he evidently contends, that God cannot be sincerely invoked by\nany, but those to whom his clemency and gentleness have been revealed\nand familiarly discovered by the preaching of the gospel.\n\nXII. This necessity our adversaries never consider. Therefore, when we\ninculcate on believers a certain confidence of mind that God is\npropitious and benevolent towards them, they consider us as advancing\nthe greatest of all absurdities. But if they were in the habit of true\nprayer, they would certainly understand, that there can be no proper\ninvocation of God without such a strong sense of the Divine benevolence.\nBut since no man can fully discover the power of faith without an\nexperience of it in his heart, what advantage can arise from disputing\nwith such men, who plainly prove that they never had any other than a\nvain imagination? For the value and necessity of that assurance which we\nrequire, is chiefly learned by prayer; and he who does not perceive\nthis, betrays great stupidity of conscience. Leaving, then, this class\nof blinded mortals, let us ever abide by the decision of Paul, that God\ncannot be called upon, but by those who receive from the gospel a\nknowledge of his mercy, and a certain persuasion that it is prepared for\nthem. For what kind of an address would this be? \u201cO Lord, I am truly in\ndoubt, whether thou be willing to hear me; but since I am oppressed with\nanxiety, I flee to thee, that if I be worthy thou mayest assist me.\u201d\nThis does not resemble the solicitude of the saints, whose prayers we\nread in the Scriptures. Nor is it agreeable to the teaching of the Holy\nSpirit by the apostle, who commands us \u201cto come boldly to the throne of\ngrace, that we may find grace;\u201d[302] and informs us, that \u201cwe have\nboldness and access, with confidence, by the faith of Christ.\u201d[303] This\nassurance of obtaining what we implore, therefore, which is both\ncommanded by the Lord himself, and taught by the example of the saints,\nit becomes us to hold fast with all our might, if we would pray to any\ngood purpose. For that prayer alone is accepted by God, which arises (if\nI may use the expression) from such a presumption of faith, and is\nfounded on an undaunted assurance of hope. He might, indeed, have\ncontented himself with the simple mention of \u201cfaith;\u201d yet he has not\nonly added \u201cconfidence,\u201d but furnished that confidence with liberty or\n\u201cboldness\u201d to distinguish by this criterion between us and unbelievers,\nwho do indeed pray to God in common with us, but entirely at an\nuncertainty. For which reason, the whole Church prays in the psalm, \u201cLet\nthy mercy, O Lord, be upon us, according as we hope in thee.\u201d[304] The\nPsalmist elsewhere introduces the same idea: \u201cThis I know; for God is\nfor me.\u201d[305] Again: \u201cIn the morning will I direct my prayer unto thee,\nand will look up.\u201d[306] For from these words we gather, that prayers are\nbut empty sounds, if unattended by hope, from which, as from a\nwatch-tower, we quietly look out for God. With which corresponds the\norder of Paul\u2019s exhortation; for before exhorting believers to \u201cpray\nalways with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit,\u201d he first directs\nthem to \u201ctake the shield of faith, the helmet of salvation, and the\nsword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.\u201d[307] Now, let the reader\nrecollect, what I have before asserted, that faith is not at all\nweakened by being connected with an acknowledgment of our misery,\npoverty, and impurity. For believers feel themselves oppressed by a\ngrievous load of sins, while destitute of every thing which could\nconciliate the favour of God, and burdened with much guilt, which might\njustly render him an object of their dread; yet they cease not to\npresent themselves before him; nor does this experience terrify them\nfrom resorting to him, since there is no other way of access to him. For\nprayer was instituted, not that we might arrogantly exalt ourselves in\nthe presence of God, or form a high opinion of any thing of our own; but\nthat we might confess our guilt to him, and deplore our miseries with\nthe familiarity of children confiding their complaints to their parents.\nThe immense accumulation of our distresses should operate as so many\nincitements to urge us to pray; as we are taught likewise by the example\nof the Psalmist: \u201cHeal my soul; for I have sinned against thee.\u201d[308] I\nconfess, indeed, that the operation of such incentives would be fatal,\nwere it not for the Divine aid; but our most benevolent Father, in his\nincomparable mercy, has afforded a timely remedy, that allaying all\nperturbation, alleviating all cares, and dispelling all fears, he might\ngently allure us to himself, and facilitate our approach to him, by the\nremoval of every obstacle and every doubt.\n\nXIII. And in the first place, when he enjoins us to pray, the\ncommandment itself implies a charge of impious contumacy, if we disobey\nit. No command can be more precise than that in the psalm: \u201cCall upon me\nin the day of trouble.\u201d[309] But as the Scripture recommends no one of\nthe duties of piety more frequently, it is unnecessary to dwell any\nlonger upon it. \u201cAsk, (says our Lord,) and it shall be given you; knock,\nand it shall be opened unto you.\u201d[310] To this precept, however, there\nis also annexed a promise, which is very necessary; for though all men\nacknowledge obedience to be due to a precept, yet the greater part of\nthem would neglect the calls of God, if he did not promise to be\npropitious to them, and even to advance to meet them. These two\npositions being proved, it is evident that all those who turn their\nbacks on God, or do not directly approach him, are not only guilty of\ndisobedience and rebellion, but also convicted of unbelief; because they\ndistrust the promises; which is the more worthy of observation, since\nhypocrites, under the pretext of humility and modesty, treat the command\nof God with such haughty contempt as to give no credit to his kind\ninvitation, and even defraud him of a principal part of his worship. For\nafter having refused sacrifices, in which all holiness then appeared to\nconsist, he declares the principal and most acceptable part of his\nservice to be, \u201ccalling upon him in the day of trouble.\u201d Wherefore, when\nhe requires what is due to him, and animates us to a cheerful obedience,\nthere are no pretexts for diffidence or hesitation sufficiently specious\nto excuse us. The numerous texts of Scripture, therefore, which enjoin\nus to call upon God, are as so many banners placed before our eyes to\ninspire us with confidence. It were temerity to rush into the presence\nof God, without a previous invitation from him. He therefore opens a way\nfor us by his own word: \u201cI will say, It is my people; and they shall\nsay, The Lord is my God.\u201d[311] We see how he leads his worshippers, and\ndesires them to follow him; and therefore that there is no reason to\nfear lest the melody, which he dictates, should not be agreeable to him.\nLet us particularly remember this remarkable character of God, by a\nreliance on which we shall easily surmount every obstacle: \u201cO thou that\nhearest prayer, unto thee shall all flesh come.\u201d[312] For what is more\namiable or attractive than for God to bear this character, which assures\nus, that nothing is more agreeable to his nature, than to grant the\nrequests of humble suppliants? Hence the Psalmist concludes that the way\nis open, not to a few only, but to all men; because he addresses all in\nthese words: \u201cCall upon me in the day of trouble: I will deliver thee,\nand thou shalt glorify me.\u201d[313] According to this rule, David, in order\nto obtain his request, pleads the promise that had been given him:\n\u201cThou, O Lord, hast revealed to thy servant\u2014; therefore hath thy servant\nfound in his heart to pray.\u201d[314] Whence we conclude that he would have\nbeen fearful, had he not been encouraged by the promise. So in another\nplace he furnishes himself with this general doctrine: \u201cHe will fulfil\nthe desire of them that fear him.\u201d[315] In the Psalms we may likewise\nobserve the connection of prayer as it were interrupted, and sudden\ntransitions made, sometimes to the power of God, sometimes to his\ngoodness, and sometimes to the truth of his promises. It might appear as\nthough David mutilated his prayers by an unseasonable introduction of\nsuch passages; but believers know by experience, that the ardour of\ndevotion languishes, unless it be supported by fresh supplies; and\ntherefore a meditation on the nature and the word of God is far from\nbeing useless in the midst of our prayers. Let us not hesitate, then, to\nfollow the example of David in the introduction of topics calculated to\nreanimate languid souls with new vigour.\n\nXIV. And it is wonderful that we are no more affected with promises so\nexceedingly sweet; that the generality of men, wandering through a\nlabyrinth of errors, after having forsaken the fountain of living\nwaters, prefer hewing out for themselves cisterns incapable of\ncontaining any water, to embracing the free offers of Divine goodness.\n\u201cThe name of the Lord (says Solomon) is a strong tower: the righteous\nrunneth into it, and is safe.\u201d[316] And Joel, after having predicted the\nspeedy approach of a dreadful destruction, adds this memorable sentence:\n\u201cWhosoever shall call on the name of the Lord, shall be delivered;\u201d[317]\nwhich we know properly refers to the course of the gospel. Scarcely one\nman in a hundred is induced to advance to meet the Lord. He proclaims by\nIsaiah, \u201cBefore they call, I will answer; and while they are yet\nspeaking, I will hear.\u201d[318] And in another place he dignifies the whole\nChurch in general with the same honour; as it belongs to all the members\nof Christ: \u201cHe shall call upon me, and I will answer him: I will be with\nhim in trouble: I will deliver him.\u201d[319] As I have before said,\nhowever, my design is not to enumerate all the texts, but to select the\nmost remarkable, from which we may perceive the condescending kindness\nof God in inviting us to him, and the circumstances of aggravation\nattending our ingratitude, while our indolence still lingers in the\nmidst of such powerful incitements. Wherefore let these words\nperpetually resound in our ears: \u201cThe Lord is nigh unto all them that\ncall upon him, to all that call upon him in truth;\u201d[320] as well as\nthose which we have cited from Isaiah and Joel; in which God affirms,\nthat he is inclined to hear prayers, and is delighted, as with a\nsacrifice of a sweet savour, when we cast our cares upon him. We derive\nthis singular benefit from the Divine promises, when our prayers are\nconceived without doubt or trepidation; but in reliance on his word,\nwhose majesty would otherwise terrify us, we venture to call upon him as\nour Father, because he deigns to suggest to us this most delightful\nappellation. Favoured with such invitations, it remains for us to know\nthat they furnish us with sufficient arguments to enforce our petitions;\nsince our prayers rest on no intrinsic merit; but all their worthiness,\nas well as all our hope of obtaining our requests, is founded in, and\ndependent upon, the Divine promises; so that there is no need of any\nother support or further anxiety. Therefore we may be fully assured,\nthat though we equal not the sanctity so celebrated in holy patriarchs,\nprophets, and apostles, yet, since the command to pray is common to us\nas well as to them, and we are partakers of the same common faith, if we\nrely on the Divine word, we are associated with them in this privilege.\nFor God\u2019s declaration, (already noticed,) that he will be gentle and\nmerciful to all, gives all, even the most miserable, a hope of obtaining\nthe objects of their supplications; and therefore we should remark the\ngeneral forms of expression, by which no man, from the greatest to the\nleast, is excluded; only let him possess sincerity of heart,\nself-abhorrence, humility, and faith; and let not our hypocrisy profane\nthe name of God by a pretended invocation of him; our most merciful\nFather will not reject those whom he exhorts to approach him, and even\nurges by every possible mode of solicitation. Hence the argument of\nDavid\u2019s prayer, just recited: \u201cThou, O Lord, hast revealed to thy\nservant\u2014; therefore hath thy servant found in his heart to pray this\nprayer unto thee. And now, O Lord God, thou art that God, and thy words\nbe true, and thou hast promised this goodness unto thy servant:\u201d begin\ntherefore and do it.[321] As also in another place: \u201cLet thy kindness be\naccording to thy word unto thy servant.\u201d[322] And all the Israelites\ntogether, whenever they fortify themselves with a recollection of the\ncovenant, sufficiently declare that fear ought to be banished from our\ndevotions, because it is contrary to the Divine injunction; and in this\nrespect they imitated the examples of the patriarchs, particularly of\nJacob, who, after having confessed himself \u201cnot worthy of the least of\nall the mercies\u201d he had received from the hand of God, yet declares\nhimself animated to pray for still greater blessings, because God had\npromised to grant them.[323] But whatever be the pretences of\nunbelievers, for not applying to God under the pressure of every\nnecessity, for not seeking him or imploring his aid, they are equally\nchargeable with defrauding him of the honour due to him, as if they had\nfabricated for themselves new gods and idols; for by this conduct, they\ndeny him to be the Author of all their blessings. On the contrary, there\nis nothing more efficacious to deliver believers from every scruple,\nthan this consideration, that no impediment ought to prevent their\nacting according to the command of God, who declares that nothing is\nmore agreeable to him than obedience. These observations tend more fully\nto elucidate what I have advanced before; that a spirit of boldness in\nprayer is perfectly consistent with fear, reverence, and solicitude; and\nthat there is no absurdity in God\u2019s exalting those who are abased. This\nestablishes an excellent agreement between those apparently repugnant\nforms of expression. Both Jeremiah and Daniel use this phrase: \u201cMake\nprayers fall\u201d before God; for so it is in the original.[324] Jeremiah\nalso: \u201cLet our supplication fall before thee.\u201d[325] Again: believers are\nfrequently said to \u201clift up their prayer.\u201d[326] So says Hezekiah, when\nrequesting the prophet to intercede for him. And David desires that his\nprayer may ascend \u201cas incense.\u201d[327] For though, under a persuasion of\nGod\u2019s fatherly love, they cheerfully commit themselves to his\nfaithfulness, and hesitate not to implore the assistance he freely\npromises, yet they are not impudently elated with careless security, but\nascend upwards by the steps of the promises, yet in such a manner, that\nthey still continue to be suppliant and self-abased.\n\nXV. Here several questions are started. The Scripture relates that the\nLord has complied with some prayers, which nevertheless did not arise\nfrom a calm or well-regulated heart. Jotham, for a just cause indeed,\nbut from the impulse of rage, resentment, and revenge, devoted the\ninhabitants of Shechem to the destruction which afterwards fell upon\nthem:[328] the Lord, by fulfilling this curse, seems to approve of such\ndisorderly sallies of passion. Samson also was hurried away by similar\nfervour when he said, \u201cO Lord, strengthen me, that I may be avenged of\nthe Philistines.\u201d[329] For though there was some mixture of honest zeal,\nyet it was a violent, and therefore sinful, avidity of revenge which\npredominated. God granted the request. Whence it seems deducible, that\nprayers not conformable to the rules of the Divine word, are\nnevertheless efficacious. I reply, first, that a permanent rule is not\nannulled by particular examples; secondly, that peculiar emotions have\nsometimes been excited in a few individuals, causing a distinction\nbetween them and men in general. For the answer of Christ to his\ndisciples, who inconsiderately wished to emulate the example of Elias,\n\u201cthat they knew not what spirit they were of,\u201d is worthy of observation.\nBut we must remark, further, that God is not always pleased with the\nprayers which he grants; but that, as far as examples are concerned,\nthere are undeniable evidences of the Scripture doctrine, that he\nsuccours the miserable, and hears the groans of those who under the\npressure of injustice implore his aid; that he therefore executes his\njudgments, when the complaints of the poor arise to him, though they are\nunworthy of the least favourable attention. For how often, by punishing\nthe cruelty, rapine, violence, lust, and other crimes of the impious, by\nrestraining their audacity and fury, and even subverting their\ntyrannical power, has he manifestly assisted the victims of unrighteous\noppression, though they have been beating the air with supplications to\nan unknown God! And one of the Psalmists clearly teaches that some\nprayers are not ineffectual, which nevertheless do not penetrate into\nheaven by faith.[330] For he collects those prayers which necessity\nnaturally extorts from unbelievers as well as from believers, but to\nwhich the event shows God to be propitious. Does he by such\ncondescension testify that they are acceptable to him? No; he designs to\namplify or illustrate his mercy by this circumstance, that even the\nrequests of unbelievers are not refused; and likewise to stimulate his\ntrue worshippers to greater diligence in prayer, while they see that\neven the lamentations of the profane are not unattended with advantage.\nYet there is no reason why believers should deviate from the rule given\nthem by God, or envy unbelievers, as though they had made some great\nacquisition when they have obtained the object of their wishes. In this\nmanner we have said that the Lord was moved by the hypocritical\npenitence of Ahab, in order to prove by this example how ready he is to\ngrant the prayers of his own elect, when they seek reconciliation with\nhim by true conversion. Therefore in the Psalms he expostulates with the\nJews, because, after having experienced his propitiousness to their\nprayers, they had almost immediately returned to their native\nperverseness.[331] It is evident, also, from the history of the Judges,\nthat whenever they wept, though their tears were hypocritical, yet they\nwere delivered from the hands of their enemies. As the Lord, therefore,\n\u201cmaketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good,\u201d[332]\npromiscuously, so he despises not the lamentations of those whose cause\nis just, and whose afflictions deserve relief. At the same time his\nattention to them is no more connected with salvation, than his\nfurnishing food to the despisers of his goodness. The question relative\nto Abraham and Samuel is attended with more difficulty; the former of\nwhom prayed for the inhabitants of Sodom without any Divine direction,\nand the latter for Saul even contrary to a plain prohibition.[333] The\nsame is the case of Jeremiah, who deprecated the destruction of the\ncity.[334] For though they suffered a repulse, yet it seems harsh to\ndeny them to have been under the influence of faith. But the modest\nreader will, I hope, be satisfied with this solution; that mindful of\nthe general principles by which God enjoins them to be merciful even to\nthe unworthy, they were not entirely destitute of faith, though in a\nparticular instance their opinion may have disappointed them. Augustine\nhas somewhere this judicious observation: \u201cHow do the saints pray in\nfaith, when they implore of God that which is contrary to his decrees?\nIt is because they pray according to his will, not that hidden and\nimmutable will, but that with which he inspires them, that he may hear\nthem in a different way, as he wisely discriminates.\u201d This is an\nexcellent remark; because, according to his incomprehensible designs, he\nso regulates the events of things, that the prayers of the saints, which\ncontain a mixture of faith and error, are not in vain. Yet this no more\naffords an example for imitation, than a sufficient plea to excuse the\nsaints themselves, whom I admit to have transgressed the bounds of duty.\nWherefore, when no certain promise can be found, we should present our\nsupplications to God in a conditional way; which is implied in this\npetition of David: \u201cAwake to the judgment that thou hast\ncommanded;\u201d[335] because he suggests that he was directed by a\nparticular revelation to pray for a temporal blessing.\n\nXVI. It will also be of use to remark, that the things I have delivered\nconcerning the four rules for praying aright, are not required by God\nwith such extreme rigour as to cause the rejection of all prayers, in\nwhich he does not find a perfection of faith or repentance, united with\nardent zeal and well-regulated desires. We have said, that although\nprayer is a familiar intercourse between God and pious men, yet\nreverence and modesty must be preserved, that we may not give a loose to\nall our wishes, nor even in our desires exceed the Divine permission;\nand to prevent the majesty of God being lessened in our view, our minds\nmust be raised to a pure and holy veneration of him. This no man has\never performed with the purity required; for, to say nothing of the\nmultitude, how many complaints of David savour of intemperance of\nspirit! not that he would designedly remonstrate with God, or murmur at\nhis judgments; but he faints in consequence of his infirmity, and finds\nno better consolation than to pour his sorrows into the Divine bosom.\nMoreover, God bears with our lisping, and pardons our ignorance,\nwhenever any inconsiderate expressions escape us; and certainly without\nthis indulgence there could be no freedom of prayer. But though it was\nDavid\u2019s intention to submit himself wholly to the Divine will, and his\npatience in prayer was equal to his desire of obtaining his requests,\nyet we sometimes perceive the appearance and ebullition of turbulent\npassions, very inconsistent with the first rule we have laid down. We\nmay discover, particularly from the conclusion of the thirty-ninth\npsalm, with what vehemence of grief this holy man was hurried away\nbeyond all the bounds of propriety. \u201cO spare me (says he) before I go\nhence, and be no more.\u201d[336] One might be ready to say, that the man,\nbeing in despair, desires nothing but the removal of God\u2019s hand, that he\nmay putrefy in his own iniquities and miseries. He does not intend to\nrush into intemperance of language, or, as is usual with the reprobate,\ndesire God to depart from him; he only complains that he cannot bear the\nDivine wrath. In these temptations, also, the saints often drop\npetitions, not sufficiently conformable to the rule of God\u2019s word, and\nwithout due reflection on what is right and proper. All prayers polluted\nwith these blemishes deserve to be rejected; yet if the saints mourn,\ncorrect themselves, and return to themselves again, God forgives them.\nThus they offend likewise against the second rule; because they\nfrequently have to contend with their own indifference; nor do their\npoverty and misery sufficiently incite them to seriousness of devotion.\nNow, their minds frequently wander, and are almost absorbed in vanity;\nand they also need pardon in this respect, lest languid, or mutilated,\nor interrupted and desultory prayers should meet with a repulse. God has\nnaturally impressed the minds of men with a conviction that prayers\nrequire to be attended with an elevation of heart. Hence the ceremony of\nelevating the hands, as before observed, which has been common in all\nages and nations, and still continues; but where is the person, who,\nwhile lifting up the hands, is not conscious of dulness, because his\nheart cleaves to the earth? As to praying for the remission of sins,\nthough none of the faithful omit this article, yet they who have been\ntruly engaged in prayers, perceive that they scarcely offer the tenth\npart of the sacrifices mentioned by David: \u201cThe sacrifices of God are a\nbroken spirit; a broken and a contrite heart, O God, thou wilt not\ndespise.\u201d[337] Thus they have always to pray for a twofold forgiveness;\nboth because they are conscious of many transgressions, with which they\nare not so deeply affected as to be sufficiently displeased with\nthemselves, and as they are enabled to advance in repentance and the\nfear of God, humbled with just sorrow for their offences, they deprecate\nthe vengeance of the Judge. But above all, the weakness or imperfection\nof their faith would vitiate the prayers of believers, were it not for\nthe Divine indulgence; but we need not wonder that this defect is\nforgiven by God, who frequently exercises his children with severe\ndiscipline, as if he fully designed to annihilate their faith. It is a\nvery sharp temptation, when believers are constrained to cry, \u201cHow long\nwilt thou be angry against the prayer of thy people?\u201d[338] as though\neven their prayers were so many provocations of Divine wrath. So when\nJeremiah says, \u201cGod shutteth out my prayer,\u201d[339] he was undoubtedly\nagitated with severe trouble. Innumerable examples of this kind occur in\nthe Scriptures, from which it appears that the faith of the saints is\noften mingled and agitated with doubts, so that amidst the exercises of\nfaith and hope, they nevertheless betray some remains of unbelief; but\nsince they cannot attain all that is to be wished, it becomes them to be\nincreasingly diligent, in order that, correcting their faults, they may\ndaily make nearer approaches to the perfect rule of prayer, and at the\nsame time to consider into what an abyss of evils they must have been\nplunged, who even in their very remedies contract new diseases; since\nthere is no prayer which God would not justly disdain, if he did not\noverlook the blemishes with which they are all deformed. I mention these\nthings, not that believers may securely forgive themselves any thing\nsinful, but that, by severely correcting themselves, they may strive to\nsurmount these obstacles; and that, notwithstanding the endeavours of\nSatan to obstruct them in all their ways, with a view to prevent them\nfrom praying, they may nevertheless break through all opposition,\ncertainly persuaded, that, though they experience many impediments, yet\nGod is pleased with their efforts, and approves of their prayers,\nprovided they strenuously aim at that which they do not immediately\nattain.\n\nXVII. But since there is no one of the human race worthy to present\nhimself to God, and to enter into his presence, our heavenly Father\nhimself, to deliver us at once from shame and fear, which might justly\ndepress all our minds, has given us his Son Jesus Christ our Lord to be\nour Advocate and Mediator with him;[340] introduced by whom we may\nboldly approach him, confident, with such an Intercessor, that nothing\nwe ask in his name will be denied us, as nothing can be denied to him by\nhis Father. And to this must be referred all that we have hitherto\nadvanced concerning faith; because, as the promise recommends Christ to\nus as the Mediator, so, unless our hope of success depend on him, it\ndeprives itself of all the benefit of prayer. For as soon as we reflect\non the terrible majesty of God, we cannot but be exceedingly afraid, and\ndriven away from him by a consciousness of our unworthiness, till we\ndiscover Christ as the Mediator, who changes the throne of dreadful\nglory into a throne of grace; as the apostle also exhorts us to \u201ccome\nboldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find\ngrace to help in time of need.\u201d[341] And as there is a rule given for\ncalling upon God, as well as a promise that they shall be heard who call\nupon him, so we are particularly enjoined to invoke him in the name of\nChrist; and we have an express promise, that what we ask in his name we\nshall obtain. \u201cHitherto (says he) ye have asked nothing in my name: ask,\nand ye shall receive. At that day ye shall ask in my name; and\nwhatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may\nbe glorified in the Son.\u201d[342] Hence it is plain beyond all controversy,\nthat they who call upon God in any other name than that of Christ, are\nguilty of a contumacious neglect of his precepts, and a total disregard\nof his will; and that they have no promise of any success. For, as Paul\nsays of Christ, \u201cAll the promises of God in him are yea, and in him\namen;\u201d that is, are confirmed and fulfilled.[343]\n\nXVIII. And we must carefully remark the circumstance of the time when\nChrist commands his disciples to apply to his intercession, which was to\nbe after his ascension to heaven; \u201cAt that day (says he) ye shall ask in\nmy name.\u201d It is certain that from the beginning no prayers had been\nheard but for the sake of the Mediator. For this reason the Lord had\nappointed in the law, that the priest alone should enter the sanctuary,\nbearing on his shoulders the names of the tribes of Israel and the same\nnumber of precious stones before his breast; but that the people should\nstand without in the court, and there unite their prayers with those of\nthe priest.[344] The use of the sacrifice was to render their prayers\neffectual. The meaning, therefore, of that shadowy ceremony of the law\nwas, that we are all banished from the presence of God, and therefore\nneed a mediator to appear in our name, to bear us on his shoulders, and\nbind us to his breast, that we may be heard in his person; and,\nmoreover, that the sprinkling of his blood purifies our prayers, which\nhave been asserted to be otherwise never free from defilement. And we\nsee that the saints, when they wished to obtain any thing by prayer,\nfounded their hope on the sacrifices; because they knew them to be the\nconfirmations of all their prayers. David says, \u201cThe Lord remember all\nthy offerings, and accept thy burnt-sacrifice.\u201d[345] Hence we conclude,\nthat God has from the beginning been appeased by the intercession of\nChrist, so as to accept the devotions of believers. Why, then, does\nChrist assign a new period, when his disciples shall begin to pray in\nhis name, but because this grace, being now become more illustrious,\ndeserves to be more strongly recommended to us? In this same sense he\nhad just before said, \u201cHitherto ye have asked nothing in my name;\nask.\u201d[346] Not that they were totally unacquainted with the office of\nthe Mediator, (since all the Jews were instructed in these first\nprinciples,) but because they did not yet clearly understand that\nChrist, on his ascension to heaven, would be more evidently the advocate\nof the Church than he was before. Therefore, to console their sorrow for\nhis absence with some signal advantage, he claims the character of an\nadvocate, and teaches them that they have hitherto wanted the principal\nbenefit, which it shall be given them to enjoy, when they shall call\nupon God with greater freedom in a reliance on his intercession; as the\napostle says that this new way is consecrated by his blood.[347] So much\nthe more inexcusable is our perverseness, unless we embrace with the\ngreatest alacrity such an inestimable benefit, which is particularly\ndestined for us.\n\nXIX. Moreover, since he is the only way of access by which we are\npermitted to approach God, to them who deviate from this road, and\ndesert this entrance, there remains no other way of access to God, nor\nany thing on his throne but wrath, judgment, and terror. Finally, since\nthe Father has appointed him to be our Head and Leader, they who in any\nrespect decline or turn aside from him, endeavour, as far as they can,\nto deface and obliterate a character impressed by God. Thus Christ is\nappointed as the one Mediator, by whose intercession the Father is\nrendered propitious and favourable to us. The saints have likewise their\nintercessions, in which they mutually commend each other\u2019s interests to\nGod, and which are mentioned by the apostle;[348] but these are so far\nfrom detracting any thing from the intercession of Christ, that they are\nentirely dependent on it. For as they arise from the affection of love,\nreciprocally felt by us towards each other as members of one body, so\nlikewise they are referred to the unity of the Head. Being made also in\nthe name of Christ, what are they but a declaration, that no man can be\nbenefited by any prayers at all, independently of Christ\u2019s intercession?\nAnd as the intercession of Christ is no objection to our mutually\npleading for each other, in our prayers in the Church, so let it be\nconsidered as a certain maxim, that all the intercessions of the whole\nChurch should be directed to that principal one. We ought to beware of\ningratitude particularly on this head, because God, pardoning our\nunworthiness, not only permits us to pray each one for himself, but even\nadmits us as intercessors for one another. For, when those who richly\ndeserve to be rejected, if they should privately pray each for himself,\nare appointed by God as advocates of his Church, what pride would it\nbetray to abuse this liberality to obscure the honour of Christ!\n\nXX. Now, the cavil of the sophists is quite frivolous, that Christ is\nthe Mediator of redemption, but believers of intercession; as if Christ,\nafter performing a temporary mediation, had left to his servants that\nwhich is eternal and shall never die. They who detract so diminutive a\nportion of honour from him, treat him, doubtless, very favourably. But\nthe Scripture, with the simplicity of which a pious man, forsaking these\nimpostors, ought to be contented, speaks very differently; for when John\nsays, \u201cIf any man sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus\nChrist,\u201d[349] does he only mean that he has been heretofore an Advocate\nfor us, or does he not rather ascribe to him a perpetual intercession?\nWhat is intended by the assertion of Paul, that he \u201cis even at the right\nhand of God, and also maketh intercession for us?\u201d[350] And when he\nelsewhere calls him the \u201cone Mediator between God and man,\u201d does he not\nrefer to prayers, which he has mentioned just before?\u201c[351] For having\nfirst asserted that intercessions should be made for all men, he\nimmediately adds, in confirmation of that idea, that all have one God\nand one Mediator. Consistent with which is the explanation of Augustine,\nwhen he thus expresses himself: \u201cChristian men in their prayers mutually\nrecommend each other to the Divine regard. That person, for whom no one\nintercedes, while he intercedes for all, is the true and only Mediator.\nThe apostle Paul, though a principal member under the Head, yet because\nhe was a member of the body of Christ, and knew the great and true High\nPriest of the Church had entered, not typically, into the recesses\nwithin the veil, the holy of holies, but truly and really into the\ninterior recesses of heaven, into a sanctuary not emblematical, but\neternal,\u2014Paul, I say, recommends himself to the prayers of believers.\nNeither does he make himself a mediator between God and the people, but\nexhorts all the members of the body of Christ mutually to pray for one\nanother; since the members have a mutual solicitude for each other; and\nif one member suffers, the rest sympathize with it. And so should the\nmutual prayers of all the members, who are still engaged in the labours\nof the present state, ascend on each other\u2019s behalf to the Head, who is\ngone before them into heaven, and who is the propitiation for our sins.\nFor if Paul were a mediator, the other apostles would likewise sustain\nthe same character; and so there would be many mediators; and Paul\u2019s\nargument could not be supported, when he says, \u2018For there is one God,\nand one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; in whom we\nalso are one, if we keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.\u2019\u201d\nAgain, in another place: \u201cBut if you seek a priest, he is above the\nheavens, where he now intercedes for you, who died for you on earth.\u201d\nYet we do not dream that he intercedes for us in suppliant prostration\nat the Father\u2019s feet; but we apprehend, with the apostle, that he\nappears in the presence of God for us in such a manner, that the virtue\nof his death avails as a perpetual intercession for us; yet so as that,\nbeing entered into the heavenly sanctuary, he continually, till the\nconsummation of all things, presents to God the prayers of his people,\nwho remain, as it were, at a distance in the court.\n\nXXI. With respect to the saints who are dead in the flesh, but live in\nChrist, if we attribute any intercession to them, let us not imagine\nthat they have any other way of praying to God than by Christ, who is\nthe only way, or that their prayers are accepted by God in any other\nname. Therefore, since the Scripture calls us away from all others to\nChrist alone,\u2014since it is the will of our heavenly Father to gather\ntogether all things in him,\u2014it would be a proof of great stupidity, not\nto say insanity, to be so desirous of procuring an admission by the\nsaints, as to be seduced from him, without whom they have no access\nthemselves. But that this has been practised in some ages, and is now\npractised wherever Popery prevails, who can deny? Their merits are\nfrequently obtruded to conciliate the Divine favour; and in general\nChrist is totally neglected, and God is addressed through their names.\nIs not this transferring to them that office of exclusive intercession,\nwhich we have before asserted to be peculiar to Christ? Again, who,\neither angel or demon, ever uttered to any of the human race a syllable\nconcerning such an intercession as they pretend? for the Scripture is\nperfectly silent respecting any such thing. What reason, then, was there\nfor its invention? Certainly, when the human mind thus seeks assistances\nfor itself, in which it is not warranted by the word of God, it\nevidently betrays its want of faith. Now, if we appeal to the\nconsciences of all the advocates for the intercession of saints, we\nshall find that the only cause of it is, an anxiety in their minds, as\nif Christ could fail of success, or be too severe in this business. By\nwhich perplexity they, in the first place, dishonour Christ, and rob him\nof the character of the only Mediator, which, as it has been given by\nthe Father as his peculiar prerogative, ought therefore not to be\ntransferred to any other. And by this very conduct they obscure the\nglory of his nativity, and frustrate the benefit of his cross; in a\nword, they divest and defraud him of the praise which is due to him for\nall his actions and all his sufferings; since the end of them all is,\nthat he may really be, and be accounted, the sole Mediator. They at the\nsame time reject the goodness of God, who exhibits himself as their\nFather; for he is not a father to them, unless they acknowledge Christ\nas their brother. Which they plainly deny, unless they believe\nthemselves to be the objects of his fraternal affection, than which\nnothing can be more mild or tender. Wherefore the Scripture offers him\nalone to us, sends us to him, and fixes us in him. \u201cHe,\u201d says Ambrose,\n\u201cis our mouth, with which we address the Father; our eye, by which we\nbehold the Father; our right hand, by which we present ourselves to the\nFather. Without whose mediation, neither we, nor any of all the saints,\nhave the least intercourse with God.\u201d If they reply, that the public\nprayers in the churches are finished by this conclusion, \u201cthrough Christ\nour Lord,\u201d it is a frivolous subterfuge; because the intercession of\nChrist is not less profaned when it is confounded with the prayers and\nmerits of the dead, than if it were wholly omitted, and the dead alone\nmentioned. Besides, in all their litanies, both verse and prose, where\nevery honour is ascribed to dead saints, there is no mention of Christ.\n\nXXII. But their folly rises to such a pitch, that we have here a\nstriking view of the genius of superstition, which, when it has once\nshaken off the reins, places in general no limits to its excursions. For\nafter men had begun to regard the intercession of saints, they by\ndegrees gave to each his particular attributes, so that sometimes one,\nsometimes another, might be invoked as intercessor, according to the\ndifference of the cases; then they chose each his particular saint, to\nwhose protection they committed themselves as to the care of tutelary\ngods. Thus they not only set up (as the prophet anciently accused\nIsrael) gods according to the number of their cities,[352] but even\naccording to the multitude of persons. But, since the saints refer all\ntheir desires solely to the will of God, and observe it, and acquiesce\nin it, he must entertain foolish and carnal, and even degrading thoughts\nof them, who ascribes to them any other prayer, than that in which they\npray for the advent of the kingdom of God; very remote from which is\nwhat they pretend concerning them\u2014that every one of them is disposed by\na private affection more particularly to regard his own worshippers. At\nlength multitudes fell even into horrid sacrilege, by invoking them, not\nas subordinate promoters, but as principal agents, in their salvation.\nSee how low wretched mortals fall, when they wander from their lawful\nstation, the word of God. I omit the grosser monstrosities of impiety,\nfor which, though they render them detestable to God, angels, and men,\nthey do not yet feel either shame or grief. Prostrate before the statue\nor picture of Barbara, Catharine, and others, they mutter _Pater\nNoster_, \u201cOur Father.\u201d This madness the pastors are so far from\nendeavouring to remedy or to restrain, that, allured by the charms of\nlucre, they approve and applaud it. But though they attempt to remove\nfrom themselves the odium of so foul a crime, yet what plea will they\nurge in defence of this, that Eligius and Medardus are supplicated to\nlook down from heaven on their servants, and to assist them? and the\nholy Virgin to command her Son to grant their petitions? It was\nanciently forbidden at the Council of Carthage, that at the altar any\nprayers should be made directly to the saints; and it is probable that,\nwhen those holy men could not wholly subdue the force of depraved\ncustom, they imposed this restraint, that the public prayers might not\nbe deformed by this phrase, \u201cSaint Peter, pray for us.\u201d But to how much\ngreater lengths of diabolical absurdity have they proceeded, who\nhesitate not to transfer to dead men what exclusively belongs to God and\nChrist!\n\nXXIII. But when they attempt to make this intercession appear to be\nfounded on the authority of Scripture, they labour in vain. We\nfrequently read, they say, of the prayers of angels; and not only so,\nbut the prayers of believers are said to be carried by their hands into\nthe presence of God. But if they would compare saints deceased to\nangels, they ought to prove that they are the ministering spirits who\nare delegated to superintend the concerns of our salvation, whose\nprovince it is to keep us in all our ways, who surround us, who advise\nand comfort us, who watch over us; all of which offices are committed to\nangels, but not to departed saints.[353] How preposterously they include\ndead saints with angels, fully appears from so many different functions,\nby which the Scripture distinguishes some from others. No man will\npresume, without previous permission, to act the part of an advocate\nbefore an earthly judge: whence, then, have worms so great a license to\nobtrude on God as intercessors those who are not recorded to have been\nappointed to that office? God has been pleased to appoint the angels to\nattend to our salvation, whence they frequent the sacred assemblies, and\nthe Church is to them a theatre, in which they admire the various and\n\u201cmanifold wisdom of God.\u201d[354] Those who transfer to others that which\nis peculiar to them, certainly confound and pervert the order\nestablished by God, which ought to be inviolable. With equal dexterity\nthey proceed to cite other testimonies. God said to Jeremiah, \u201cThough\nMoses and Samuel stood before me, yet my mind could not be toward this\npeople.\u201d[355] How, they say, could he thus have spoken concerning\npersons deceased, unless he knew that they were accustomed to intercede\nfor the living? But I, on the contrary, deduce this conclusion\u2014That\nsince it appears that neither Moses nor Samuel interceded for the\nIsraelites, there was then no intercession of the dead. For who of the\nsaints must we believe to be concerned for the salvation of the people,\nwhen this ceases to be the case with Moses, who far surpassed all others\nin this respect while alive? But if they pursue such minute subtleties,\nthat the dead intercede for the living, because the Lord has said,\n\u201cThough they interceded,\u201d I shall argue, with far greater plausibility,\nin this manner\u2014In the people\u2019s extreme necessity, no intercession was\nmade by Moses, of whom it is said, Though he interceded. Therefore it is\nhighly probable, that no intercession is made by any other, since they\nare all so far from possessing the gentleness, kindness, and paternal\nsolicitude of Moses. This is indeed the consequence of their cavilling,\nthat they are wounded with the same weapons with which they thought\nthemselves admirably defended. But it is very ridiculous, that a plain\nsentence should be so distorted; only because the Lord declares that he\nwill not spare the crimes of the people, even though their cause had\nbeen pleaded by Moses or Samuel, to whose prayers he had shown himself\nso very propitious. This idea is very clearly deduced from a similar\npassage of Ezekiel\u2014\u201cThough these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were\nin the land, they should deliver but their own souls by their\nrighteousness, saith the Lord God;\u201d[356] where he undoubtedly meant to\nsignify, if two of them should return to life again; for the third was\nthen alive, namely, Daniel, who is well known to have given an\nincomparable specimen of his piety, even in the flower of his youth. Let\nus then leave them, whom the Scripture clearly shows to have finished\ntheir course. Therefore Paul, when speaking of David, does not say that\nhe assists posterity by his prayers, but only that \u201che served his own\ngeneration.\u201d[357]\n\nXXIV. They further object\u2014Shall we then divest them of every benevolent\nwish, who through the whole course of their lives breathed only\nbenevolence and mercy? Truly, as I do not wish too curiously to inquire\ninto their actions or thoughts, so it is by no means probable that they\nare agitated by the impulse of particular wishes, but rather that with\nfixed and permanent desires they aspire after the kingdom of God; which\nconsists no less in the perdition of the impious, than in the salvation\nof believers. If this be true, their charity also is comprehended within\nthe communion of the body of Christ, and extends no further than the\nnature of that communion permits. But though I grant that in this\nrespect they pray for us, yet they do not therefore relinquish their own\nrepose, to be distracted with earthly cares; and much less are they\ntherefore to be the objects of our invocation. Neither is it a necessary\nconsequence of this, that they must imitate the conduct of men on earth\nby mutually praying for one another. For this conduces to the\ncultivation of charity among them, while they divide, as it were,\nbetween them, and reciprocally bear their mutual necessities. And in\nthis, indeed, they act according to God\u2019s precept, and are not destitute\nof his promise; which two are always the principal points in prayer. No\nsuch considerations have any relation to the dead; whom when the Lord\nhas removed from our society, he has left us no intercourse with them,\nnor them, indeed, as far as our conjectures can reach, any with us.[358]\nBut if any one plead, that they cannot but retain the same charity\ntowards us, as they are united with us by the same faith, yet who has\nrevealed that they have ears long enough to reach our voices, and eyes\nso perspicacious as to watch over our necessities? They talk in the\nschools of I know not what refulgence of the Divine countenance\nirradiating them, in which, as in a mirror, they behold from heaven the\naffairs of men. But to affirm this, especially with the presumption with\nwhich they dare to assert it, what is it but an attempt, by the\ninfatuated dreams of our own brains, forcibly to penetrate into the\nsecret appointments of God, without the authority of his word, and to\ntrample the Scripture under our feet? which so frequently pronounces our\ncarnal wisdom to be hostile to the wisdom of God; totally condemns the\nvanity of our mind; and directs all our reason to be laid in the dust,\nand the Divine will to be the sole object of our regard.\n\nXXV. The other testimonies of Scripture which they adduce in defence of\nthis false doctrine, they distort with the greatest perverseness. But\nJacob (they say) prays that his own name, and the name of his fathers,\nAbraham and Isaac, might be named on his posterity.[359] Let us first\ninquire the form of this naming, or calling on their names, among the\nIsraelites; for they do not invoke their fathers to assist them; but\nthey beseech God to remember his servants Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.\nTheir example, therefore, is no vindication of those who address the\nsaints themselves. But as these stupid mortals understand neither what\nit is to name the name of Jacob, nor for what reason it should be named,\nwe need not wonder that they so childishly err even in the form itself.\nThis phraseology more than once occurs in the Scriptures. For Isaiah\nsays, that the name of the husband is \u201ccalled upon\u201d the wife who lives\nunder his care and protection. The naming or calling, therefore, of the\nname of Abraham upon the Israelites, consists in their deducing their\ngenealogy from him, and revering and celebrating his memory as their\ngreat progenitor. Neither is Jacob actuated by a solicitude for\nperpetuating the celebrity of his name, but by a knowledge that all the\nhappiness of his posterity consisted in the inheritance of that covenant\nwhich God had made with him: and perceiving that this would be the\ngreatest of all blessings to them, he prays that they may be numbered\namong his children; which is only transmitting to them the succession of\nthe covenant. They, on their part, when they introduce the mention of\nthis in their prayers, do not recur to the intercessions of the dead,\nbut put the Lord in remembrance of his covenant, in which their most\nmerciful Father has engaged to be propitious and beneficent to them, for\nthe sake of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. How little the saints depended in\nany other sense on the merits of their fathers, is evinced by the public\nvoice of the Church in the prophet: \u201cThou art our Father, though Abraham\nbe ignorant of us, and Israel acknowledge us not: thou, O Lord, art our\nFather, our Redeemer.\u201d[360] And when they thus express themselves, they\nadd at the same time, \u201cO Lord, return, for thy servants\u2019 sake;\u201d yet not\nentertaining a thought of any intercession, but adverting to the\nblessing of the covenant. But now, since we have the Lord Jesus, in\nwhose hand the eternal covenant of mercy is not only made but confirmed\nto us,\u2014whose name should we rather plead in our prayers? And since these\ngood doctors contend that the patriarchs are in these words represented\nas intercessors, I wish to be informed by them, why, in such a vast\nmultitude, no place, not even the lowest among them, is allotted to\nAbraham, the father of the Church? From what vile source they derive\ntheir advocates, is well known. Let them answer me by proving it right,\nthat Abraham, whom God has preferred to all others, and elevated to the\nhighest degree of honour, should be neglected and suppressed. The truth\nis, that since this practice was unknown in the ancient Church, they\nthought proper, in order to conceal its novelty, to be silent respecting\nthe ancient fathers; as though the difference of names were a valid\nexcuse for a recent and corrupt custom. But the objection urged by some,\nthat God is entreated to have mercy on the people for the sake of David,\nis so far from supporting their error, that it is a decisive refutation\nof it. For if we consider the character sustained by David, he is\nselected from the whole company of the saints, that God may fulfil the\ncovenant which he made with him; so that it refers to the covenant,\nrather than to the person, and contains a figurative declaration of the\nsole intercession of Christ. For it is certain that what was peculiar to\nDavid, as being a type of Christ, is inapplicable to any others.\n\nXXVI. But it seems that some are influenced by the frequent declarations\nwhich we read, that the prayers of the saints are heard. Why? Truly\nbecause they have prayed. \u201cThey cried unto thee,\u201d says the Psalmist,\n\u201cand were delivered; they trusted in thee, and were not\nconfounded.\u201d[361] Therefore, let us likewise pray after their example,\nthat we may obtain a similar audience. But these men preposterously\nargue, that none will be heard but such as have been once already heard.\nHow much more properly does James say, \u201cElias was a man subject to like\npassions as we are, and he prayed earnestly that it might not rain; and\nit rained not on the earth by the space of three years and six months.\nAnd he prayed again, and the heaven gave rain, and the earth brought\nforth her fruit.\u201d[362] What! does he infer any peculiar privilege of\nElias, to which we should have recourse? Not at all; but he shows the\nperpetual efficacy of pure and pious prayer, to exhort us to pray in a\nsimilar manner. For we put a mean construction on the promptitude and\nbenignity of God in hearing them, unless we be encouraged by such\ninstances to a firmer reliance on his promises; in which he promises to\nhear, not one or two, or even a few, but all who call upon his name. And\nthis ignorance is so much the less excusable, because they appear almost\nprofessedly to disregard so many testimonies of Scripture. David\nexperienced frequent deliverances by the Divine power; was it that he\nmight arrogate it to himself, in order to deliver us by his\ninterposition? He makes some very different declarations: \u201cThe righteous\nshall compass me about; for thou shalt deal bountifully with me.\u201d[363]\nAgain: \u201cThey looked unto him, and were lightened; and their faces were\nnot ashamed. This poor man cried, and the Lord heard him, and saved him\nout of all his troubles.\u201d[364] The Psalms contain many such prayers, in\nwhich he implores God to grant his requests from this consideration,\nthat the righteous may not be put to shame, but may be encouraged by his\nexample to entertain a good hope. Let us be contented at present with\none instance: \u201cFor this shall every one that is godly pray unto thee in\na time when thou mayest be found;\u201d[365] a text which I have the more\nreadily cited, because the hireling and cavilling advocates of Popery\nhave not been ashamed to plead it to prove the intercession of the dead.\nAs though David had any other design than to show the effect which would\nproceed from the Divine clemency and goodness when his prayers should be\nheard. And in general it must be maintained, that an experience of the\ngrace of God, both to ourselves and to others, affords no small\nassistance to confirm our faith in his promises. I do not recite\nnumerous passages, where he proposes to himself the past blessings of\nGod as a ground of present and future confidence, since they will\nnaturally occur to those who peruse the Psalms. Jacob by his example had\nlong before taught the same lesson: \u201cI am not worthy of the least of all\nthe mercies, and of all the truth, which thou hast showed unto thy\nservant; for with my staff I passed over this Jordan; and now I am\nbecome two bands.\u201d[366] He mentions the promise indeed, but not alone;\nhe likewise adds the effect, that he may in future confide with the\ngreater boldness in the continuance of the Divine goodness towards him.\nFor God is not like mortals, who grow weary of their liberality, or\nwhose wealth is exhausted; but is to be estimated by his own nature, as\nis judiciously done by David, when he says, \u201cThou hast redeemed me, O\nLord God of truth.\u201d[367] After ascribing to him the praise of his\nsalvation, he adds, that he is a God of truth; because, unless he were\nperpetually and uniformly consistent with himself, there could not be\nderived from his benefits a sufficient argument for confiding in him,\nand praying to him. But when we know that every act of assistance, which\nhe affords us, is a specimen and proof of his goodness and faithfulness,\nwe shall have no reason to fear lest our hopes be confounded or our\nexpectations disappointed.\n\nXXVII. Let us conclude this argument in the following manner: Since the\nScripture represents the principal part of Divine worship to be an\ninvocation of God, as he, in preference to all sacrifices, requires of\nus this duty of piety, no prayer can without evident sacrilege be\ndirected to any other. Wherefore also the Psalmist says, \u201cIf we have\nstretched out our hands to a strange god, shall not God search this\nout?\u201d[368] Besides, since God will only be invoked in faith, and\nexpressly commands prayers to be conformed to the rule of his word;\nfinally, since faith founded on the word is the source of true\nprayer,\u2014as soon as the least deviation is made from the word, there must\nnecessarily be an immediate corruption of prayer. But it has been\nalready shown, that if the whole Scripture be consulted, this honour is\nthere claimed for God alone. With respect to the office of intercession,\nwe have also seen, that it is peculiar to Christ, and that no prayer is\nacceptable to God, unless it be sanctified by this Mediator. And though\nbelievers mutually pray to God for their brethren, we have proved that\nthis derogates nothing from the sole intercession of Christ; because\nthey all commend both themselves and others to God in a reliance upon\nit. Moreover we have argued, that this is injudiciously applied to the\ndead, of whom we nowhere read that they are commanded to pray for us.\nThe Scripture frequently exhorts us to the mutual performance of this\nduty for each other; but concerning the dead there is not even a\nsyllable; and James, by connecting these two things, \u201cConfess your\nfaults one to another, and pray one for another,\u201d tacitly excludes the\ndead.[369] Wherefore, to condemn this error, this one reason is\nsufficient, that right prayer originates in faith, and that faith is\nproduced by hearing the word of God, where there is no mention of this\nfictitious intercession; for the temerity of superstition has chosen\nitself advocates, who were not of Divine appointment. For whilst the\nScripture abounds with many forms of prayer, there is not to be found an\nexample of this advocacy, without which the Papists believe there can be\nno prayer at all. Besides, it is evident that this superstition has\narisen from a want of faith, because they either were not content with\nChrist as their intercessor, or entirely denied him this glory. The\nlatter of these is easily proved from their impudence; for they adduce\nno argument more valid to show that we need the mediation of the saints,\nthan when they object that we are unworthy of familiar access to God.\nWhich indeed we acknowledge to be strictly true; but we thence conclude,\nthat they rob Christ of every thing, who consider his intercession as\nunavailing without the assistance of George and Hippolytus, and other\nsuch phantasms.\n\nXXVIII. But though prayer is properly restricted to wishes and\npetitions, yet there is so great an affinity between petition and\nthanksgiving, that they may be justly comprehended under the same name.\nFor the species which Paul enumerates, fall under the first member of\nthis division. In requests and petitions we pour out our desires before\nGod, imploring those things which tend to the propagation of his glory\nand the illustration of his name, as well as those benefits which\nconduce to our advantage. In thanksgiving we celebrate his beneficence\ntowards us with due praises, acknowledging all the blessings we have\nreceived as the gifts of his liberality. Therefore David has connected\nthese two parts together: \u201cCall upon me in the day of trouble: I will\ndeliver thee, and thou shalt glorify me.\u201d[370] The Scripture, not\nwithout reason, enjoins us the continual use of both; for we have\nelsewhere said that our want is so great, and experience itself\nproclaims that we are molested and oppressed on every side with such\nnumerous and great perplexities, that we all have sufficient cause for\nunceasing sighs, and groans, and ardent supplications to God. For though\nthey enjoy a freedom from adversity, yet the guilt of their sins, and\nthe innumerable assaults of temptation, ought to stimulate even the most\neminent saints to pray for relief. But of the sacrifice of praise and\nthanksgiving there can be no interruption, without guilt; since God\nceases not to accumulate on us his various benefits, according to our\nrespective cases, in order to constrain us, inactive and sluggish as we\nare, to the exercise of gratitude. Finally, we are almost overwhelmed\nwith such great and copious effusions of his beneficence; we are\nsurrounded, whithersoever we turn our eyes, by such numerous and amazing\nmiracles of his hand, that we never want matter of praise and\nthanksgiving. And to be a little more explicit on this point, since all\nour hopes and all our help are in God, (which has already been\nsufficiently proved,) so that we cannot enjoy prosperity, either in our\npersons or in any of our affairs, without his benediction,\u2014it becomes us\nassiduously to commend to him ourselves and all our concerns. Further,\nwhatever we think, speak, or act, let all our thoughts, words, and\nactions be under his direction, subject to his will, and finally in hope\nof his assistance. For the curse of God is denounced on all, who\ndeliberate and decide on any enterprise in a reliance on themselves or\non any other, who engage in or attempt to begin any undertaking\nindependently of his will, and without invoking his aid. And since it\nhas already been several times observed, that he is justly honoured when\nhe is acknowledged to be the Author of all blessings, it thence follows\nthat they should all be so received from his hand, as to be attended\nwith unceasing thanksgiving; and that there is no other proper method of\nusing the benefits which flow to us from his goodness, but by continual\nacknowledgments of his praise, and unceasing expressions of our\ngratitude. For Paul, when he declares that they are \u201csanctified by the\nword of God and prayer,\u201d at the same time implies, that they are not at\nall holy and pure to us without the word and prayer;[371] the word being\nmetonymically used to denote faith. Wherefore David, after experiencing\nthe goodness of the Lord, beautifully declares, \u201cHe hath put a new song\nin my mouth;\u201d[372] in which he certainly implies that we are guilty of a\ncriminal silence, if we omit to praise him for any benefit; since, in\nevery blessing he bestows on us, he gives us additional cause to bless\nhis name. Thus also Isaiah, proclaiming the unparalleled grace of God,\nexhorts believers to a new and uncommon song.[373] In which sense David\nelsewhere says, \u201cO Lord, open thou my lips; and my mouth shall show\nforth thy praise.\u201d[374] Hezekiah likewise, and Jonah, declare that the\nend of their deliverance shall be to sing the Divine goodness in the\ntemple.[375] David prescribes the same general rule for all the saints.\n\u201cWhat shall I render (says he) unto the Lord for all his benefits\ntowards me? I will take the cup of salvation, and call upon the name of\nthe Lord.\u201d[376] And this is followed by the Church in another psalm:\n\u201cSave us, O Lord our God, to give thanks unto thy holy name, and to\ntriumph in thy praise.\u201d[377] Again: \u201cHe will regard the prayer of the\ndestitute, and not despise their prayer. This shall be written for the\ngeneration to come; and the people which shall be created shall praise\nthe Lord. To declare the name of the Lord in Zion, and his praise in\nJerusalem.\u201d[378] Moreover, whenever believers entreat the Lord to do any\nthing \u201cfor his name\u2019s sake,\u201d as they profess themselves unworthy to\nobtain any blessing on their own account, so they lay themselves under\nan obligation to thanksgiving; and promise that the Divine beneficence\nshall be productive of this proper effect on them, even to cause them to\ncelebrate its fame. Thus Hosea, speaking of the future redemption of the\nChurch, addresses the Lord: \u201cTake away all iniquity, and receive us\ngraciously; so will we render the calves of our lips.\u201d[379] Nor do the\nDivine blessings only claim the praises of the tongue, but naturally\nconciliate our love. \u201cI love the Lord (says David) because he hath heard\nmy voice and my supplications.\u201d[380] In another place also, enumerating\nthe assistances he had experienced, \u201cI will love thee, O Lord, my\nstrength.\u201d[381] Nor will any praises ever please God, but such as flow\nfrom this ardour of love. We must likewise remember the position of\nPaul, that all petitions, to which thanksgiving is not annexed, are\nirregular and faulty. For thus he speaks: \u201cIn every thing by prayer and\nsupplication with thanksgiving, let your requests be made known unto\nGod.\u201d[382] For since moroseness, weariness, impatience, pungent sorrow\nand fear, impel many to mutter petitions, he enjoins such a regulation\nof the affections, that believers may cheerfully bless God, even before\nthey have obtained their requests. If this connection ought to exist in\ncircumstances apparently adverse, God lays us under a still more sacred\nobligation to sing his praises, whenever he grants us the enjoyment of\nour wishes. But as we have asserted that our prayers, which had\notherwise been defiled, are consecrated by the intercession of Christ,\nso the apostle, when he exhorts us \u201cby Christ to offer the sacrifice of\npraise,\u201d[383] admonishes us that our lips are not sufficiently pure to\ncelebrate the name of God, without the intervention of the priesthood of\nChrist. Whence we infer, how prodigious must be the fascination of the\nPapists, the majority of whom wonder that Christ is called an Advocate.\nThis is the reason why Paul directs to \u201cpray without ceasing,\u201d and \u201cin\nevery thing to give thanks;\u201d[384] because he desires that all men, with\nall possible assiduity, at every time and in every place, and in all\ncircumstances and affairs, may direct their prayers to God, expecting\nall from him, and ascribing to him the praise of all, since he affords\nus perpetual matter of prayer and praise.\n\nXXIX. But this diligence in prayer, although it chiefly respects the\nparticular and private devotions of each individual, has,\nnotwithstanding, some reference also to the public prayers of the\nChurch. But these cannot be unceasing, nor ought they to be conducted\notherwise than according to the polity which is appointed by the common\nconsent. This, indeed, I confess. For therefore also certain hours are\nfixed and prescribed, though indifferent with God, yet necessary to the\ncustoms of men, that the benefit of all may be regarded, and all the\naffairs of the Church be administered, according to the direction of\nPaul, \u201cdecently and in order.\u201d[385] But this by no means prevents it\nfrom being the duty of every Church often to stimulate themselves to a\ngreater frequency of prayer, and also to be inflamed with more ardent\ndevotion on the pressure of any necessity unusually great. But the place\nto speak of perseverance, which is nearly allied to unceasing diligence,\nwill be towards the end. Moreover these things afford no encouragement\nto those vain repetitions which Christ has chosen to interdict us;[386]\nfor he does not forbid us to pray long or frequently, or with great\nfervour of affection; but he forbids us to confide in our ability to\nextort any thing from God by stunning his ears with garrulous loquacity,\nas though he were to be influenced by the arts of human persuasion. For\nwe know that hypocrites, who do not consider that they are concerned\nwith God, are as pompous in their prayers as in a triumph. For that\nPharisee, who thanked God that he was not like other men,[387]\nundoubtedly flattered himself in the eyes of men, as if he wished to\ngain by his prayer the reputation of sanctity. Hence that \u03b2\u03b1\u03c4\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03b9\u03b1\n(_vain repetition_) which from a similar cause at present prevails among\nthe Papists; while some vainly consume the time by reiterating the same\noraisons, and others recommend themselves among the vulgar by a tedious\naccumulation of words. Since this garrulity is a puerile mocking of God,\nwe need not wonder that it is prohibited in the Church, that nothing may\nbe heard there but what is serious, and proceeds from the very heart.\nVery similar to this corrupt practice is another, which Christ condemns\nat the same time; that hypocrites, for the sake of ostentation, seek\nafter many witnesses of their devotions, and rather pray in the\nmarket-place, than that their prayers should want the applause of the\nworld. But as it has been already observed that the end of prayer is to\nelevate our minds towards God, both in a confession of his praise and in\na supplication of his aid, we may learn from this that its principal\nplace is in the mind and heart; or, rather, that prayer itself is the\ndesire of the inmost heart, which is poured out and laid before God the\nsearcher of hearts. Wherefore our heavenly Teacher, as has already been\nmentioned, when he intended to deliver the best rule respecting prayer,\ngave the following command: \u201cEnter into thy closet, and when thou hast\nshut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father\nwhich seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.\u201d[388] For when he has\ndissuaded from imitating the example of hypocrites, who endeavoured by\nthe ambitious ostentation of their prayers to gain the favour of men, he\nimmediately adds a better direction, which is, to enter into our closet,\nand there to pray with the door shut. In which words, as I understand\nthem, he has taught us to seek retirement, that we may be enabled to\ndescend into our own hearts, with all our powers of reflection, and\npromised us that God, whose temples our bodies ought to be, will accede\nto the desires of our souls. For he did not intend to deny the\nexpediency of praying also in other places; but shows that prayer is a\nkind of secret thing, which lies principally in the heart, and requires\na tranquillity of mind undisturbed by all cares. It was not without\nreason, therefore, that the Lord himself, when he would engage in an\nunusual vehemence of devotion, retired to some solitary place, far from\nthe tumult of men; but with a view to admonish us by his own example,\nthat we ought not to neglect these helps, by which our hearts, naturally\ntoo inconstant, are more intensely fixed on the devotional exercise. But\nnotwithstanding, as he did not refrain from praying even in the midst of\na multitude, if at any time the occasion required it, so we, in all\nplaces where it may be necessary, should \u201clift up holy hands.\u201d[389] And\nso it is to be concluded, that whoever refuses to pray in the solemn\nassembly of the saints, knows nothing of private prayer, either solitary\nor domestic. And again, that he who neglects solitary and private\nprayer, how sedulously soever he may frequent the public assemblies,\nonly forms there such as are mere wind, because he pays more deference\nto the opinion of men than to the secret judgment of God. In the mean\ntime, that the common prayers of the Church might not sink into\ncontempt, God anciently distinguished them by splendid titles,\nespecially when he called the temple a \u201chouse of prayer.\u201d[390] For by\nthis expression he taught both that the duty of prayer is a principal\npart of his worship, and that the temple had been erected as a standard\nfor believers, in order that they might engage in it with one consent.\nThere was also added a remarkable promise: \u201cPraise waiteth for thee, O\nGod, in Sion; and unto thee shall the vow be performed;\u201d[391] in which\nwords the Psalmist informs us that the prayers of the Church are never\nin vain, because the Lord supplies his people with perpetual matter of\npraise and joy. But though the legal shadows have ceased, yet since it\nhas been the Divine will by this ceremony to maintain a unity of faith\namong us also, the same promise undoubtedly belongs to us, Christ having\nconfirmed it with his own mouth, and Paul having represented it as\nperpetually valid.\n\nXXX. Now, as God in his word commands believers to unite in common\nprayers, so also it is necessary that public temples be appointed for\nperforming them; where they who refuse to join with the people of God in\ntheir devotions, have no just reason for abusing this pretext, that they\nenter into their closets, in obedience to the Divine mandate. For he who\npromises to grant whatever shall be implored by two or three persons\nconvened in his name,[392] proves that he is far from despising prayers\noffered in public; provided they be free from ostentation and a desire\nof human applause, and accompanied with a sincere and real affection\ndwelling in the secret recesses of the heart. If this be the legitimate\nuse of temples, as it certainly is, there is need of great caution, lest\nwe either consider them as the proper habitations of the Deity, where he\nmay be nearer to us to hear our prayers,\u2014an idea which has begun to be\nprevalent for several ages,\u2014or ascribe to them I know not what\nmysterious sanctity, which might be supposed to render our devotions\nmore holy in the Divine view. For since we are ourselves the true\ntemples of God, we must pray within ourselves, if we wish to invoke him\nin his holy temple. But let us, who are directed to worship the Lord \u201cin\nspirit and in truth,\u201d[393] without any difference of place, relinquish\nthose gross ideas of religion to the Jews or pagans. There was, indeed,\nanciently a temple dedicated, by Divine command, to the oblation of\nprayers and sacrifices: at that time the truth was figuratively\nconcealed under such shadows; but now, having been plainly discovered to\nus, it no longer permits an exclusive attachment to any material temple.\nNor, indeed, was the temple recommended to the Jews that they might\nenclose the Divine presence within its walls, but that they might be\nemployed in contemplating a representation of the true temple. Therefore\nIsaiah and Stephen have sharply reprehended those who suppose that God\ndwells in any respect \u201cin temples made with hands.\u201d[394]\n\nXXXI. Hence it is moreover clearly evident, that neither voice nor\nsinging, if used in prayer, has any validity, or produces the least\nbenefit with God, unless it proceed from the inmost desire of the heart.\nBut they rather provoke his wrath against us, if they be only emitted\nfrom the lips and throat; since that is an abuse of his sacred name, and\na derision of his majesty; as we conclude from the words of Isaiah,\nwhich, though their meaning be more extensive, contain also a reproof of\nthis offence: \u201cThe Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near me with\ntheir mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their\nheart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of\nmen,\u2014therefore, behold, I will proceed to do a marvellous work among\nthis people, even a marvellous work and a wonder; for the wisdom of\ntheir wise men shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent men\nshall be hid.\u201d[395] Nor do we here condemn the use of the voice, or\nsinging, but rather highly recommend them, provided they accompany the\naffection of the heart. For they exercise the mind in Divine meditation,\nand fix the attention of the heart; which by its lubricity and\nversatility is easily relaxed and distracted to a variety of objects,\nunless it be supported by various helps. Besides, as the glory of God\nought in some respect to be manifested in every part of our bodies, to\nthis service, both in singing and in speaking, it becomes us especially\nto addict and devote our tongues, which were created for the express\npurpose of declaring and celebrating the Divine praises. Nevertheless\nthe principal use of the tongue is in the public prayers which are made\nin the congregations of believers; the design of which is, that with one\ncommon voice, and as it were with the same mouth, we may all at once\nproclaim the glory of God, whom we worship in one spirit and with the\nsame faith; and this is publicly done, that all interchangeably, each\none of his brother, may receive the confession of faith, and be invited\nand stimulated by his example.\n\nXXXII. Now, the custom of singing in churches (to speak of it by the\nway) not only appears to be very ancient, but that it was even used by\nthe apostles, may be concluded from these words of Paul: \u201cI will sing\nwith the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also.\u201d[396]\nAgain, to the Colossians: \u201cTeaching and admonishing one another in\npsalms, and hymns, and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your\nhearts to the Lord.\u201d[397] For in the former passage he inculcates\nsinging with the voice and with the heart; and in the latter he\nrecommends spiritual songs, which may conduce to the mutual edification\nof the saints. Yet that it was not universal is proved by Augustine, who\nrelates that in the time of Ambrose, the church at Milan first adopted\nthe practice of singing, when, during the persecution of the orthodox\nfaith by Justina, the mother of Valentinian, the people were unusually\nassiduous in their vigils; and that the other Western churches followed.\nFor he had just before mentioned that this custom had been derived from\nthe churches of the East. He signifies also, in the second book of his\nRetractations, that in his time it was received in Africa. \u201cOne Hilary,\n(says he,) who held the tribunitial office, took every opportunity of\nloading with malicious censures the custom which was then introduced at\nCarthage, that hymns from the Book of Psalms should be sung at the\naltar, either before the oblation, or while that which had been offered\nwas distributed to the people. In obedience to the commands of my\nbrethren, I answered him.\u201d And certainly if singing be attempered to\nthat gravity which becomes the presence of God and of angels, it adds a\ndignity and grace to sacred actions, and is very efficacious in exciting\nthe mind to a true concern and ardour of devotion. Yet great caution is\nnecessary, that the ears be not more attentive to the modulation of the\nnotes, than the mind to the spiritual import of the words. With which\ndanger Augustine confesses himself to have been so affected, as\nsometimes to have wished for the observance of the custom instituted by\nAthanasius, who directed that the reader should sound the words with\nsuch a gentle inflection of voice, as would be more nearly allied to\nrehearsing than to singing. But when he recollected the great benefit\nwhich himself had received from singing, he inclined to the other side.\nWith the observance, therefore, of this limitation, it is without doubt\nan institution of great solemnity and usefulness. As, on the reverse,\nwhatever music is composed only to please and delight the ear, is\nunbecoming the majesty of the Church, and cannot but be highly\ndispleasing to God.\n\nXXXIII. Hence also it plainly appears, that public prayers are to be\ncomposed, not in Greek among the Latins, nor in Latin among the French\nor English, as has hitherto been universally practised; but in the\nvernacular tongue, which may be generally understood by the whole\ncongregation; for it ought to be conducted to the edification of the\nwhole Church, to whom not the least benefit can result from sounds which\nthey do not understand. But they who disregard the voice both of charity\nand of humanity, ought at least to discover some little respect for the\nauthority of Paul, whose words are free from all ambiguity: \u201cWhen thou\nshalt bless with the Spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the\nunlearned say Amen at thy giving of thanks, seeing he understandeth not\nwhat thou sayest? For thou verily givest thanks well, but the other is\nnot edified.\u201d[398] Who, then, can sufficiently wonder at the unbridled\nlicense of the Papists, who, notwithstanding this apostolic caution\nagainst it, are not afraid to bellow their verbose prayers in a foreign\nlanguage, of which they neither sometimes understand a syllable\nthemselves, nor wish a syllable to be understood by others! But Paul\ndirects to a different practice: \u201cWhat is it then? (says he) I will pray\nwith the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding also: I will\nsing with the spirit, and I will sing with the understanding also.\u201d[399]\nSignifying by the word _spirit_ the peculiar gift of tongues, which was\nabused by some of its possessors, when they separated it from\nunderstanding. Thus it must be fully admitted, that both in public and\nin private prayer, the tongue, unaccompanied by the heart, cannot but be\nhighly displeasing to God; and likewise that the mind ought to be\nincited, in the ardour of meditation, to rise to a much higher elevation\nthan can ever be attained by the expression of the tongue; lastly, that\nthe tongue is indeed not necessary to private prayer, any further than\nas the mind is insufficient to arouse itself, or as the vehemence of its\nemotions irresistibly carries the tongue along with them. For though\nsome of the best prayers are not vocal, yet it is very common, under\nstrong emotions, for the tongue to break forth into sounds, and the\nother members into gestures, without the least ostentation. Hence the\nuncertain muttering of Hannah,[400] somewhat similar to which is\nexperienced by the saints in all ages, when they break forth into abrupt\nand imperfect sounds. The corporeal gestures usually observed in prayer,\nsuch as kneeling and uncovering the head, are customs designed to\nincrease our reverence of God.\n\nXXXIV. Now, we must learn not only a certain rule, but also the form of\npraying; even that which our heavenly Father has given us by his beloved\nSon;[401] in which we may recognize his infinite goodness and clemency.\nFor beside advising and exhorting us to seek him in all our necessities,\nas children, whenever they are afflicted with any distress, are\naccustomed to have recourse to the protection of their parents; seeing\nthat we did not sufficiently perceive how great was our poverty, what it\nwas right to implore, or what would be suitable to our condition, he has\nprovided a remedy even for this our ignorance, and abundantly supplied\nthe deficiencies of our capacity. For he has prescribed for us a form,\nin which he gives a statement of all that it is lawful to desire of him,\nall that is conducive to our benefit, and all that it is necessary to\nask. From this kindness of his, we derive great consolation in the\npersuasion that we pray for nothing absurd, nothing injurious or\nunseasonable; in a word, nothing but what is agreeable to him; since our\npetitions are almost in his own words. Plato, observing the ignorance of\nmen in presenting their supplications to God, which if granted were\nfrequently very detrimental to them, pronounces this to be the best\nmethod of praying, borrowed from an ancient poet: \u201cKing Jupiter, give us\nthose things which are best, whether we pray for them or not; but\ncommand evil things to remain at a distance from us, even though we\nimplore them.\u201d And indeed the wisdom of that heathen is conspicuous in\nthis instance, since he considers it as very dangerous to supplicate the\nLord to gratify all the dictates of our appetites; and at the same time\ndiscovers our infelicity, who cannot, without danger, even open our\nmouths in the presence of God, unless we be instructed by the Spirit in\nthe right rule of prayer.[402] And this privilege deserves to be the\nmore highly valued by us, since the only begotten Son of God puts words\ninto our mouths, which may deliver our minds from all hesitation.\n\nXXXV. This form or rule of prayer, whichever appellation be given to it,\nis composed of six petitions. For my reason for not agreeing with those\nwho divide it into seven parts is, that the Evangelist appears, by the\ninsertion of the adversative conjunction, to connect together these two\nclauses; as though he had said, Suffer us not to be oppressed with\ntemptation, but rather succour our weakness, and deliver us, that we may\nnot fall. The ancient writers of the Church also are of our opinion; so\nthat what is now added in Matthew in the seventh place, must be\nexplained as belonging to the sixth petition. Now, though the whole\nprayer is such, that in every part of it the principal regard must be\npaid to the glory of God, yet to this the first three petitions are\nparticularly devoted, and to this alone we ought to attend in them,\nwithout any consideration of our own interest. The remaining three\nconcern ourselves, and are expressly assigned to supplications for those\nthings which tend to our benefit. As when we pray that God\u2019s name may be\nhallowed, since he chooses to prove whether our love and worship of him\nbe voluntary, or dictated by mercenary motives, we must then think\nnothing of our own interest, but his glory must be proposed as the only\nobject of our fixed attention; nor is it lawful for us to be differently\naffected in the other petitions of this class. And this indeed conduces\nto our great benefit; because, when the Divine name is hallowed or\nsanctified as we pray, it becomes likewise our sanctification. But our\neyes should overlook, and be, as it were, blind to such advantage, so as\nnot to pay the least regard to it. And even if we were deprived of all\nhope of private benefit, yet this hallowing, and the other things which\npertain to the glory of God, ought still to be the objects of our\ndesires and of our prayers. This is conspicuous in the examples of Moses\nand Paul,[403] who felt a pleasure in averting their minds and eyes from\nthemselves, and in praying with vehement and ardent zeal for their own\ndestruction, that they might promote the kingdom and glory of God even\nat the expense of their own happiness. On the other hand, when we pray\nthat our daily bread may be given us, although we wish for what is\nbeneficial to ourselves, yet here also we ought principally to aim at\nthe glory of God, so as not even to ask it, unless it tend to his glory.\nNow, let us attempt an explanation of the prayer itself.\n\nXXXVI. OUR FATHER, WHO ART IN HEAVEN, &c. The first idea that occurs is,\nwhat we have before asserted, that we ought never to present a prayer to\nGod but in the name of Christ, since no other name can recommend it to\nhis regard. For by calling God our Father, we certainly plead the name\nof Christ. For with what confidence could any one call God his Father?\nwho could proceed to such a degree of temerity, as to arrogate to\nhimself the dignity of a son of God, if we had not been adopted as the\nchildren of his grace in Christ? who, being his true Son, has been given\nby him to us as our brother, that the character which properly belongs\nto him by nature, may become ours by the blessing of adoption, if we\nreceive this inestimable favour with a steady faith; as John says, that\nto them is given \u201cpower to become the sons of God, even to them that\nbelieve on the name of the only begotten of the Father.\u201d[404] Therefore\nhe denominates himself our Father, and wishes us to give him the same\nappellation; delivering us from all diffidence by the great sweetness of\nthis name, since the affection of love can nowhere be found in a\nstronger degree than in the heart of a father. Therefore he could not\ngive us a more certain proof of his infinite love towards us, than by\nour being denominated the sons of God. But his love to us is as much\ngreater and more excellent than all the love of our parents, as he is\nsuperior to all men in goodness and mercy;[405] so that though all the\nfathers in the world, divested of every emotion of paternal affection,\nshould leave their children destitute, he will never forsake us, because\n\u201che cannot deny himself.\u201d[406] For we have his promise, \u201cIf ye, then,\nbeing evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much\nmore shall your Father which is in heaven?\u201d[407] Again, in the prophet:\n\u201cCan a woman forget her child? Yea, they may forget, yet will I not\nforget thee.\u201d[408] But if we are his sons, then, as a son cannot commit\nhimself to the protection of a stranger and an alien, without at the\nsame time complaining of the cruelty or poverty of his father, so\nneither can we seek supplies for our wants from any other quarter than\nfrom him, without charging him with indigence and inability, or with\ncruelty and excessive austerity.\n\nXXXVII. Neither let us plead that we are justly terrified by a\nconsciousness of our sins, which may cause even a merciful, kind Father\nto be daily offended with us. For if, among men, a son can conduct his\ncause with his father by no better advocate, can conciliate and recover\nhis lost favour by no better mediator, than by approaching him as an\nhumble suppliant, acknowledging his own guilt, and imploring his\nfather\u2019s mercy, (for the bowels of a father could not conceal their\nemotions at such supplications,) what will he do, who is \u201cthe Father of\nmercies, and the God of all comfort?\u201d[409] Will he not hear the cries\nand groans of his children when they deprecate his displeasure for\nthemselves, especially since it is to this that he invites and exhorts\nus; rather than attend to any intercessions of others, to which they\nresort in great consternation, not without some degree of despair,\narising from a doubt of the kindness and clemency of their Father? Of\nthis exuberance of paternal kindness, he gives us a beautiful\nrepresentation in a parable;[410] where a father meets and embraces a\nson who had alienated himself from his family, who had dissolutely\nlavished his substance, who had grievously offended him in every\nrespect: nor does he wait till he actually supplicates for pardon, but\nanticipates him, recognizes him when returning at a great distance,\nvoluntarily runs to meet him, consoles him, and receives him into\nfavour. For by proposing to our view an example of such great kindness\nin a man, he intended to teach us how much more abundant compassion we\nought, notwithstanding our ingratitude, rebellion, and wickedness, to\nexpect from him, who is not only our Father, but the most benevolent and\nmerciful of all fathers, provided we only cast ourselves on his mercy.\nAnd to give us the more certain assurance that he is such a Father, if\nwe be Christians, he will be called not only \u201cFather,\u201d but expressly\n\u201cOur Father;\u201d as though we might address him in the following manner: O\nFather, whose affection towards thy children is so strong, and whose\nreadiness to pardon them is so great, we thy children invoke thee and\npray to thee, under the assurance and full persuasion that thou hast no\nother than a paternal affection towards us, how unworthy soever we are\nof such a Father. But because the contracted capacities of our minds\ncannot conceive of a favour of such immense magnitude, we not only have\nChrist as the pledge and earnest of adoption, but as a witness of this\nadoption he gives us the Spirit, by whom we are enabled with a loud\nvoice freely to cry, \u201cAbba, Father.\u201d[411] Whenever, therefore, we may be\nembarrassed by any difficulty, let us remember to supplicate him, that\nhe will correct our timidity, and give us this spirit of magnanimity to\nenable us to pray with boldness.\n\nXXXVIII. But since we are not instructed, that every individual should\nappropriate him to himself exclusively as his Father, but rather that we\nshould all in common call him Our Father, we are thereby admonished how\nstrong a fraternal affection ought to prevail among us, who, by the same\nprivilege of mercy and free grace, are equally the children of such a\nFather. For if we all have one common Father,[412] from whom proceeds\nevery blessing we enjoy, there ought to be nothing exclusively\nappropriated by any among us, but what we should be ready to communicate\nto each other with the greatest alacrity of heart, whenever necessity\nrequires. Now, if we desire, as we ought, to exert ourselves for our\nmutual assistance, there is nothing in which we can better promote the\ninterests of our brethren, than by commending them to the providential\ncare of our most benevolent Father, with whose mercy and favour no other\nwant can be experienced. And, indeed, this is a debt which we owe to our\nFather himself. For as he who truly and cordially loves any father of a\nfamily, feels likewise a love and friendship for his whole household, in\nthe same manner, our zeal and affection towards this heavenly Father\nmust be shown towards his people, his family, his inheritance, whom he\nhas dignified with the honourable appellation of the \u201cfulness\u201d of his\nonly begotten Son.[413] Let a Christian, then, regulate his prayers by\nthis rule, that they be common, and comprehend all who are his brethren\nin Christ; and not only those whom he at present sees and knows to be\nsuch, but all men in the world; respecting whom, what God has determined\nis beyond our knowledge; only that to wish and hope the best concerning\nthem, is equally the dictate of piety and of humanity. It becomes us,\nhowever, to exercise a peculiar and superior affection \u201cunto them who\nare of the household of faith;\u201d whom the apostle has in every case\nrecommended to our particular regards.[414] In a word, all our prayers\nought to be such, as to respect that community which our Lord has\nestablished in his kingdom and in his family.\n\nXXXIX. Yet this is no objection to the lawfulness of particular prayers,\nboth for ourselves and for other certain individuals; provided our minds\nbe not withdrawn from a regard to this community, nor even diverted from\nit, but refer every thing to this point. For though the words of them be\nsingular, yet as they are directed to this end, they cease not to be\ncommon. All this may be rendered very intelligible by a similitude. God\nhas given a general command to relieve the wants of all the poor; and\nyet this is obeyed by them who to that end succour the indigence of\nthose whom they either know or see to be labouring under poverty; even\nthough they pass by multitudes who are oppressed with necessities\nequally severe, because neither their knowledge nor ability can extend\nto all. In the same manner, no opposition is made to the Divine will by\nthem who, regarding and considering this common society of the Church,\npresent such particular prayers, in which, with a public spirit, but in\nparticular terms, they recommend to God themselves or others, whose\nnecessity he has placed within their more immediate knowledge. However,\nthere is not a perfect similarity in every respect between prayer and\ndonation of alms, for munificence cannot be exercised but towards them\nwhose wants we have perceived; but we may assist by our prayers even the\ngreatest strangers, and those with whom we are the most unacquainted,\nhow distant soever they may be from us. This is done by that general\nform of prayer, which comprehends all the children of God, among whom\nthey also are numbered. To this may be referred the exhortation which\nPaul gives believers of his age, \u201cthat men pray every where, lifting up\nholy hands without wrath;\u201d[415] because by admonishing them, that\ndiscord shuts the gate against prayers, he advises them unanimously to\nunite all their petitions together.\n\nXL. It is added, THAT HE IS IN HEAVEN. From which it is not hastily to\nbe inferred, that he is included and circumscribed within the\ncircumference of heaven, as by certain barriers. For Solomon confesses,\nthat \u201cthe heaven of heavens cannot contain\u201d him.[416] And he says\nhimself, by the prophet, \u201cThe heaven is my throne, and the earth is my\nfootstool.\u201d[417] By which he clearly signifies that he is not limited to\nany particular region, but diffused throughout all space. But because\nthe dulness of our minds could not otherwise conceive of his ineffable\nglory, it is designated to us by the heaven, than which we can behold\nnothing more august or more majestic. Since, then, wherever our senses\napprehend any thing, there they are accustomed to fix it, God is\nrepresented as beyond all place, that when we seek him we may be\nelevated above all reach of both body and soul. Moreover, by this form\nof expression, he is exalted above all possibility of corruption or\nmutation: finally, it is signified, that he comprehends and contains the\nwhole world, and governs the universe by his power. Wherefore, this is\nthe same as if he had been said to be possessed of an incomprehensible\nessence, infinite magnitude or sublimity, irresistible power, and\nunlimited immortality. But when we hear this, our thoughts must be\nraised to a higher elevation when God is mentioned; that we may not\nentertain any terrestrial or carnal imaginations concerning him, that we\nmay not measure him by our diminutive proportions, or judge of his will\nby our affections. We should likewise be encouraged to place the most\nimplicit reliance on him, by whose providence and power we understand\nboth heaven and earth to be governed. To conclude: under the name of\n\u201cOur Father\u201d is represented to us, that God who has appeared to us in\nhis own image, that we might call upon him with a steady faith; and the\nfamiliar appellation of Father is not only adapted to produce\nconfidence, but also efficacious to prevent our minds from being seduced\nto dubious or fictitious deities, and to cause them to ascend from the\nonly begotten Son to the common Father of angels and of saints;\nmoreover, when his throne is placed in heaven, we are reminded by his\ngovernment of the world, that it is not in vain for us to approach to\nhim who makes us the objects of his present and voluntary care. \u201cHe that\ncometh to God (says the apostle) must believe that he is, and that he is\na rewarder of them that diligently seek him.\u201d[418] Christ asserts both\nthese of his Father, that we may have first a firm faith in his\nexistence, and then a certain persuasion that, since he deigns to extend\nhis providence to us, he will not neglect our salvation. By these\nprinciples, Paul prepares us for praying in right manner; for his\nexhortation, \u201cLet your requests be made known unto God,\u201d is thus\nprefaced: \u201cThe Lord is at hand. Be careful for nothing.\u201d[419] Whence it\nappears, that their prayers must be attended with great doubt and\nperplexity of mind, who are not well established in this truth, that\n\u201cthe eyes of the Lord are upon the righteous.\u201d[420]\n\nXLI. The first petition is, THAT GOD\u2019S NAME MAY BE HALLOWED; the\nnecessity of which is connected with our great disgrace. For what is\nmore shameful, than that the Divine glory should be obscured partly by\nour ingratitude, partly by our malignity, and, as far as possible,\nobliterated by our presumption, infatuation, and perverseness?\nNotwithstanding all the sacrilegious rage and clamours of the impious,\nyet the refulgence of holiness still adorns the Divine name. Nor does\nthe Psalmist without reason exclaim, \u201cAccording to thy name, O God, so\nis thy praise unto the ends of the earth.\u201d[421] For wherever God may be\nknown, there must necessarily be a manifestation of his perfections of\npower, goodness, wisdom, righteousness, mercy, and truth, which command\nour admiration and excite us to celebrate his praise. Therefore, because\nGod is so unjustly robbed of his holiness on earth, if it is not in our\npower to assert it for him, we are at least commanded to regard it in\nour prayers. The substance of it is, that we wish God to receive all the\nhonour that he deserves, that men may never speak or think of him but\nwith the highest reverence; to which is opposed that profanation, which\nhas always been too common in the world, as it continues to be in the\npresent age. And hence the necessity of this petition, which, if we were\ninfluenced by only a tolerable degree of piety, ought to be superfluous.\nBut if the name of God be truly hallowed, when separated from all others\nit breathes pure glory, we are here commanded to pray, not only that God\nwill vindicate his holy name from all contempt and ignominy, but also\nthat he will constrain all mankind to revere it. Now, as God manifests\nhimself to us partly by his word, and partly by his works, he is no\notherwise hallowed by us, than if we attribute to him in both instances\nthat which belongs to him, and so receive whatever proceeds from him;\nascribing, moreover, equal praise to his severity and to his clemency;\nsince on the multiplicity and variety of his works he has impressed\ncharacters of his glory, which should draw from every tongue a\nconfession of his praise. Thus will the Scripture obtain a just\nauthority with us, nor will any event obstruct the benedictions which\nGod deserves in the whole course of his government of the world. The\ntendency of the petition is, further, that all impiety which sullies\nthis holy name, may be utterly abolished; that whatever obscures or\ndiminishes this hallowing, whether detraction or derision, may\ndisappear; and that while God restrains all sacrilege, his majesty may\nshine with increasing splendour.\n\nXLII. The second petition is, THAT THE KINGDOM OF GOD MAY COME; which,\nthough it contains nothing new, is yet not without reason distinguished\nfrom the first; because, if we consider our inattention in the most\nimportant of all concerns, it is useful for that which ought of itself\nto have been most intimately known to us, to be inculcated in a variety\nof words. Therefore, after we have been commanded to pray to God to\nsubdue, and at length utterly to destroy, every thing that sullies his\nholy name, there is now added another petition, similar and almost\nidentically the same\u2014That his kingdom may come. Now, though we have\nalready given a definition of this kingdom, I now briefly repeat, that\nGod reigns when men, renouncing themselves and despising the world and\nthe present state, submit themselves to his righteousness, so as to\naspire to the heavenly state. Thus this kingdom consists of two parts;\nthe one, God\u2019s correcting by the power of his Spirit all our carnal and\ndepraved appetites, which oppose him in great numbers; the other, his\nforming all our powers to an obedience to his commands. No others\ntherefore observe a proper order in this petition, but they who begin\nfrom themselves, that is, that they may be purified from all corruptions\nwhich disturb the tranquillity, or violate the purity, of God\u2019s kingdom.\nNow, since the Divine word resembles a royal sceptre, we are commanded\nto pray that he will subdue the hearts and minds of all men to a\nvoluntary obedience to it. This is accomplished, when, by the secret\ninspiration of his Spirit, he displays the efficacy of his word, and\ncauses it to obtain the honour it deserves. Afterwards, it is our duty\nto descend to the impious, by whom his authority is resisted with the\nperseverance of obstinacy and the fury of despair. God therefore erects\nhis kingdom on the humiliation of the whole world, though his methods of\nhumiliation are various; for he restrains the passions of some, and\nbreaks the unsubdued arrogance of others. It ought to be the object of\nour daily wishes, that God would collect churches for himself from all\nthe countries of the earth, that he would enlarge their numbers, enrich\nthem with gifts, and establish a legitimate order among them; that, on\nthe contrary, he would overthrow all the enemies of the pure doctrine\nand religion, that he would confound their counsels, and defeat their\nattempts. Whence it appears that the desire of a daily progress is not\nenjoined us in vain; because human affairs are never in such a happy\nsituation, as that all defilement of sin is removed, and purity can be\nseen in full perfection. This perfection is deferred till the last\nadvent of Christ, when, the apostle says, \u201cGod will be all in all.\u201d[422]\nAnd so this petition ought to withdraw us from all the corruptions of\nthe world, which separate us from God, and prevent his kingdom from\nflourishing within us; it ought likewise to inflame us with an ardent\ndesire of mortifying the flesh, and finally to teach us to bear the\ncross; since these are the means which God chooses for the extension of\nhis kingdom. Nor should we be impatient that the outward man is\ndestroyed, provided the inward man be renewed. For this is the order of\nthe kingdom of God, that, when we submit to his righteousness, he makes\nus partakers of his glory. This is accomplished, when, discovering his\nlight and truth with perpetual accession of splendour, before which the\nshades and falsehoods of Satan and of his kingdom vanish and become\nextinct, he by the aids of his Spirit directs his children into the path\nof rectitude, and strengthens them to perseverance; but defeats the\nimpious conspiracies of his enemies, confounds their insidious and\nfraudulent designs, disappoints their malice, and represses their\nobstinacy, till at length \u201che\u201d will \u201cconsume\u201d Antichrist \u201cwith the\nspirit of his mouth, and destroy\u201d all impiety \u201cwith the brightness of\nhis coming.\u201d[423]\n\nXLIII. The third petition is, THAT THE WILL OF GOD MAY BE DONE ON EARTH\nAS IT IS IN HEAVEN; which, though it is an appendage to his kingdom, and\ncannot be disjoined from it, is yet not without reason separately\nmentioned, on account of our ignorance, which does not apprehend with\nfacility what it is for God to reign in the world. There will be nothing\nabsurd, then, in understanding this as an explanation, that God\u2019s\nkingdom will then prevail in the world, when all shall submit to his\nwill. Now, we speak not here of his secret will, by which he governs all\nthings, and appoints them to fulfil his own purposes. For though Satan\nand men oppose him with all the violence of rage, yet his\nincomprehensible wisdom is able, not only to divert their impetuosity,\nbut to overrule it for the accomplishment of his decrees. But the Divine\nwill here intended, is that to which voluntary obedience corresponds;\nand therefore heaven is expressly compared with the earth, because the\nangels, as the Psalmist says, spontaneously \u201cdo his commandments,\nhearkening unto the voice of his word.\u201d[424] We are therefore commanded\nto desire that, as in heaven nothing is done but according to the Divine\nwill, and the angels are placidly conformed to every thing that is\nright, so the earth, all obstinacy and depravity being annihilated, may\nbe subject to the same government. And in praying for this, we renounce\nour own carnal desires; because, unless we resign all our affections to\nGod, we are guilty of all the opposition in our power to his will, for\nnothing proceeds from us but what is sinful. And we are likewise\nhabituated by this petition to a renunciation of ourselves, that God may\nrule us according to his own pleasure; and not only so, but that he may\nalso create in us new minds and new hearts, annihilating our own, that\nwe may experience no emotion of desire within us, but a mere consent to\nhis will; in a word, that we may have no will of our own, but that our\nhearts may be governed by his Spirit, by whose internal teachings we may\nlearn to love those things which please him, and to hate those which he\ndisapproves; consequently, that he may render abortive all those desires\nwhich are repugnant to his will. These are the three first clauses of\nthis prayer, in praying which we ought solely to have in view the glory\nof God, omitting all consideration of ourselves, and not regarding any\nadvantage of our own, which, though they largely contribute to it,\nshould not be our end in these petitions. But though all these things,\neven if we never think of them, nor wish for them, nor request them,\nmust nevertheless happen in their appointed time, yet they ought to be\nthe objects of our wishes, and the subjects of our prayers. And such\npetitions it will be highly proper for us to offer, that we may testify\nand profess ourselves to be the servants and sons of God; manifesting\nthe sincerest devotedness, and making the most zealous efforts in our\npower for advancing the honour which is due to him, both as a Master and\nas a Father. Persons, therefore, who are not incited, by this ardent\nzeal for promoting the glory of God, to pray, that his name may be\nhallowed, that his kingdom may come, and that his will may be done, are\nnot to be numbered among his sons and servants; and as all these things\nwill be accomplished in opposition to their inclinations, so they will\ncontribute to their confusion and destruction.\n\nXLIV. Next follows the second part of the prayer, in which we descend to\nour own interests; not that we must dismiss all thoughts of the Divine\nglory, (which, according to Paul,[425] should be regarded even in eating\nand drinking,) and only seek what is advantageous to ourselves; but we\nhave already announced that this is the distinction\u2014that God, by\nexclusively claiming three petitions, absorbs us entirely in the\nconsideration of himself, that thus he may prove our piety; afterwards\nhe permits us to attend to our own interests, yet on this condition,\nthat the end of all our requests be the illustration of his glory, by\nwhatever benefits he confers on us, since nothing is more reasonable\nthan that we live and die to him. But the first petition of the second\npart, GIVE US THIS DAY OUR DAILY BREAD, is a general request to God for\na supply of all our corporeal wants in the present state, not only for\nfood and clothing, but also for every thing which he sees to be\nconducive to our good, that we may eat our bread in peace. By this we\nbriefly surrender ourselves to his care, and commit ourselves to his\nprovidence, that he may feed, nourish, and preserve us. For our most\nbenevolent Father disdains not to receive even our body into his charge\nand protection, that he may exercise our faith in these minute\ncircumstances, while we expect every thing from him, even down to a\ncrumb of bread and a drop of water. For since it is a strange effect of\nour iniquity, to be affected and distressed with greater solicitude for\nthe body than for the soul, many, who venture to confide to God the\ninterests of their souls, are nevertheless still solicitous concerning\nthe body, still anxious what they shall eat and what they shall wear;\nand unless they have an abundance of corn, wine, and oil, for the supply\nof their future wants, tremble with fear. Of so much greater importance\nto us is the shadow of this transitory life, than that eternal\nimmortality. But they who, confiding in God, have once cast off that\nanxiety for the concerns of the body, expect likewise to receive from\nhim superior blessings, even salvation and eternal life. It is therefore\nno trivial exercise of faith, to expect from God those things which\notherwise fill us with so much anxiety; nor is it a small proficiency\nwhen we have divested ourselves of this infidelity, which is almost\nuniversally interwoven with the human constitution. The speculations of\nsome, concerning supernatural bread, appear to me not very consonant to\nthe meaning of Christ; for if we did not ascribe to God the character of\nour Supporter even in this transitory life, our prayer would be\ndefective. The reason which they allege has too much profanity; that it\nis unbecoming for the children of God, who ought to be spiritual, not\nonly to devote their own attention to terrestrial cares, but also to\ninvolve God in the same anxieties with themselves; as though, truly, his\nbenediction and paternal favour were not conspicuous even in our\nsustenance; or there were no meaning in the assertion, that \u201cgodliness\nhath promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to\ncome.\u201d[426] Now, though remission of sins is of much greater value than\ncorporeal aliments, yet Christ has given the first place to the inferior\nblessing, that he might gradually raise us to the two remaining\npetitions, which properly pertain to the heavenly life; in which he has\nconsulted our dulness. We are commanded to ask \u201cour bread,\u201d that we may\nbe content with the portion which our heavenly Father deigns to allot\nus, nor practise any illicit arts for the love of lucre. In the mean\ntime, it must be understood that it becomes ours by a title of donation;\nbecause neither our industry, nor our labour, nor our hands, as is\nobserved by Moses,[427] acquire any thing for us of themselves, when\nunattended by the Divine blessing; and that even an abundance of bread\nwould not be of the least service to us, unless it were by the Divine\npower converted into nourishment. And therefore this liberality of God\nis equally as necessary to the rich as to the poor; for though their\nbarns and cellars were full, they would faint with hunger and thirst,\nunless through his goodness they enjoyed their food. The expression\n\u201cthis day,\u201d or \u201cday by day,\u201d as it is in the other Evangelist, and the\nepithet _daily_, restrain the inordinate desire of transitory things,\nwith which we are often violently inflamed, and which leads to other\nevils; since if we have a greater abundance, we fondly lavish it away in\npleasure, delights, ostentation, and other kinds of luxury. Therefore we\nare enjoined to ask only as much as will supply our necessity, and as it\nwere for the present day, with this confidence, that our heavenly\nFather, after having fed us to-day, will not fail us to-morrow. Whatever\naffluence, then, we possess, even when our barns and cellars are full,\nyet it behoves us always to ask for our daily bread; because it must be\nconsidered as an undeniable truth, that all property is nothing, any\nfurther than the Lord, by the effusions of his favour, blesses it with\ncontinual improvement; and that even what we have in our possession is\nnot our own, any further than as he hourly bestows on us some portion of\nit, and grants us the use of it. Since the pride of man does not easily\nsuffer itself to be convinced of this, the Lord declares that he has\ngiven to all ages an eminent proof of it, by feeding his people with\nmanna in the desert, in order to apprize us \u201cthat man doth not live by\nbread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of his mouth;\u201d[428]\nwhich implies, that it is his power alone by which our life and strength\nare sustained, although he communicates it to us by corporeal means; as\nhe is accustomed to teach us likewise by an opposite example, when he\nbreaks, at his pleasure, the strength (and, as he himself calls it, \u201cthe\nstaff\u201d) of bread, so that though men eat they pine with hunger, and\nthough they drink are parched with thirst.[429] Now, they who are not\nsatisfied with daily bread, but whose avidity is insatiable, and whose\ndesires are unbounded, and they who are satiated with their abundance,\nand think themselves secure amid their immense riches, and who\nnevertheless supplicate the Divine Being in this petition, are guilty of\nmocking him. For the former ask what they would not wish to obtain, and\neven what most of all they abominate, that is, daily bread only; they\nconceal from God, as much as they can, their avaricious disposition;\nwhereas true prayer ought to pour out before him the whole mind, and all\nthe inmost secrets of the soul; and the latter implore what they are far\nfrom expecting to receive from him, what they think they have in their\nown possession. In its being called \u201cours,\u201d the Divine goodness is, as\nwe have observed, the more conspicuous, since it makes that _ours_, to\nwhich we have no claim of right. Yet we must not reject the explanation\nwhich I have likewise hinted at, that it intends also such as is\nacquired by just and innocent labour, and not procured by acts of\ndeception and rapine; because, whatever we acquire by any criminal\nmethods, is never our own, but belongs to others. Our praying that it\nmay be \u201cgiven\u201d to us signifies that it is the simple and gratuitous\ndonation of God, from what quarter soever we receive it; even when it\nmost of all appears to be obtained by our own skill and industry, and to\nbe procured by our own hands; since it is solely the effect of his\nblessing, that our labours are attended with success.\n\nXLV. It follows\u2014FORGIVE US OUR DEBTS; in which petition, and the next,\nChrist has comprised whatever relates to the heavenly life; as in these\ntwo parts consists the spiritual covenant which God has made for the\nsalvation of his Church\u2014\u201cI will write my law in their hearts, and will\npardon their iniquities.\u201d[430] Here Christ begins with remission of\nsins: immediately after, he subjoins a second favour\u2014that God would\ndefend us by the power, and support us by the aid, of his Spirit, to\nenable us to stand unconquered against all temptations. Sins he calls\ndebts, because we owe the penalty of them\u2014a debt we are altogether\nincapable of discharging, unless we are released by this remission,\nwhich is a pardon flowing from his gratuitous mercy, when he freely\ncancels these debts without any payment from us, being satisfied by his\nown mercy in Christ, who has once given himself for our redemption.\nThose, therefore, who rely on God\u2019s being satisfied with their own\nmerits, or the merits of others, and persuade themselves that remission\nof sins is purchased by these satisfactions, have no interest in this\ngratuitous forgiveness; and while they call upon God in this form, they\nare only subscribing their own accusation, and even sealing their\ncondemnation with their own testimony. For they confess themselves\ndebtors, unless they are discharged by the benefit of remission, which\nnevertheless they accept not, but rather refuse, while they obtrude upon\nGod their own merits and satisfactions. For in this way they do not\nimplore his mercy, but appeal to his judgment. They who amuse themselves\nwith dreams of perfection, superseding the necessity of praying for\npardon, may have disciples whom itching ears lead into delusions; but it\nmust be clear that all whom they gain are perverted from Christ, since\nhe teaches all to confess their guilt, and receives none but sinners;\nnot that he would flatter and encourage sins, but because he knew that\nbelievers are never wholly free from the vices of their flesh, but\nalways remain obnoxious to the judgment of God. It ought, indeed, to be\nthe object of our desires and strenuous exertions, that, having fully\ndischarged every part of our duty, we may truly congratulate ourselves\nbefore God on being pure from every stain; but as it pleases God to\nrestore his image within us by degrees, so that some contagion always\nremains in our flesh, the remedy ought never to be neglected. Now, if\nChrist, by the authority given him by the Father, enjoins us, as long as\nwe live, to have recourse to prayer for the pardon of guilt, who will\ntolerate the new teachers, who endeavour to dazzle the eyes of the\nsimple with a visionary phantom of perfect innocence, and fill them with\na confidence in the possibility of their being delivered from all sin?\nwhich, according to John, is no other than making God a liar.[431] At\nthe same time, also, these worthless men, by obliterating one article,\nmutilate, and so totally invalidate, the covenant of God, in which we\nhave seen our salvation is contained; being thus guilty not only of\nsacrilege by separating things so united, but also of impiety and\ncruelty, by overwhelming miserable souls with despair, and of treachery\nto themselves and others, by contracting a habit of carelessness, in\ndiametrical opposition to the Divine mercy. The objection of some, that\nin wishing the advent of God\u2019s kingdom, we desire at the same time the\nabolition of sin, is too puerile; because, in the first part of the\nprayer, we have an exhibition of the highest perfection, but here of\ninfirmity. Thus these two things are perfectly consistent, that in\naspiring towards the mark we may not neglect the remedies required by\nour necessity. Lastly, we pray that we may be forgiven AS WE FORGIVE OUR\nDEBTORS; that is, as we forgive and pardon all who have ever injured us,\neither by unjust actions or by contumelious language. Not that it is our\nprovince to forgive the guilt of sin and transgression; this is the\nprerogative of God alone: our forgiveness consists in divesting the mind\nof anger, enmity, and desire of revenge, and losing the memory of\ninjuries by a voluntary forgetfulness. Wherefore we must not pray to God\nfor forgiveness of sins, unless we also forgive all the offences and\ninjuries of others against us, either present or past. But if we retain\nany enmities in our minds, meditate acts of revenge, and seek\nopportunities of annoyance, and even if we do not endeavour to obtain\nreconciliation with our enemies, to oblige them by all kind offices, and\nto render them our friends,\u2014we beseech God, by this petition, not to\ngrant us remission of sins. For we supplicate him to grant to us what we\ngrant to others. This is praying him not to grant it to us, unless we\ngrant it also. What do persons of this description gain by their prayers\nbut a heavier judgment? Lastly, it must be observed, that this is not a\ncondition, that he would forgive us as we forgive our debtors, because\nwe can merit his forgiveness of us by our forgiveness of others, as\nthough it described the cause of his forgiveness; but, by this\nexpression, the Lord intended, partly to comfort the weakness of our\nfaith; for he has added this as a sign, that we may be as certainly\nassured of remission of sins being granted us by him, as we are certain\nand conscious of our granting it to others; if, at the same time, our\nminds be freed and purified from all hatred, envy, and revenge; partly\nby this, as a criterion, he expunges from the number of his children,\nthose who, hasty to revenge and difficult to forgive, maintain\ninveterate enmities, and cherish in their own hearts towards others,\nthat indignation which they deprecate from themselves, that they may not\npresume to invoke him as their Father. Which is also clearly expressed\nby Luke in Christ\u2019s own words.\n\nXLVI. The sixth petition is, LEAD US NOT INTO TEMPTATION, BUT DELIVER US\nFROM EVIL. This, as we have said, corresponds to the promise respecting\nthe law of God to be engraven in our hearts. But because our obedience\nto God is not without continual warfare, and severe and arduous\nconflicts, we here pray for arms, and assistance to enable us to gain\nthe victory. This suggests to us our necessity, not only of the grace of\nthe Spirit within us to soften, bend, and direct our hearts to obedience\nto God, but also of his aid to render us invincible, in opposition to\nall the stratagems and violent assaults of Satan. Now, the forms of\ntemptations are many and various. For the corrupt conceptions of the\nmind, provoking us to transgressions of the law, whether suggested by\nour own concupiscence or excited by the devil, are temptations; and\nthings not evil in themselves, nevertheless become temptations through\nthe subtlety of the devil, when they are obtruded on our eyes in such a\nmanner that their intervention occasions our seduction or declension\nfrom God. And these temptations are either from prosperous, or from\nadverse events. From prosperous ones, as riches, power, honours; which\ngenerally dazzle men\u2019s eyes by their glitter and external appearance of\ngoodness, and insnare them with their blandishments, that, caught with\nsuch delusions and intoxicated with such delights, they forget their\nGod. From unpropitious ones, as poverty, reproaches, contempt,\nafflictions, and other things of this kind; overcome with the bitterness\nand difficulty of which, they fall into despondency, cast away faith and\nhope, and at length become altogether alienated from God. To both these\nkinds of temptations which assail us, whether kindled within us by our\nconcupiscence, or presented to us by the craft of Satan, we pray our\nheavenly Father not to permit us to yield, but rather to sustain and\nraise us up with his hand, that, strong in his might, we may be able to\nstand firm against all the assaults of our malignant enemy, whatever\nimaginations he may inject into our minds; and also, that whatever is\npresented to us on either quarter, we may convert it to our benefit;\nthat is, by not being elated with prosperity or dejected with adversity.\nYet we do not here pray for an entire exemption from all temptations,\nwhich we very much need, to excite, stimulate, and animate us, lest we\nshould grow torpid with too much rest. For it was not without reason\nthat David wished to be tempted or tried; nor is it without cause that\nthe Lord daily tries his elect, chastising them by ignominy, poverty,\ntribulation, and the cross in various forms. But the temptations of God\nare widely different from those of Satan. Satan tempts to overthrow,\ncondemn, confound, and destroy. But God, that, by proving his people, he\nmay make a trial of their sincerity, to confirm their strength by\nexercising it, to mortify, purify, and refine their flesh, which,\nwithout such restraints, would run into the greatest excesses. Besides,\nSatan attacks persons unarmed and unprepared, to overwhelm the unwary.\n\u201cGod, with the temptation, also makes a way to escape, that they may be\nable to bear\u201d whatever he brings upon them.[432] By the word _evil_,\nwhether we understand the devil or sin, is of little importance. Satan\nhimself, indeed, is the enemy that lies in wait for our life; but sin is\nthe weapon with which he seeks our destruction. Our petition therefore\nis, that we may not be overwhelmed and conquered by any temptations, but\nthat we may stand, strong in the power of the Lord, against all adverse\npowers that assault us, which is not to submit to temptations; that\nbeing taken into his custody and charge, and being secure in his\nprotection, we may persevere unconquered, and rise superior to sin,\ndeath, the gates of hell, and the whole kingdom of the devil. This is\nbeing delivered from evil. Here it must also be carefully remarked, that\nit is not in our power to contend with so powerful an enemy as the\ndevil, and sustain the violence of his assaults. Otherwise it would be\nuseless, or insulting, to supplicate from God what we already possessed\nin ourselves. Certainly, they who prepare themselves for such a combat\nwith self-confidence, are not sufficiently aware of the skill and\nprowess of the enemy that they have to meet. Now, we pray to be\ndelivered from his power, as from the mouth of a ravenous and raging\nlion, just about to tear us with his teeth and claws, and to swallow us\ndown his throat, unless the Lord snatch us from the jaws of death;\nknowing, at the same time, that if the Lord shall be present and fight\nfor us while we are silent, in his strength \u201cwe shall do\nvaliantly.\u201d[433] Let others confide as they please in the native\nabilities and powers of free-will, which they suppose themselves to\npossess,\u2014let it be sufficient for us, to stand and be strong in the\npower of God alone. But this petition comprehends more than at first\nappears. For if the Spirit of God is our strength for fighting the\nbattle with Satan, we shall not be able to gain the victory, till, being\nfull of him, we shall have laid aside all the infirmity of our flesh.\nWhen we pray for deliverance from Satan and sin, therefore, we pray to\nbe frequently enriched with new accessions of Divine grace; till, being\nquite filled with them, we may be able to triumph over all evil. To some\nthere appears a difficulty and harshness in our petition to God, that he\nwill not lead us into temptation, whereas, according to James, it is\ncontrary to his nature for him to tempt us.[434] But this objection has\nalready been partly answered, because our own lust is properly the cause\nof all the temptations that overcome us, and therefore we are charged\nwith the guilt. Nor does James intend any other than to assert the\nfutility and injustice of transferring to God the vices which we are\nconstrained to impute to ourselves, because we are conscious of our\nbeing guilty of them. But notwithstanding this, God may, when he sees\nfit, deliver us to Satan, abandon us to a reprobate mind and sordid\npassions, and so lead us into temptations, by a righteous yet often\nsecret judgment; the cause being frequently concealed from man, but, at\nthe same time, well known to him. Whence it is inferred, that there is\nno impropriety in this mode of expression, if we are persuaded that\nthere is any meaning in his frequent threatenings, that he will manifest\nhis vengeance on the reprobate, by smiting them with blindness and\nhardness of heart.\n\nXLVII. These three petitions, in which we particularly commend to God\nourselves and all our concerns, evidently prove, what we have before\nasserted, that the prayers of Christians ought to be public, and to\nregard the public edification of the Church, and the advancement of the\ncommunion of believers. For each individual does not supplicate the gift\nof any favour to himself in particular; but we all in common pray for\nour bread, the remission of our sins, that we may not be led into\ntemptation, that we may be delivered from evil. The cause is likewise\nsubjoined, which gives us such great boldness in asking, and confidence\nof obtaining; which, though not to be found in the Latin copies, yet\nappears too apposite to this place to be omitted\u2014namely, HIS IS THE\nKINGDOM, AND THE POWER, AND THE GLORY FOR EVER. This is a solid and\nsecure basis for our faith; for if our prayers were to be recommended to\nGod by our own merit, who could dare to utter a word in his presence?\nNow, all miserable, unworthy, and destitute as we are of every\nrecommendation, yet we shall never want an argument or plea for our\nprayers: our confidence can never forsake us; for our Father can never\nbe deprived of his kingdom, power, and glory. The whole is concluded\nwith AMEN; which expresses our ardent desire to obtain the blessings\nsupplicated of God, and confirms our hope that all these things are\nalready obtained, and will certainly be granted to us; because they are\npromised by God, who is incapable of deception. And this agrees with\nthat form of petition already quoted\u2014\u201cDo this, O Lord, for thy name\u2019s\nsake, not for our sake, or for our righteousness;\u201d in which the saints\nnot only express the end of their prayers, but acknowledge that they are\nunworthy to obtain it, unless God derive the cause from himself, and\nthat their confidence of success arises solely from his nature.\n\nXLVIII. Whatever we ought, or are even at liberty, to seek from God, is\nstated to us in this model and directory for prayer, given by that best\nof masters, Christ, whom the Father has set over us as our Teacher, and\nto whom alone he has enjoined us to listen.[435] For he was always his\neternal wisdom, and being made man, was given to men as the Angel of\ngreat counsel.[436] And this prayer is so comprehensive and complete,\nthat whatever addition is made of any thing extraneous or foreign, not\ncapable of being referred to it, is impious and unworthy of the\napprobation of God. For in this summary he has prescribed what is worthy\nof him, what is acceptable to him, what is necessary for us, and, in a\nword, what he chooses to bestow. Wherefore those who presume to go\nbeyond it, and to ask of God any thing else, in the first place, are\ndetermined to make some addition of their own to the wisdom of God,\nwhich cannot be done without folly and blasphemy; in the next place,\ndespising the limits fixed by the will of God, they are led far astray\nby their own irregular desires; and in the last place, they will never\nobtain any thing, since they pray without faith. And there is no doubt\nthat all prayers of this kind are made without faith, because they are\nnot sanctioned by the word of God, the only basis on which faith can\nstand. But they who neglect the Master\u2019s rule, and indulge their own\ndesires, not only deviate from the word of God, but make all possible\nopposition against it. With equal beauty and truth, therefore,\nTertullian has called this a _legitimate prayer_, tacitly implying, that\nall others are irregular and unlawful.\n\nXLIX. We would not here be understood, as if we were confined to this\nform of prayer, without the liberty of changing a word or syllable. For\nthe Scriptures contain many prayers, expressed in words very different\nfrom this, yet written by the same Spirit, and very profitable for our\nuse. Many, which have little verbal resemblance to it, are continually\nsuggested to believers by the same Spirit. We only mean by these\nobservations, that no one should even seek, expect, or ask for any thing\nthat is not summarily comprehended in this prayer, though there may be a\ndiversity of expression, without any variation of sense. As it is\ncertain that all the prayers contained in the Scriptures, or proceeding\nfrom pious hearts, are referred to this, so it is impossible to find one\nany where which can surpass or even equal the perfection of this. Here\nis nothing omitted which ought to be recollected for the praises of God,\nnothing that should occur to the mind of man for his own advantage; and\nthe whole is so complete, as justly to inspire universal despair of\nattempting any improvement. To conclude; let us remember, that this is\nthe teaching of Divine wisdom, which taught what it willed, and willed\nwhat is needful.\n\nL. But though we have before said that we ought to be always aspiring\ntowards God with our minds, and praying without intermission, yet as our\nweakness requires many assistances, and our indolence needs to be\nstimulated, we ought every one of us, for the sake of regularity, to\nappoint particular hours which should not elapse without prayer, and\nwhich should witness all the affections of the mind entirely engaged in\nthis exercise; as, when we rise in the morning, before we enter on the\nbusiness of the day, when we sit down to meat, when we have been fed by\nthe Divine blessing, when we retire to rest. This must not be a\nsuperstitious observance of hours, by which, as if discharging our debt\nto God, we may fancy ourselves discharged from all obligation for the\nremaining hours; but a discipline for our weakness, which may thus, from\ntime to time, be exercised and stimulated. It must especially be the\nobject of our solicitous care, whenever we are oppressed, or see others\noppressed, with adversity, immediately to resort to him with celerity,\nnot of body, but of mind; secondly, to suffer no prosperity of our own\nor others to pass without testifying our acknowledgment of his hand by\npraise and thanksgiving; lastly, we must carefully observe this in every\nprayer, that we entertain not the thought of binding God to certain\ncircumstances, or prescribing to him the time, the place, or the manner\nof his proceedings. As we are taught by this prayer to fix no law, to\nimpose no condition on him, but to leave it to his will to do what he\nintends, in the manner, at the time, and in the place he pleases,\ntherefore, before we form a petition for ourselves, we first pray that\nhis will may be done; thereby submitting our will to his, that, being,\nas it were, bridled and restrained, it may not presume to regulate God,\nbut may constitute him the arbiter and ruler of all its desires.\n\nLI. If, with minds composed to this obedience, we suffer ourselves to be\ngoverned by the laws of Divine Providence, we shall easily learn to\npersevere in prayer, and with suspended desires to wait patiently for\nthe Lord; assured, though he does not discover himself, yet that he is\nalways near us, and in his own time will declare that his ears have not\nbeen deaf to those prayers which, to human apprehension, seemed to be\nneglected. Now, this, if God do not at any time answer our first\nprayers, will be an immediate consolation, to prevent our sinking into\ndespair, like those who, actuated only by their own ardour, call upon\nGod in such a manner, that if he do not attend to their first\ntransports, and afford them present aid, they at once imagine him to be\ndispleased and angry with them, and, casting away all hope of succeeding\nin their prayers, cease to call upon him. But deferring our hope with a\nwell-tempered equanimity, let us rather practise the perseverance so\nhighly recommended to us in the Scriptures. For in the Psalms we may\nfrequently observe how David and other faithful men, when, almost\nwearied with praying, they seemed to beat the air, and God seemed deaf\nto their petitions, yet did not desist from praying; because the\nauthority of the Divine word is not maintained, unless it be fully\ncredited, notwithstanding the appearance of any circumstances to the\ncontrary. Nor let us tempt God, and provoke him against us by wearying\nhim with our presumption; which is the practice of many who merely\nbargain with God on a certain condition, and as though he were\nsubservient to their passions, bind him with laws of their own\nstipulation; with which unless he immediately complies, they give way to\nanger and fretfulness, to cavils, and murmurs, and rage. To such\npersons, therefore, he frequently grants in his wrath what he denies in\nmercy to others. This is exemplified in the children of Israel, for whom\nit had been better for the Lord not to have heard them, than for them to\nswallow his indignation with the meat that he sent them.[437]\n\nLII. But if, after long waiting, our sense neither understands what\nadvance we have made by praying, nor experiences any advantage resulting\nfrom it, yet our faith will assure us, what cannot be perceived by\nsense, that we have obtained what was expedient for us, since the Lord\nso frequently and so certainly promises to take care of our troubles\nwhen they have been once deposited in his bosom. And thus he will cause\nus to possess abundance in poverty, and consolation in affliction. For\nthough all things fail us, yet God will never forsake us; he cannot\ndisappoint the expectation and patience of his people. He will amply\ncompensate us for the loss of all others, for he comprehends in himself\nall blessings, which he will reveal to us at the day of judgment, when\nhis kingdom will be fully manifested. Besides, though God grants our\nprayers, he does not always answer them according to the express form of\nthe request; but seeming to keep us in suspense, shows by unknown means\nthat our prayers were not in vain. This is the meaning of these words of\nJohn: \u201cIf we know that he heareth us, whatsoever we ask, we know that we\nhave the petitions that we desired of him.\u201d[438] This seems to be a\nfeeble superfluity of expression, but is in reality a very useful\ndeclaration, that God, even when he does not comply with our desires, is\nnevertheless favourable and propitious to our prayers, so that a hope\ndepending upon his word can never disappoint us. Now, this patience is\nvery necessary to support believers, who would not long stand unless\nthey relied upon it. For the Lord proves his people with heavy trials,\nand exercises them with severity; frequently driving them to various\nkinds of extremities, and suffering them to remain in them a long time\nbefore he grants them any enjoyment of his grace; and as Hannah says,\n\u201cThe Lord killeth, and maketh alive; he bringeth down to the grave, and\nbringeth up.\u201d[439] In such distresses must they not inevitably faint in\ntheir minds, and fall into despair, unless, in the midst of their\naffliction and desolation, and almost death, they were revived by this\nreflection, that God regards them, and that the end of their present\nevils is approaching? But though they rely on the certainty of this\nhope, they at the same time cease not to pray; because, without constant\nperseverance in prayer, we pray to no purpose.\n\nFootnote 262:\n\n  Rom. x. 13, 14, 17.\n\nFootnote 263:\n\n  Rom. viii. 15, 26.\n\nFootnote 264:\n\n  1 Kings xviii. 42, &c.\n\nFootnote 265:\n\n  Psalm cxlv. 18.\n\nFootnote 266:\n\n  Psalm xxxiv. 15.\n\nFootnote 267:\n\n  Psalm xxv. 1.\n\nFootnote 268:\n\n  Psalm lxii. 8.\n\nFootnote 269:\n\n  Psalm cxlv. 19.\n\nFootnote 270:\n\n  1 John v. 14.\n\nFootnote 271:\n\n  Rom. viii. 26.\n\nFootnote 272:\n\n  Jude 20. 1 Cor. xiv. 15.\n\nFootnote 273:\n\n  James v. 13.\n\nFootnote 274:\n\n  Psalm xxxii. 6.\n\nFootnote 275:\n\n  Ephes. vi. 18.\n\nFootnote 276:\n\n  Isaiah i. 15.\n\nFootnote 277:\n\n  Jer. xi. 7, 8, 11.\n\nFootnote 278:\n\n  Isaiah xxix. 13.\n\nFootnote 279:\n\n  James iv. 3.\n\nFootnote 280:\n\n  1 John iii. 22.\n\nFootnote 281:\n\n  Dan. ix. 18, 19.\n\nFootnote 282:\n\n  Dan. ix. 20.\n\nFootnote 283:\n\n  Psalm cxliii. 2.\n\nFootnote 284:\n\n  Isaiah lxiv. 5-9.\n\nFootnote 285:\n\n  Jer. xiv. 7.\n\nFootnote 286:\n\n  Baruch ii. 18.\n\nFootnote 287:\n\n  Psalm xxv. 7, 18.\n\nFootnote 288:\n\n  Psalm li. 5.\n\nFootnote 289:\n\n  Matt. ix. 2.\n\nFootnote 290:\n\n  1 John i. 9.\n\nFootnote 291:\n\n  Psalm lxxxvi. 2.\n\nFootnote 292:\n\n  2 Kings xx. 3.\n\nFootnote 293:\n\n  Psalm xxxiv. 15.\n\nFootnote 294:\n\n  1 John iii. 22.\n\nFootnote 295:\n\n  John ix. 31.\n\nFootnote 296:\n\n  Psalm v. 7.\n\nFootnote 297:\n\n  Mark xi. 24.\n\nFootnote 298:\n\n  Matt. xxi. 22.\n\nFootnote 299:\n\n  James i. 5, 6.\n\nFootnote 300:\n\n  James v. 15.\n\nFootnote 301:\n\n  Rom. x. 14, 17.\n\nFootnote 302:\n\n  Heb. iv. 16.\n\nFootnote 303:\n\n  Ephes. iii. 12.\n\nFootnote 304:\n\n  Psalm xxxiii. 22.\n\nFootnote 305:\n\n  Psalm lvi. 9.\n\nFootnote 306:\n\n  Psalm v. 3.\n\nFootnote 307:\n\n  Ephes. vi. 16, 18.\n\nFootnote 308:\n\n  Psalm xli. 4.\n\nFootnote 309:\n\n  Psalm l. 15.\n\nFootnote 310:\n\n  Matt. vii. 7.\n\nFootnote 311:\n\n  Zech. xiii. 9.\n\nFootnote 312:\n\n  Psalm lxv. 2.\n\nFootnote 313:\n\n  Psalm l. 15.\n\nFootnote 314:\n\n  2 Sam. vii. 27.\n\nFootnote 315:\n\n  Psalm cxlv. 19.\n\nFootnote 316:\n\n  Prov. xviii. 10.\n\nFootnote 317:\n\n  Joel ii. 32.\n\nFootnote 318:\n\n  Isaiah lxv. 24.\n\nFootnote 319:\n\n  Psalm xci. 15.\n\nFootnote 320:\n\n  Psalm cxlv. 18.\n\nFootnote 321:\n\n  2 Sam. vii. 27, 28.\n\nFootnote 322:\n\n  Psalm cxix. 76.\n\nFootnote 323:\n\n  Gen. xxxii. 10, &c.\n\nFootnote 324:\n\n  Jer. xlii. 9. Dan. ix. 18.\n\nFootnote 325:\n\n  Jer. xlii. 2.\n\nFootnote 326:\n\n  2 Kings xix. 4.\n\nFootnote 327:\n\n  Psalm cxli. 2.\n\nFootnote 328:\n\n  Judges ix. 20.\n\nFootnote 329:\n\n  Judges xvi. 28.\n\nFootnote 330:\n\n  Psalm cvii.\n\nFootnote 331:\n\n  Psalm cvi. 39.\n\nFootnote 332:\n\n  Matt. v. 45.\n\nFootnote 333:\n\n  Gen. xviii. 23. 1 Sam. xv. 11.\n\nFootnote 334:\n\n  Jer. xxxii. 16, &c.\n\nFootnote 335:\n\n  Psalm vii. 6.\n\nFootnote 336:\n\n  Psalm xxxix. 13.\n\nFootnote 337:\n\n  Psalm li. 17.\n\nFootnote 338:\n\n  Psalm lxxx. 4.\n\nFootnote 339:\n\n  Lam. iii. 8.\n\nFootnote 340:\n\n  1 Tim. ii. 5. 1 John ii. 1.\n\nFootnote 341:\n\n  Heb. iv. 16.\n\nFootnote 342:\n\n  John xvi. 24, 26; xiv. 13.\n\nFootnote 343:\n\n  2 Cor. i. 20.\n\nFootnote 344:\n\n  Exod. xxviii.\n\nFootnote 345:\n\n  Psalm xx. 3.\n\nFootnote 346:\n\n  John xvi. 24.\n\nFootnote 347:\n\n  Heb. x. 20.\n\nFootnote 348:\n\n  Ephes. vi. 18, 19. 1 Tim. ii. 1.\n\nFootnote 349:\n\n  1 John ii. 1.\n\nFootnote 350:\n\n  Rom. viii. 34.\n\nFootnote 351:\n\n  1 Tim. ii. 5.\n\nFootnote 352:\n\n  Jer. ii. 28; xi. 13.\n\nFootnote 353:\n\n  Heb. i. 14. Psalm xci. 11; xxxiv. 7.\n\nFootnote 354:\n\n  Ephes. iii. 10.\n\nFootnote 355:\n\n  Jer. xv. 1.\n\nFootnote 356:\n\n  Ezek. xiv. 14.\n\nFootnote 357:\n\n  Acts xiii. 36.\n\nFootnote 358:\n\n  Eccles. ix. 5, 6.\n\nFootnote 359:\n\n  Gen. xlviii. 16.\n\nFootnote 360:\n\n  Isaiah lxiii. 16.\n\nFootnote 361:\n\n  Psalm xxii. 5.\n\nFootnote 362:\n\n  James v. 17, 18.\n\nFootnote 363:\n\n  Psalm cxlii. 7.\n\nFootnote 364:\n\n  Psalm xxxiv. 5, 6.\n\nFootnote 365:\n\n  Psalm xxxii. 6.\n\nFootnote 366:\n\n  Gen. xxxii. 10.\n\nFootnote 367:\n\n  Psalm xxxi. 5.\n\nFootnote 368:\n\n  Psalm xliv. 20, 21.\n\nFootnote 369:\n\n  James v. 16.\n\nFootnote 370:\n\n  Psalm l. 15.\n\nFootnote 371:\n\n  1 Tim. iv. 5.\n\nFootnote 372:\n\n  Psalm xl. 3.\n\nFootnote 373:\n\n  Isaiah xlii. 10.\n\nFootnote 374:\n\n  Psalm li. 15.\n\nFootnote 375:\n\n  Isaiah xxxviii. 20. Jonah ii. 9.\n\nFootnote 376:\n\n  Psalm cxvi. 12, 13.\n\nFootnote 377:\n\n  Psalm cvi. 47.\n\nFootnote 378:\n\n  Psalm cii. 17, &c.\n\nFootnote 379:\n\n  Hosea xiv. 2.\n\nFootnote 380:\n\n  Psalm cxvi. 1.\n\nFootnote 381:\n\n  Psalm xviii. 1.\n\nFootnote 382:\n\n  Phil. iv. 6.\n\nFootnote 383:\n\n  Heb. xiii. 15.\n\nFootnote 384:\n\n  1 Thess. v. 17, 18.\n\nFootnote 385:\n\n  1 Cor. xiv. 40.\n\nFootnote 386:\n\n  Matt. vi. 7.\n\nFootnote 387:\n\n  Luke xviii. 11.\n\nFootnote 388:\n\n  Matt. vi. 6.\n\nFootnote 389:\n\n  1 Tim. ii. 8.\n\nFootnote 390:\n\n  Isaiah lvi. 7.\n\nFootnote 391:\n\n  Psalm lxv. 1.\n\nFootnote 392:\n\n  Matt. xviii. 20.\n\nFootnote 393:\n\n  John iv. 23.\n\nFootnote 394:\n\n  Isaiah lxvi. 1. Acts vii. 48.\n\nFootnote 395:\n\n  Isaiah xxix. 13, 14. Matt. xv. 8, 9.\n\nFootnote 396:\n\n  1 Cor. xiv. 15.\n\nFootnote 397:\n\n  Col. iii. 16.\n\nFootnote 398:\n\n  1 Cor. xiv. 16, 17.\n\nFootnote 399:\n\n  1 Cor. xiv. 15.\n\nFootnote 400:\n\n  1 Sam. i. 13.\n\nFootnote 401:\n\n  Matt. vi. 9. Luke xi. 2.\n\nFootnote 402:\n\n  Rom. viii. 26, 27.\n\nFootnote 403:\n\n  Exod. xxxii. 32. Rom. ix. 3.\n\nFootnote 404:\n\n  John i. 12, 14.\n\nFootnote 405:\n\n  1 John iii. 1. Psalm xxvii. 10. Isaiah lxiii. 16.\n\nFootnote 406:\n\n  2 Tim. ii. 13.\n\nFootnote 407:\n\n  Matt. vii. 11.\n\nFootnote 408:\n\n  Isaiah xlix. 15.\n\nFootnote 409:\n\n  2 Cor. i. 3.\n\nFootnote 410:\n\n  Luke xv. 11, &c.\n\nFootnote 411:\n\n  Gal. iv. 6.\n\nFootnote 412:\n\n  Matt. xxiii. 9.\n\nFootnote 413:\n\n  Ephes. i. 23.\n\nFootnote 414:\n\n  Gal. vi. 10.\n\nFootnote 415:\n\n  1 Tim. ii. 8.\n\nFootnote 416:\n\n  1 Kings viii. 27.\n\nFootnote 417:\n\n  Isaiah lxvi. 1. Acts vii. 49; xvii. 24.\n\nFootnote 418:\n\n  Heb. xi. 6.\n\nFootnote 419:\n\n  Phil. iv. 5, 6.\n\nFootnote 420:\n\n  Psalm xxxiv. 15; xxxiii. 18.\n\nFootnote 421:\n\n  Psalm xlviii. 10.\n\nFootnote 422:\n\n  1 Cor. xv. 28.\n\nFootnote 423:\n\n  2 Thess. ii. 8.\n\nFootnote 424:\n\n  Psalm ciii. 20.\n\nFootnote 425:\n\n  1 Cor. x. 31.\n\nFootnote 426:\n\n  1 Tim. iv. 8.\n\nFootnote 427:\n\n  Lev. xxvi. 20.\n\nFootnote 428:\n\n  Deut. viii. 3. Matt. iv. 4.\n\nFootnote 429:\n\n  Lev. xxvi. 26.\n\nFootnote 430:\n\n  Jer. xxxi. 33, 34; xxxiii. 8.\n\nFootnote 431:\n\n  1 John i. 10.\n\nFootnote 432:\n\n  1 Cor. x. 13.\n\nFootnote 433:\n\n  Psalm lx. 12.\n\nFootnote 434:\n\n  James i. 13, 14.\n\nFootnote 435:\n\n  Matt. xvii. 5.\n\nFootnote 436:\n\n  Isaiah xi. 2.\n\nFootnote 437:\n\n  Num. xi. 18, 33.\n\nFootnote 438:\n\n  1 John v. 15.\n\nFootnote 439:\n\n  1 Sam. ii. 6.\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER XXI.\n ETERNAL ELECTION, OR GOD\u2019S PREDESTINATION OF SOME TO SALVATION, AND OF\n                         OTHERS TO DESTRUCTION.\n\n\nThe covenant of life not being equally preached to all, and among those\nto whom it is preached not always finding the same reception, this\ndiversity discovers the wonderful depth of the Divine judgment. Nor is\nit to be doubted that this variety also follows, subject to the decision\nof God\u2019s eternal election. If it be evidently the result of the Divine\nwill, that salvation is freely offered to some, and others are prevented\nfrom attaining it,\u2014this immediately gives rise to important and\ndifficult questions, which are incapable of any other explication, than\nby the establishment of pious minds in what ought to be received\nconcerning election and predestination\u2014a question, in the opinion of\nmany, full of perplexity; for they consider nothing more unreasonable,\nthan that, of the common mass of mankind, some should be predestinated\nto salvation, and others to destruction. But how unreasonably they\nperplex themselves will afterwards appear from the sequel of our\ndiscourse. Besides, the very obscurity which excites such dread, not\nonly displays the utility of this doctrine, but shows it to be\nproductive of the most delightful benefit. We shall never be clearly\nconvinced as we ought to be, that our salvation flows from the fountain\nof God\u2019s free mercy, till we are acquainted with his eternal election,\nwhich illustrates the grace of God by this comparison, that he adopts\nnot all promiscuously to the hope of salvation, but gives to some what\nhe refuses to others. Ignorance of this principle evidently detracts\nfrom the Divine glory, and diminishes real humility. But according to\nPaul, what is so necessary to be known, never can be known, unless God,\nwithout any regard to works, chooses those whom he has decreed. \u201cAt this\npresent time also, there is a remnant according to the election of\ngrace. And if by grace, then it is no more of works; otherwise, grace is\nno more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace;\notherwise, work is no more work.\u201d[440] If we need to be recalled to the\norigin of election, to prove that we obtain salvation from no other\nsource than the mere goodness of God, they who desire to extinguish this\nprinciple, do all they can to obscure what ought to be magnificently and\nloudly celebrated, and to pluck up humility by the roots. In ascribing\nthe salvation of the remnant of the people to the election of grace,\nPaul clearly testifies, that it is then only known that God saves whom\nhe will of his mere good pleasure, and does not dispense a reward to\nwhich there can be no claim. They who shut the gates to prevent any one\nfrom presuming to approach and taste this doctrine, do no less injury to\nman than to God; for nothing else will be sufficient to produce in us\nsuitable humility, or to impress us with a due sense of our great\nobligations to God. Nor is there any other basis for solid confidence,\neven according to the authority of Christ, who, to deliver us from all\nfear, and render us invincible amidst so many dangers, snares, and\ndeadly conflicts, promises to preserve in safety all whom the Father has\ncommitted to his care. Whence we infer, that they who know not\nthemselves to be God\u2019s peculiar people will be tortured with continual\nanxiety; and therefore, that the interest of all believers, as well as\ntheir own, is very badly consulted by those who, blind to the three\nadvantages we have remarked, would wholly remove the foundation of our\nsalvation. And hence the Church rises to our view, which otherwise, as\nBernard justly observes, could neither be discovered nor recognized\namong creatures, being in two respects wonderfully concealed in the\nbosom of a blessed predestination, and in the mass of a miserable\ndamnation. But before I enter on the subject itself, I must address some\npreliminary observations to two sorts of persons. The discussion of\npredestination\u2014a subject of itself rather intricate\u2014is made very\nperplexed, and therefore dangerous, by human curiosity, which no\nbarriers can restrain from wandering into forbidden labyrinths, and\nsoaring beyond its sphere, as if determined to leave none of the Divine\nsecrets unscrutinized or unexplored. As we see multitudes every where\nguilty of this arrogance and presumption, and among them some who are\nnot censurable in other respects, it is proper to admonish them of the\nbounds of their duty on this subject. First, then, let them remember\nthat when they inquire into predestination, they penetrate the inmost\nrecesses of Divine wisdom, where the careless and confident intruder\nwill obtain no satisfaction to his curiosity, but will enter a labyrinth\nfrom which he will find no way to depart. For it is unreasonable that\nman should scrutinize with impunity those things which the Lord has\ndetermined to be hidden in himself; and investigate, even from eternity,\nthat sublimity of wisdom which God would have us to adore and not\ncomprehend, to promote our admiration of his glory. The secrets of his\nwill which he determined to reveal to us, he discovers in his word; and\nthese are all that he foresaw would concern us or conduce to our\nadvantage.\n\nII. \u201cWe are come into the way of faith,\u201d says Augustine; \u201clet us\nconstantly pursue it. It conducts into the king\u2019s palace, in which are\nhidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. For the Lord Christ\nhimself envied not his great and most select disciples when he said, \u2018I\nhave many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.\u2019 We must\nwalk, we must improve, we must grow, that our hearts may be able to\nunderstand those things of which we are at present incapable. If the\nlast day finds us improving, we shall then learn what we never could\nlearn in the present state.\u201d If we only consider that the word of the\nLord is the only way to lead us to an investigation of all that ought to\nbe believed concerning him, and the only light to enlighten us to behold\nall that ought to be seen of him, this consideration will easily\nrestrain and preserve us from all presumption. For we shall know that\nwhen we have exceeded the limits of the word, we shall get into a\ndevious and darksome course, in which errors, slips, and falls, will\noften be inevitable. Let us, then, in the first place, bear in mind,\nthat to desire any other knowledge of predestination than what is\nunfolded in the word of God, indicates as great folly, as a wish to walk\nthrough unpassable roads, or to see in the dark. Nor let us be ashamed\nto be ignorant of some things relative to a subject in which there is a\nkind of learned ignorance. Rather let us abstain with cheerfulness from\nthe pursuit of that knowledge, the affectation of which is foolish,\ndangerous, and even fatal. But if we are stimulated by the wantonness of\nintellect, we must oppose it with a reflection calculated to repress it,\nthat as \u201cit is not good to eat much honey, so for men to search their\nown glory, is not glory.\u201d[441] For there is sufficient to deter us from\nthat presumption, which can only precipitate us into ruin.\n\nIII. Others, desirous of remedying this evil, will have all mention of\npredestination to be as it were buried; they teach men to avoid every\nquestion concerning it as they would a precipice. Though their\nmoderation is to be commended, in judging that mysteries ought to be\nhandled with such great sobriety, yet, as they descend too low, they\nhave little influence on the mind of man, which refuses to submit to\nunreasonable restraints. To observe, therefore, the legitimate boundary\non this side also, we must recur to the word of the Lord, which affords\na certain rule for the understanding. For the Scripture is the school of\nthe Holy Spirit, in which, as nothing necessary and useful to be known\nis omitted, so nothing is taught which it is not beneficial to know.\nWhatever, therefore, is declared in the Scripture concerning\npredestination, we must be cautious not to withhold from believers, lest\nwe appear either to defraud them of the favor of their God, or to\nreprove and censure the Holy Spirit for publishing what it would be\nuseful by any means to suppress. Let us, I say, permit the Christian man\nto open his heart and his ears to all the discourses addressed to him by\nGod, only with this moderation, that as soon as the Lord closes his\nsacred mouth, he shall also desist from further inquiry. This will be\nthe best barrier of sobriety, if in learning we not only follow the\nleadings of God, but as soon as he ceases to teach, we give up our\ndesire of learning. Nor is the danger they dread, sufficient to divert\nour attention from the oracles of God. It is a celebrated observation of\nSolomon, that \u201cit is the glory of God to conceal a thing.\u201d[442] But, as\nboth piety and common sense suggest that this is not to be understood\ngenerally of every thing, we must seek for the proper distinction, lest\nwe content ourselves with brutish ignorance under the pretext of modesty\nand sobriety. Now, this distinction is clearly expressed in a few words\nby Moses. \u201cThe secret things,\u201d he says, \u201cbelong unto the Lord our God;\nbut those things which are revealed belong unto us, and to our children\nfor ever, that we may do all the words of this law.\u201d[443] For we see how\nhe enforces on the people attention to the doctrine of the law only by\nthe celestial decree, because it pleased God to promulgate it; and\nrestrains the same people within those limits with this single reason,\nthat it is not lawful for mortals to intrude into the secrets of God.\n\nIV. Profane persons, I confess, suddenly lay hold of something relating\nto the subject of predestination, to furnish occasion for objections,\ncavils, reproaches, and ridicule. But if we are frightened from it by\ntheir impudence, all the principal articles of the faith must be\nconcealed, for there is scarcely one of them which such persons as these\nleave unviolated by blasphemy. The refractory mind will discover as much\ninsolence, on hearing that there are three persons in the Divine\nessence, as on being told, that when God created man, he foresaw what\nwould happen concerning him. Nor will they refrain from derision on\nbeing informed, that little more than five thousand years have elapsed\nsince the creation of the world. They will ask why the power of God was\nso long idle and asleep. Nothing can be advanced which they will not\nendeavour to ridicule. Must we, in order to check these sacrileges, say\nnothing of the Divinity of the Son and Spirit, or pass over in silence\nthe creation of the world? In this instance, and every other, the truth\nof God is too powerful to dread the detraction of impious men; as is\nstrenuously maintained by Augustine, in his treatise on the Perseverance\nof the Faithful. We see the false apostles, with all their defamation\nand accusation of the true doctrine of Paul, could never succeed to make\nhim ashamed of it. Their assertion, that all this discussion is\ndangerous to pious minds, because it is inconsistent with exhortations,\nshakes their faith, and disturbs and discourages the heart itself, is\nwithout any foundation. Augustine admits, that he was frequently blamed,\non these accounts, for preaching predestination too freely; but he\nreadily and amply refutes them. But as many and various absurdities are\ncrowded upon us here, we prefer reserving every one to be refuted in its\nproper place. I only desire this general admission, that we should\nneither scrutinize those things which the Lord has left concealed, nor\nneglect those which he has openly exhibited, lest we be condemned for\nexcessive curiosity on the one hand, or for ingratitude on the other.\nFor it is judiciously remarked by Augustine, that we may safely follow\nthe Scripture, which proceeds as with the pace of a mother stooping to\nthe weakness of a child, that it may not leave our weak capacities\nbehind. But persons who are so cautious or timid, as to wish\npredestination to be buried in silence, lest feeble minds should be\ndisturbed,\u2014with what pretext, I ask, will they gloss over their\narrogance, which indirectly charges God with foolish inadvertency, as\nthough he foresaw not the danger which they suppose they have had the\npenetration to discover. Whoever, therefore, endeavours to raise\nprejudices against the doctrine of predestination, openly reproaches\nGod, as though something had inconsiderately escaped from him that is\npernicious to the Church.\n\nV. Predestination, by which God adopts some to the hope of life, and\nadjudges others to eternal death, no one, desirous of the credit of\npiety, dares absolutely to deny. But it is involved in many cavils,\nespecially by those who make foreknowledge the cause of it. We maintain,\nthat both belong to God; but it is preposterous to represent one as\ndependent on the other. When we attribute foreknowledge to God, we mean\nthat all things have ever been, and perpetually remain, before his eyes,\nso that to his knowledge nothing is future or past, but all things are\npresent; and present in such a manner, that he does not merely conceive\nof them from ideas formed in his mind, as things remembered by us appear\npresent to our minds, but really beholds and sees them as if actually\nplaced before him. And this foreknowledge extends to the whole world,\nand to all the creatures. Predestination we call the eternal decree of\nGod, by which he has determined in himself, what he would have to become\nof every individual of mankind. For they are not all created with a\nsimilar destiny; but eternal life is fore-ordained for some, and eternal\ndamnation for others. Every man, therefore, being created for one or the\nother of these ends, we say, he is predestinated either to life or to\ndeath. This God has not only testified in particular persons, but has\ngiven a specimen of it in the whole posterity of Abraham, which should\nevidently show the future condition of every nation to depend upon his\ndecision. \u201cWhen the Most High divided the nations, when he separated the\nsons of Adam, the Lord\u2019s portion was his people; Jacob was the lot of\nhis inheritance.\u201d[444] The separation is before the eyes of all: in the\nperson of Abraham, as in the dry trunk of a tree, one people is\npeculiarly chosen to the rejection of others: no reason for this\nappears, except that Moses, to deprive their posterity of all occasion\nof glorying, teaches them that their exaltation is wholly from God\u2019s\ngratuitous love. He assigns this reason for their deliverance, that \u201che\nloved their fathers, and chose their seed after them.\u201d[445] More fully\nin another chapter: \u201cThe Lord did not set his love upon you, nor choose\nyou, because you were more in number than any people; but because the\nLord loved you.\u201d[446] He frequently repeats the same admonition:\n\u201cBehold, the heaven is the Lord\u2019s thy God, the earth also, with all that\ntherein is. Only the Lord had a delight in thy fathers to love them, and\nhe chose their seed after them.\u201d[447] In another place, sanctification\nis enjoined upon them, because they were chosen to be a peculiar\npeople.[448] And again, elsewhere, love is asserted to be the cause of\ntheir protection. It is declared by the united voice of the faithful,\n\u201cHe hath chosen our inheritance for us, the excellency of Jacob, whom he\nloved.\u201d[449] For the gifts conferred on them by God, they all ascribe to\ngratuitous love, not only from a consciousness that these were not\nobtained by any merit of theirs, but from a conviction, that the holy\npatriarch himself was not endued with such excellence as to acquire the\nprivilege of so great an honour for himself and his posterity. And the\nmore effectually to demolish all pride, he reproaches them with having\ndeserved no favour, being \u201ca stiff-necked and rebellious people.\u201d[450]\nThe prophets also frequently reproach the Jews with the unwelcome\nmention of this election, because they had shamefully departed from it.\nLet them, however, now come forward, who wish to restrict the election\nof God to the desert of men, or the merit of works. When they see one\nnation preferred to all others,\u2014when they hear that God had no\ninducement to be more favourable to a few, and ignoble, and even\ndisobedient and obstinate people,\u2014will they quarrel with him because he\nhas chosen to give such an example of mercy? But their obstreperous\nclamours will not impede his work, nor will the reproaches they hurl\nagainst Heaven, injure or affect his justice; they will rather recoil\nupon their own heads. To this principle of the gracious covenant, the\nIsraelites are also recalled whenever thanks are to be rendered to God,\nor their hopes are to be raised for futurity. \u201cHe hath made us, and not\nwe ourselves,\u201d says the Psalmist: \u201cwe are his people, and the sheep of\nhis pasture.\u201d[451] It is not without reason that the negation is added,\n\u201cnot we ourselves,\u201d that they may know that of all the benefits they\nenjoy, God is not only the Author, but derived the cause from himself,\nthere being nothing in them deserving of such great honour. He also\nenjoins them to be content with the mere good pleasure of God, in these\nwords: \u201cO ye seed of Abraham his servant, ye children of Jacob his\nchosen.\u201d And after having recounted the continual benefits bestowed by\nGod as fruits of election, he at length concludes that he had acted with\nsuch liberality, \u201cbecause he remembered his covenant.\u201d[452] Consistent\nwith this doctrine is the song of the whole Church: \u201cThy right hand, and\nthine arm, and the light of thy countenance, gave our fathers the land,\nbecause thou hadst a favour unto them.\u201d[453] It must be observed that\nwhere mention is made of the land, it is a visible symbol of the secret\nseparation, which comprehends adoption. David, in another place, exhorts\nthe people to the same gratitude: \u201cBlessed is the nation whose God is\nthe Lord; and the people whom he hath chosen for his own\ninheritance.\u201d[454] Samuel animates to a good hope: \u201cThe Lord will not\nforsake his people, for his great name\u2019s sake; because it hath pleased\nthe Lord to make you his people.\u201d[455] David, when his faith is\nassailed, thus arms himself for the conflict: \u201cBlessed is the man whom\nthou choosest, and causest to approach unto thee; he shall dwell in thy\ncourts.\u201d[456] But since the election hidden in God has been confirmed by\nthe first deliverance, as well as by the second and other intermediate\nblessings, the word _choose_ is transferred to it in Isaiah: \u201cThe Lord\nwill have mercy on Jacob, and will yet choose Israel;\u201d[457] because,\ncontemplating a future period, he declares that the collection of the\nresidue of the people, whom he had appeared to have forsaken, would be a\nsign of the stable and sure election, which had likewise seemed to fail.\nWhen he says also, in another place, \u201cI have chosen thee, and not cast\nthee away,\u201d[458] he commends the continual course of his signal\nliberality and paternal benevolence. The angel, in Zechariah, speaks\nmore plainly: \u201cThe Lord shall choose Jerusalem again;\u201d[459] as though\nhis severe chastisement had been a rejection, or their exile had been an\ninterruption of election; which, nevertheless, remains inviolable,\nthough the tokens of it are not always visible.\n\nVI. We must now proceed to a second degree of election, still more\nrestricted, or that in which the Divine grace was displayed in a more\nspecial manner, when of the same race of Abraham God rejected some, and\nby nourishing others in the Church, proved that he retained them among\nhis children. Ishmael at first obtained the same station as his brother\nIsaac, for the spiritual covenant was equally sealed in him by the\nsymbol of circumcision. He is cut off; afterwards Esau; lastly, an\ninnumerable multitude, and almost all Israel. In Isaac the seed was\ncalled; the same calling continued in Jacob. God exhibited a similar\nexample in the rejection of Saul, which is magnificently celebrated by\nthe Psalmist: \u201cHe refused the tabernacle of Joseph, and chose not the\ntribe of Ephraim, but chose the tribe of Judah;\u201d[460] and this the\nsacred history frequently repeats, that the wonderful secret of Divine\ngrace may be more manifest in that change. I grant, it was by their own\ncrime and guilt that Ishmael, Esau, and persons of similar characters,\nfell from the adoption; because the condition annexed was, that they\nshould faithfully keep the covenant of God, which they perfidiously\nviolated. Yet it was a peculiar favour of God, that he deigned to prefer\nthem to other nations; as it is said in the Psalms: \u201cHe hath not dealt\nso with any nation; and as for his judgments, they have not known\nthem.\u201d[461] But I have justly said that here are two degrees to be\nremarked; for in the election of the whole nation, God has already shown\nthat in his mere goodness he is bound by no laws, but is perfectly free,\nso that none can require of him an equal distribution of grace, the\ninequality of which demonstrates it to be truly gratuitous. Therefore\nMalachi aggravates the ingratitude of Israel, because, though not only\nelected out of the whole race of mankind, but also separated from a\nsacred family to be a peculiar people, they perfidiously and impiously\ndespised God their most beneficent Father. \u201cWas not Esau Jacob\u2019s\nbrother? saith the Lord: yet I loved Jacob, and I hated Esau.\u201d[462] For\nGod takes it for granted, since both were sons of a holy father,\nsuccessors of the covenant, and branches from a sacred root, that the\nchildren of Jacob were already laid under more than common obligations\nby their admission to that honour; but Esau the first-born having been\nrejected, and their father, though inferior by birth, having been made\nthe heir, he proves them guilty of double ingratitude, and complains of\ntheir violating this twofold claim.\n\nVII. Though it is sufficiently clear, that God, in his secret counsel,\nfreely chooses whom he will, and rejects others, his gratuitous election\nis but half displayed till we come to particular individuals, to whom\nGod not only offers salvation, but assigns it in such a manner, that the\ncertainty of the effect is liable to no suspense or doubt. These are\nincluded in that one seed mentioned by Paul; for though the adoption was\ndeposited in the hand of Abraham, yet many of his posterity being cut\noff as putrid members, in order to maintain the efficacy and stability\nof election, it is necessary to ascend to the head, in whom their\nheavenly Father has bound his elect to each other, and united them to\nhimself by an indissoluble bond. Thus the adoption of the family of\nAbraham displayed the favour of God, which he denied to others; but in\nthe members of Christ there is a conspicuous exhibition of the superior\nefficacy of grace; because, being united to their head, they never fail\nof salvation. Paul, therefore, justly reasons from the passage of\nMalachi which I have just quoted, that where God, introducing the\ncovenant of eternal life, invites any people to himself, there is a\npeculiar kind of election as to part of them, so that he does not\nefficaciously choose all with indiscriminate grace. The declaration,\n\u201cJacob have I loved,\u201d respects the whole posterity of the patriarch,\nwhom the prophet there opposes to the descendants of Esau. Yet this is\nno objection to our having in the person of one individual a specimen of\nthe election, which can never fail of attaining its full effect. These,\nwho truly belong to Christ, Paul correctly observes, are called \u201ca\nremnant;\u201d for experience proves, that of a great multitude the most part\nfall away and disappear, so that often only a small portion remains.\nThat the general election of a people is not always effectual and\npermanent, a reason readily presents itself, because, when God covenants\nwith them, he does not also give them the spirit of regeneration to\nenable them to persevere in the covenant to the end; but the external\ncall, without the internal efficacy of grace, which would be sufficient\nfor their preservation, is a kind of medium between the rejection of all\nmankind and the election of the small number of believers. The whole\nnation of Israel was called \u201cGod\u2019s inheritance,\u201d though many of them\nwere strangers; but God, having firmly covenanted to be their Father and\nRedeemer, regards that gratuitous favour rather than the defection of\nmultitudes; by whom his truth was not violated, because his preservation\nof a certain remnant to himself, made it evident that his calling was\nwithout repentance. For God\u2019s collection of a Church for himself, from\ntime to time, from the children of Abraham, rather than from the profane\nnations, was in consideration of his covenant, which, being violated by\nthe multitude, he restricted to a few, to prevent its total failure.\nLastly, the general adoption of the seed of Abraham was a visible\nrepresentation of a greater blessing, which God conferred on a few out\nof the multitude. This is the reason that Paul so carefully\ndistinguishes the descendants of Abraham according to the flesh, from\nhis spiritual children called after the example of Isaac. Not that the\nmere descent from Abraham was a vain and unprofitable thing, which could\nnot be asserted without depreciating the covenant; but because to the\nlatter alone the immutable counsel of God, in which he predestinated\nwhom he would, was of itself effectual to salvation. But I advise my\nreaders to adopt no prejudice on either side, till it shall appear from\nadduced passages of Scripture what sentiments ought to be entertained.\nIn conformity, therefore, to the clear doctrine of the Scripture, we\nassert, that by an eternal and immutable counsel, God has once for all\ndetermined, both whom he would admit to salvation, and whom he would\ncondemn to destruction. We affirm that this counsel, as far as concerns\nthe elect, is founded on his gratuitous mercy, totally irrespective of\nhuman merit; but that to those whom he devotes to condemnation, the gate\nof life is closed by a just and irreprehensible, but incomprehensible,\njudgment. In the elect, we consider calling as an evidence of election,\nand justification as another token of its manifestation, till they\narrive in glory, which constitutes its completion. As God seals his\nelect by vocation and justification, so by excluding the reprobate from\nthe knowledge of his name and the sanctification of his Spirit, he\naffords an indication of the judgment that awaits them. Here I shall\npass over many fictions fabricated by foolish men to overthrow\npredestination. It is unnecessary to refute things which, as soon as\nthey are advanced, sufficiently prove their own falsehood. I shall dwell\nonly on those things which are subjects of controversy among the\nlearned, or which may occasion difficulty to simple minds, or which\nimpiety speciously pleads in order to stigmatize the Divine justice.\n\nFootnote 440:\n\n  Rom. xi. 5, 6.\n\nFootnote 441:\n\n  Prov. xxv. 27.\n\nFootnote 442:\n\n  Prov. xxv. 2.\n\nFootnote 443:\n\n  Deut. xxix. 29.\n\nFootnote 444:\n\n  Deut. xxxii. 8, 9.\n\nFootnote 445:\n\n  Deut. iv. 37.\n\nFootnote 446:\n\n  Deut. vii. 7, 8.\n\nFootnote 447:\n\n  Deut. x. 14, 15.\n\nFootnote 448:\n\n  Deut. xxiii.\n\nFootnote 449:\n\n  Psalm xlvii. 4.\n\nFootnote 450:\n\n  Deut. ix. 6, 7.\n\nFootnote 451:\n\n  Psalm c. 3.\n\nFootnote 452:\n\n  Psalm cv. 6, 8.\n\nFootnote 453:\n\n  Psalm xliv. 3.\n\nFootnote 454:\n\n  Psalm xxxiii. 12.\n\nFootnote 455:\n\n  1 Sam. xii. 22.\n\nFootnote 456:\n\n  Psalm lxv. 4.\n\nFootnote 457:\n\n  Isaiah xiv. 1.\n\nFootnote 458:\n\n  Isaiah xli. 9.\n\nFootnote 459:\n\n  Zech. ii. 12.\n\nFootnote 460:\n\n  Psalm lxxviii. 67, 68.\n\nFootnote 461:\n\n  Psalm cxlvii. 20.\n\nFootnote 462:\n\n  Mal. i. 2, 3.\n\n\n\n\n                             CHAPTER XXII.\n       TESTIMONIES OF SCRIPTURE IN CONFIRMATION OF THIS DOCTRINE.\n\n\nAll the positions we have advanced are controverted by many, especially\nthe gratuitous election of believers, which nevertheless cannot be\nshaken. It is a notion commonly entertained, that God, foreseeing what\nwould be the respective merits of every individual, makes a\ncorrespondent distinction between different persons; that he adopts as\nhis children such as he foreknows will be deserving of his grace, and\ndevotes to the damnation of death others, whose dispositions he sees\nwill be inclined to wickedness and impiety. Thus they not only obscure\nelection by covering it with the veil of foreknowledge, but pretend that\nit originates in another cause. Nor is this commonly received notion the\nopinion of the vulgar only, for it has had great advocates in all ages;\nwhich I candidly confess, that no one may cherish a confidence of\ninjuring our cause by opposing us with their names. For the truth of God\non this point is too certain to be shaken, too clear to be overthrown by\nthe authority of men. Others, neither acquainted with the Scripture, nor\ndeserving of any attention, oppose the sound doctrine with extreme\npresumption and intolerable effrontery. God\u2019s sovereign election of\nsome, and preterition of others, they make the subject of formal\naccusation against him. But if this is the known fact, what will they\ngain by quarrelling with God? We teach nothing but what experience has\nproved, that God has always been at liberty to bestow his grace on whom\nhe chooses. I will not inquire how the posterity of Abraham excelled\nother nations, unless it was by that favour, the cause of which can only\nbe found in God. Let them answer why they are men, and not oxen or\nasses: when it was in God\u2019s power to create them dogs, he formed them\nafter his own image. Will they allow the brute animals to expostulate\nwith God respecting their condition, as though the distinction were\nunjust? Their enjoyment of a privilege which they have acquired by no\nmerits, is certainly no more reasonable than God\u2019s various distribution\nof his favours according to the measure of his judgment. If they make a\ntransition to persons where the inequality is more offensive to them,\nthe example of Christ at least ought to deter them from carelessly\nprating concerning this sublime mystery. A mortal man is conceived of\nthe seed of David: to the merit of what virtues will they ascribe his\nbeing made, even in the womb, the Head of angels, the only begotten Son\nof God, the Image and Glory of the Father, the Light, Righteousness, and\nSalvation of the world? It is judiciously remarked by Augustine, that\nthere is the brightest example of gratuitous election in the Head of the\nChurch himself, that it may not perplex us in the members; that he did\nnot become the Son of God by leading a righteous life, but was\ngratuitously invested with this high honour, that he might afterwards\nrender others partakers of the gifts bestowed upon him. If any one\ninquire, why others are not all that he was, or why we are all at such a\nvast distance from him,\u2014why we are all corrupt, and he purity itself,\u2014he\nwill betray both folly and impudence. But if they persist in the wish to\ndeprive God of the uncontrollable right of choosing and rejecting, let\nthem also take away what is given to Christ. Now, it is of importance to\nattend to what the Scripture declares respecting every individual.\nPaul\u2019s assertion, that we were \u201cchosen in Christ before the foundation\nof the world,\u201d[463] certainly precludes any consideration of merit in\nus; for it is as though he had said, our heavenly Father, finding\nnothing worthy of his choice in all the posterity of Adam, turned his\nviews towards his Christ, to choose members from his body whom he would\nadmit to the fellowship of life. Let believers, then, be satisfied with\nthis reason, that we were adopted in Christ to the heavenly inheritance,\nbecause in ourselves we were incapable of such high dignity. He has a\nsimilar remark in another place, where he exhorts the Colossians to\n\u201cgive thanks unto the Father, who had made them meet to be partakers of\nthe inheritance of the saints.\u201d[464] If election precedes this grace of\nGod, which makes us meet to obtain the glory of the life to come, what\nwill God find in us to induce him to elect us? Another passage from this\napostle will still more clearly express my meaning. \u201cHe hath chosen us,\u201d\nhe says, \u201cbefore the foundation of the world, according to the good\npleasure of his will, that we should be holy, and without blame before\nhim;\u201d[465] where he opposes the good pleasure of God to all our merits\nwhatsoever.\n\nII. To render the proof more complete, it will be useful to notice all\nthe clauses of that passage, which, taken in connection, leave no room\nfor doubt. By the appellation of the _elect_, or _chosen_, he certainly\ndesignates believers, as he soon after declares: wherefore it is\ncorrupting the term by a shameful fiction to restrict it to the age in\nwhich the gospel was published. By saying that they were elected before\nthe creation of the world, he precludes every consideration of merit.\nFor what could be the reason for discrimination between those who yet\nhad no existence, and whose condition was afterward to be the same in\nAdam? Now, if they are chosen in Christ, it follows, not only that each\nindividual is chosen out of himself, but also that some are separated\nfrom others; for it is evident, that all are not members of Christ. The\nnext clause, stating them to have been \u201cchosen that they might be holy,\u201d\nfully refutes the error which derives election from foreknowledge; since\nPaul, on the contrary, declares that all the virtue discovered in men is\nthe effect of election. If any inquiry be made after a superior cause,\nPaul replies, that God thus \u201cpredestinated,\u201d and that it was \u201caccording\nto the good pleasure of his will.\u201d This overturns any means of election\nwhich men imagine in themselves; for all the benefits conferred by God\nfor the spiritual life, he represents as flowing from this one source,\nthat God elected whom he would, and, before they were born, laid up in\nreserve for them the grace with which he determined to favor them.\n\nIII. Wherever this decree of God reigns, there can be no consideration\nof any works. The antithesis, indeed, is not pursued here; but it must\nbe understood, as it is amplified by the same writer in another place:\n\u201cWho hath called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but\naccording to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ\nJesus, before the world began.\u201d[466] And we have already shown that the\nfollowing clause, \u201cthat we should be holy,\u201d removes every difficulty.\nFor say, Because he foresaw they would be holy, therefore he chose them,\nand you will invert the order of Paul. We may safely infer, then, If he\nchose us that we should be holy, his foresight of our future holiness\nwas not the cause of his choice. For these two propositions, That the\nholiness of believers is the fruit of election, and, That they attain it\nby means of works, are incompatible with each other. Nor is there any\nforce in the cavil to which they frequently resort, that the grace of\nelection was not God\u2019s reward of antecedent works, but his gift to\nfuture ones. For when it is said, that believers were elected that they\nshould be holy, it is fully implied, that the holiness they were in\nfuture to possess had its origin in election. And what consistency would\nthere be in asserting, that things derived from election were the causes\nof election? A subsequent clause seems further to confirm what he had\nsaid\u2014\u201caccording to his good pleasure, which he purposed in\nhimself.\u201d[467] For the assertion, that God purposed in himself, is\nequivalent to saying, that he considered nothing out of himself, with\nany view to influence his determination. Therefore he immediately\nsubjoins, that the great and only object of our election is, \u201cthat we\nshould be to the praise of\u201d Divine \u201cgrace.\u201d Certainly the grace of God\ndeserves not the sole praise of our election, unless this election be\ngratuitous. Now, it could not be gratuitous, if, in choosing his people,\nGod himself considered what would be the nature of their respective\nworks. The declaration of Christ to his disciples, therefore, is\nuniversally applicable to all believers: \u201cYe have not chosen me, but I\nhave chosen you;\u201d[468] which not only excludes past merits, but\nsignifies that they had nothing in themselves to cause their election,\nindependently of his preventing mercy. This also is the meaning of that\npassage of Paul, \u201cWho hath first given to him, and it shall be\nrecompensed unto him again?\u201d[469] For his design is to show, that God\u2019s\ngoodness altogether anticipates men, finding nothing in them, either\npast or future, to conciliate his favour towards them.\n\nIV. In the Epistle to the Romans, where he goes to the bottom of this\nargument, and pursues it more at length, he says, \u201cThey are not all\nIsrael which are\u201d born \u201cof Israel;\u201d[470] because though all were blessed\nby hereditary right, yet the succession did not pass to all alike. This\ncontroversy originated in the pride and vain-glorying of the Jewish\npeople, who, claiming for themselves the title of the Church, would make\nthe faith of the gospel to depend on their decision; just as, in the\npresent day, the Papists with this false pretext would substitute\nthemselves in the place of God. Paul, though he admits the posterity of\nAbraham to be holy in consequence of the covenant, yet contends that\nmost of them are strangers to it; and that not only because they\ndegenerate, from legitimate children becoming spurious ones, but because\nthe pre\u00ebminence and sovereignty belong to God\u2019s special election, which\nis the sole foundation of the validity of their adoption. If some were\nestablished in the hope of salvation by their own piety, and the\nrejection of others were owing wholly to their own defection, Paul\u2019s\nreference of his readers to the secret election would indeed be weak and\nabsurd. Now, if the will of God, of which no cause appears or must be\nsought out of himself, discriminates some from others, so that the\nchildren of Israel are not all true Israelites, it is in vain pretended\nthat the condition of every individual originates with himself. He\npursues the subject further under the example of Jacob and Esau; for\nbeing both children of Abraham, and both enclosed in their mother\u2019s\nwomb, the transfer of the honour of primogeniture to Jacob was by a\npreternatural change, which Paul, however, contends indicated the\nelection of the one and the reprobation of the other. The origin and the\ncause are inquired, which the champions of foreknowledge maintain to be\nexhibited in the virtues and the vices of men. For this is their short\nand easy doctrine\u2014That God has showed in the person of Jacob, that he\nelects such as are worthy of his grace; and in the person of Esau, that\nhe rejects those whom he foresees to be unworthy. This, indeed, they\nassert with confidence; but what is the testimony of Paul? \u201cThe children\nbeing not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the\npurpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of\nhim that calleth, it was said, The elder shall serve the younger; as it\nis written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.\u201d[471] If this\ndistinction between the brothers was influenced by foreknowledge, the\nmention of the time must certainly be unnecessary. On the supposition\nthat Jacob was elected, because that honour was acquired by his future\nvirtues, to what purpose could Paul remark that he was not yet born? It\nwould not have been so proper to add, that he had not yet done any good;\nfor it will be immediately replied, that nothing is concealed from God,\nand therefore the piety of Jacob must have been present before him. If\ngrace be the reward of works, they ought to have had their just value\nattributed to them before Jacob was born, as much as if he were already\ngrown to maturity. But the apostle proceeds in unravelling the\ndifficulty, and teaches that the adoption of Jacob flowed not from\nworks, but from the calling of God. In speaking of works, he introduces\nno time, future or past, but positively opposes them to the calling of\nGod, intending the establishment of the one, and the absolute subversion\nof the other; as though he had said, We must consider the good pleasure\nof God, and not the productions of men. Lastly, the very terms,\n_election_ and _purpose_, certainly exclude from this subject all the\ncauses frequently invented by men, independently of God\u2019s secret\ncounsel.\n\nV. Now, what pretexts will be urged to obscure these arguments, by those\nwho attribute to works, either past or future, any influence on\nelection? For this is nothing but an evasion of the apostle\u2019s argument,\nthat the distinction between the two brothers depends not on any\nconsideration of works, but on the mere calling of God, because it was\nfixed between them when they were not yet born. Nor would their subtilty\nhave escaped him, if there had been any solidity in it; but well knowing\nthe impossibility of God\u2019s foreseeing any good in man, except what he\nhad first determined to bestow by the benefit of his election, he\nresorts not to the preposterous order of placing good works before their\ncause. We have the apostle\u2019s authority that the salvation of believers\nis founded solely on the decision of Divine election, and that that\nfavour is not procured by works, but proceeds from gratuitous calling.\nWe have also a lively exhibition of this truth in a particular example.\nJacob and Esau are brothers, begotten of the same parents, still\nenclosed in the same womb, not yet brought forth into light; there is in\nall respects a perfect equality between them; yet the judgment of God\nconcerning them is different. For he takes one, and rejects the other.\nThe primogeniture was the only thing that gave one a right of priority\nto the other. But that also is passed by, and on the younger is bestowed\nwhat is refused to the elder. In other instances, also, God appears\nalways to have treated primogeniture with designed and decided contempt,\nto cut off from the flesh all occasion of boasting. He rejects Ishmael,\nand favours Isaac. He degrades Manasseh, and honours Ephraim.\n\nVI. If it be objected, that from these inferior and inconsiderable\nbenefits, it must not be concluded respecting the life to come, that he\nwho has been raised to the honour of primogeniture is therefore to be\nconsidered as adopted to the inheritance of heaven,\u2014for there are many\nwho spare not Paul, as though in his citation of Scripture testimonies\nhe had perverted them from their genuine meaning,\u2014I answer as before,\nthat the apostle has neither erred through inadvertency, nor wilfully\nperverted testimonies of Scripture. But he saw, what they cannot bear to\nconsider, that God intended by an earthly symbol to declare the\nspiritual election of Jacob, which otherwise lay concealed behind his\ninaccessible tribunal. For unless the primogeniture granted him had\nreference to the future world, it was a vain and ridiculous kind of\nblessing, which produced him nothing but various afflictions and\nadversities, grievous exile, numerous cares, and bitter sorrows.\nDiscerning, beyond all doubt, that God\u2019s external blessing was an\nindication of the spiritual and permanent blessing he had prepared for\nhis servant in his kingdom, Paul hesitated not to argue from the former\nin proof of the latter. It must also be remembered, that to the land of\nCanaan was annexed the pledge of the celestial residence; so that it\nought not to be doubted that Jacob was ingrafted with angels into the\nbody of Christ, that he might be a partaker of the same life. While Esau\nis rejected, therefore, Jacob is elected, and distinguished from him by\nGod\u2019s predestination, without any difference of merit. If you inquire\nthe cause, the apostle assigns the following: \u201cFor he saith to Moses, I\nwill have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on\nwhom I will have compassion.\u201d[472] And what is this but a plain\ndeclaration of the Lord, that he finds no cause in men to induce him to\nshow favour to them, but derives it solely from his own mercy; and\ntherefore that the salvation of his people is his work? When God fixes\nyour salvation in himself alone, why will you descend into yourself?\nWhen he assigns you his mere mercy, why will you have recourse to your\nown merits? When he confines all your attention to his mercy, why will\nyou divert part of it to the contemplation of your own works? We must\ntherefore come to that more select people, whom Paul in another place\ntells us \u201cGod foreknew,\u201d[473] not using this word, according to the\nfancy of our opponents, to signify a prospect, from a place of idle\nobservation, of things which he has no part in transacting, but in the\nsense in which it is frequently used. For certainly, when Peter says\nthat Christ was \u201cdelivered\u201d to death \u201cby the determinate counsel and\nforeknowledge of God,\u201d[474] he introduces God not as a mere spectator,\nbut as the Author of our salvation. So the same apostle, by calling\nbelievers, to whom he writes, \u201celect according to the foreknowledge of\nGod,\u201d[475] properly expresses that secret predestination by which God\nhas marked out whom he would as his children. And the word _purpose_,\nwhich is added as a synonymous term, and in common speech is always\nexpressive of fixed determination, undoubtedly implies that God, as the\nAuthor of our salvation, does not go out of himself. In this sense\nChrist is called, in the same chapter, the \u201cLamb foreknown before the\nfoundation of the world.\u201d For what can be more absurd or uninteresting,\nthan God\u2019s looking from on high to see from what quarter salvation would\ncome to mankind? The people, therefore, whom Paul describes as\n\u201cforeknown,\u201d[476] are no other than a small number scattered among the\nmultitude, who falsely pretend to be the people of God. In another place\nalso, to repress the boasting of hypocrites assuming before the world\nthe pre\u00ebminence among the godly, Paul declares, \u201cThe Lord knoweth them\nthat are his.\u201d[477] Lastly, by this expression Paul designates two\nclasses of people, one consisting of the whole race of Abraham, the\nother separated from it, reserved under the eyes of God, and concealed\nfrom the view of men. And this, without doubt, he gathered from Moses,\nwho asserts that God will be merciful to whom he will be merciful;\nthough he is speaking of the chosen people, whose condition was, to\noutward appearance, all alike; as though he had said, that the common\nadoption includes in it peculiar grace towards some, who resemble a more\nsacred treasure; that the common covenant prevents not this small number\nbeing exempted from the common lot; and that, determined to represent\nhimself as the uncontrolled dispenser and arbiter in this affair, he\npositively denies that he will have mercy on one rather than another,\nfrom any other motive than his own pleasure; because, when mercy meets a\nperson who seeks it, though he suffers no repulse, yet he either\nanticipates or in some degree obtains for himself that favour, of which\nGod claims to himself all the praise.\n\nVII. Now, let the supreme Master and Judge decide the whole matter.\nBeholding in his hearers such extreme obduracy, that his discourses were\nscattered among the multitude almost without any effect, to obviate this\noffence, he exclaims, \u201cAll that the Father giveth me, shall come to me.\nAnd this is the Father\u2019s will, that of all which he hath given me, I\nshould lose nothing.\u201d[478] Observe, the origin is from the donation of\nthe Father, that we are given into the custody and protection of Christ.\nHere, perhaps, some one may argue in a circle, and object, that none are\nconsidered as the Father\u2019s peculiar people, but those whose surrender\nhas been voluntary, arising from faith. But Christ only insists on this\npoint\u2014that notwithstanding the defections of vast multitudes, shaking\nthe whole world, yet the counsel of God will be stable and firmer than\nthe heavens, so that election can never fail. They are said to have been\nthe elect of the Father, before he gave them to his only begotten Son.\nIs it inquired whether this was by nature? No, he draws those who were\nstrangers, and so makes them his children. The language of Christ is too\nclear to be perplexed by the quibbles of sophistry: \u201cNo man can come to\nme, except the Father draw him. Every man that hath heard and learned of\nthe Father, cometh unto me.\u201d[479] If all men promiscuously submitted to\nChrist, election would be common: now, the fewness of believers\ndiscovers a manifest distinction. Having asserted his disciples\ntherefore, who were given to him, to be the peculiar portion of the\nFather, Christ a little after adds, \u201cI pray not for the world, but for\nthem which thou hast given me, for they are thine;\u201d[480] which shows\nthat the whole world does not belong to its Creator; only that grace\ndelivers from the curse and wrath of God, and from eternal death, a few,\nwho would otherwise perish, but leaves the world in its destruction, to\nwhich it has been destined. At the same time, though Christ introduces\nhimself in his mediatorial capacity, yet he claims to himself the right\nof election, in common with the Father. \u201cI speak not of all,\u201d he says;\n\u201cI know whom I have chosen.\u201d[481] If it be inquired whence he chose\nthem, he elsewhere answers, \u201cout of the world,\u201d[482] which he excludes\nfrom his prayers, when he commends his disciples to the Father. It must\nbe admitted, that when Christ asserts his knowledge of whom he has\nchosen, it refers to a particular class of mankind, and that they are\ndistinguished, not by the nature of their virtues, but by the decree of\nHeaven. Whence it follows, that none attain any excellence by their own\nability or industry, since Christ represents himself as the author of\nelection. His enumeration of Judas among the elect, though he was a\ndevil, only refers to the apostolical office, which, though an\nillustrious instance of the Divine favour, as Paul so frequently\nacknowledges in his own person, yet does not include the hope of eternal\nsalvation. Judas, therefore, in his unfaithful exercise of the\napostleship, might be worse than a devil; but of those whom Christ has\nonce united to his body, he will never suffer one to perish; for in\nsecuring their salvation, he will perform what he has promised, by\nexerting the power of God, who is greater than all. What he says in\nanother place, \u201cThose that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them\nis lost, but the son of perdition,\u201d is a mode of expression, called\n_catachresis_, but the sense is sufficiently plain. The conclusion is,\nthat God creates whom he chooses to be his children by gratuitous\nadoption; that the cause of this is wholly in himself; because he\nexclusively regards his own secret determination.\n\nVIII. But, it will be said, Ambrose, Origen, and Jerome believed that\nGod dispenses his grace among men, according to his foreknowledge of the\ngood use which every individual will make of it. Augustine also was once\nof the same sentiment; but when he had made a greater proficiency in\nscriptural knowledge, he not only retracted, but powerfully confuted it.\nAnd after his retractation, rebuking the Pelagians for persisting in\nthis error, he says, \u201cWho but must wonder that this most ingenious sense\nshould escape the apostle? For after proposing what was calculated to\nexcite astonishment respecting those children yet unborn, he started to\nhimself, by way of objection, the following question: What, then, is\nthere unrighteousness with God? It was the place for him to answer, that\nGod foresaw the merits of each of them; yet he says nothing of this, but\nresorts to the decrees and mercy of God.\u201d And in another place, after\nhaving discarded all merits antecedent to election, he says, \u201cHere\nundoubtedly falls to the ground the vain reasoning of those who defend\nthe foreknowledge of God in opposition to his grace, and affirm that we\nwere elected before the foundation of the world, because God foreknew\nthat we would be good, not that he himself would make us good. This is\nnot the language of him who says, \u2018Ye have not chosen me, but I have\nchosen you.\u2019[483] For if he elected us because he foreknew our future\ngood, he must also have foreknown our choice of him;\u201d and more to the\nlike purpose. This testimony should have weight with those who readily\nacquiesce in the authority of the fathers. Though Augustine will not\nallow himself to be disunited from the rest, but shows by clear\ntestimonies the falsehood of that discordance, with the odium of which\nhe was loaded by the Pelagians, he makes the following quotations from\nAmbrose\u2019s book on predestination: \u201cWhom Christ has mercy on, him he\ncalls. Those who were indevout he could, if he would, have made devout.\nBut God calls whom he pleases, and makes whom he will religious.\u201d If I\nwere inclined to compile a whole volume from Augustine, I could easily\nshow my readers, that I need no words but his; but I am unwilling to\nburden them with prolixity. But come, let us suppose them to be silent;\nlet us attend to the subject itself. A difficult question was\nraised\u2014Whether it was a just procedure in God to favour with his grace\ncertain particular persons. This Paul could have decided by a single\nword, if he had pleaded the consideration of works. Why, then, does he\nnot do this, but rather continue his discourse involved in the same\ndifficulty? Why, but from necessity? for the Holy Spirit, who spoke by\nhis mouth, never laboured under the malady of forgetfulness. Without any\nevasion or circumlocution, therefore, he answers, that God favours his\nelect because he will, and has mercy because he will. For this oracle,\n\u201cI will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on\nwhom I will show mercy,\u201d[484] is equivalent to a declaration, that God\nis excited to mercy by no other motive than his own will to be merciful.\nThe observation of Augustine therefore remains true, \u201cthat the grace of\nGod does not find men fit to be elected, but makes them so.\u201d\n\nIX. We shall not dwell upon the sophistry of Thomas Aquinas, \u201cthat the\nforeknowledge of merits is not the cause of predestination in regard to\nthe act of him who predestinates; but that with regard to us, it may in\nsome sense be so called, according to the particular consideration of\npredestination; as when God is said to predestinate glory for man\naccording to merits, because he decreed to give him grace by which glory\nis merited.\u201d For since the Lord allows us to contemplate nothing in\nelection but his mere goodness, the desire of any one to see any thing\nmore is a preposterous disposition. But if we were inclined to a\ncontention of subtilty, we should be at no loss to refute this petty\nsophism of Aquinas. He contends that glory is in a certain sense\npredestinated for the elect according to their merits, because God\npredestinates to them the grace by which glory is merited. What if I, on\nthe contrary, reply, that predestination to grace is subordinate to\nelection to life, and attendant upon it? that grace is predestinated to\nthose to whom the possession of glory has been already assigned; because\nit pleases the Lord to conduct his children from election to\njustification? For hence it will follow, that predestination to glory is\nrather the cause of predestination to grace, than the contrary. But let\nus dismiss these controversies; they are unnecessary with those who\nthink they have wisdom enough in the word of God. For it was truly\nremarked by an ancient ecclesiastical writer, That they who ascribe\nGod\u2019s election to merits, are wiser than they ought to be.\n\nX. It is objected by some, that God will be inconsistent with himself,\nif he invites all men universally to come to him, and receives only a\nfew elect. Thus, according to them, the universality of the promises\ndestroys the discrimination of special grace; and this is the language\nof some moderate men, not so much for the sake of suppressing the truth,\nas to exclude thorny questions, and restrain the curiosity of many. The\nend is laudable, but the means cannot be approved; for disingenuous\nevasion can never be excused; but with those who use insult and\ninvective, it is a foul cavil or a shameful error. How the Scripture\nreconciles these two facts, that by external preaching all are called to\nrepentance and faith, and yet that the spirit of repentance and faith is\nnot given to all, I have elsewhere stated, and shall soon have occasion\npartly to repeat. What they assume, I deny, as being false in two\nrespects. For he who threatens drought to one city while it rains upon\nanother, and who denounces to another place a famine of doctrine,[485]\nlays himself under no positive obligation to call all men alike. And he\nwho, forbidding Paul to preach the word in Asia, and suffering him not\nto go into Bithynia, calls him into Macedonia,[486] demonstrates his\nright to distribute this treasure to whom he pleases. In Isaiah, he\nstill more fully declares his destination of the promises of salvation\nexclusively for the elect; for of them only, and not indiscriminately of\nall mankind, he declares that they shall be his disciples.[487] Whence\nit appears, that when the doctrine of salvation is offered to all for\ntheir effectual benefit, it is a corrupt prostitution of that which is\ndeclared to be reserved particularly for the children of the church. At\npresent let this suffice, that though the voice of the gospel addresses\nall men generally, yet the gift of faith is bestowed on few. Isaiah\nassigns the cause, that \u201cthe arm of the Lord\u201d is not \u201crevealed\u201d to\nall.[488] If he had said, that the gospel is wickedly and perversely\ndespised, because many obstinately refuse to hear it, perhaps there\nwould be some colour for this notion of the universal call. The design\nof the prophet is not to extenuate the guilt of men, when he states that\nthe source of blindness is God\u2019s not deigning to reveal his arm to them;\nhe only suggests that their ears are in vain assailed with external\ndoctrine, because faith is a peculiar gift. I would wish to be informed\nby these teachers, whether men become children of God by mere preaching,\nor by faith. Surely, when John declares that all who believe in God\u2019s\nonly begotten Son, are themselves made the children of God,[489] this is\nnot said of all the hearers of the word in a confused mass, but a\nparticular rank is assigned to believers, \u201cwhich were born, not of\nblood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of\nGod.\u201d[490] But they say, there is a mutual agreement between faith and\nthe word. This is the case wherever there is any faith; but it is no new\nthing for the seed to fall among thorns or in stony places; not only\nbecause most men are evidently in actual rebellion against God, but\nbecause they are not all endued with eyes and ears. Where, then, will be\nthe consistency of God\u2019s calling to himself such as he knows will never\ncome? Let Augustine answer for me: \u201cDo you wish to dispute with me?\nRather unite with me in admiration, and exclaim, O the depth! Let us\nboth agree in fear, lest we perish in error.\u201d Besides, if election is,\nas Paul represents it, the parent of faith, I retort that argument upon\nthem, that faith cannot be general, because election is special. For\nfrom the connection of causes and effects, it is easily inferred, when\nPaul says, \u201cGod hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings, according\nas he hath chosen us before the foundation of the world;\u201d that therefore\nthese treasures are not common to all, because God has chosen only such\nas he pleased. This is the reason why, in another place, he commends\n\u201cthe faith of God\u2019s elect;\u201d[491] that none may be supposed to acquire\nfaith by any exertion of their own, but that God may retain the glory of\nfreely illuminating the objects of his previous election. For Bernard\njustly observes, \u201cFriends hear each one for himself when he addresses\nthem, \u2018Fear not, little flock, for to you it is given to know the\nmystery of the kingdom of heaven.\u2019 Who are these? Certainly those whom\nhe has foreknown and predestinated to be conformed to the image of his\nSon. The great and secret counsel has been revealed. The Lord knows who\nare his, but what was known to God is manifested to men. Nor does he\nfavour any others with the participation of so great a mystery, but\nthose particular individuals whom he foreknew, and predestinated to be\nhis own.\u201d A little after he concludes, \u201cThe mercy of God is from\neverlasting to everlasting upon them that fear him; from everlasting in\npredestination, to everlasting in beatification; the one knowing no\nbeginning; the other, no end.\u201d But what necessity is there for citing\nthe testimony of Bernard, since we hear from the Master\u2019s own mouth,\nthat \u201cno man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God,\u201d[492] which\nimplies, that all who are not regenerated by God, are stupefied with the\nsplendour of his countenance. Faith, indeed, is properly connected with\nelection, provided it occupies the second place. This order is clearly\nexpressed in these words of Christ: \u201cThis is the Father\u2019s will, that of\nall which he hath given me, I should lose nothing. And this is the will\nof him that sent me, that every one which believeth on the Son, may have\neverlasting life.\u201d[493] If he willed the salvation of all, he would give\nthem all into the custody of his Son, and unite them all to his body by\nthe sacred bond of faith. Now, it is evident, that faith is the peculiar\npledge of his paternal love, reserved for his adopted children.\nTherefore Christ says in another place, \u201cThe sheep follow the shepherd,\nfor they know his voice; and a stranger will they not follow, for they\nknow not the voice of strangers.\u201d[494] Whence arises this difference,\nbut because their ears are divinely penetrated? For no man makes himself\na sheep, but is created such by heavenly grace. Hence also the Lord\nproves the perpetual certainty and security of our salvation, because it\nis kept by the invincible power of God.[495] Therefore he concludes that\nunbelievers are not his sheep, because they are not of the number of\nthose whom God by Isaiah promised to him for his future disciples.[496]\nMoreover, the testimonies I have cited, being expressive of\nperseverance, are so many declarations of the invariable perpetuity of\nelection.\n\nXI. Now, with respect to the reprobate, whom the apostle introduces in\nthe same place; as Jacob, without any merit yet acquired by good works,\nis made an object of grace, so Esau, while yet unpolluted by any crime,\nis accounted an object of hatred.[497] If we turn our attention to\nworks, we insult the apostle, as though he saw not that which is clear\nto us. Now, that he saw none, is evident, because he expressly asserts\nthe one to have been elected and the other rejected while they had not\ndone any good or evil; in order to prove the foundation of Divine\npredestination not to be in works.[498] Secondly, when he raises the\nobjection whether God is unjust, he never urges, what would have been\nthe most absolute and obvious defence of his justice, that God rewarded\nEsau according to his wickedness; but contents himself with a different\nsolution, that the reprobate are raised up for this purpose, that the\nglory of God may be displayed by their means. Lastly, he subjoins a\nconcluding observation, that \u201cGod hath mercy on whom he will have mercy,\nand whom he will he hardeneth.\u201d[499] You see how he attributes both to\nthe mere will of God. If, therefore, we can assign no reason why he\ngrants mercy to his people but because such is his pleasure, neither\nshall we find any other cause but his will for the reprobation of\nothers. For when God is said to harden or show mercy to whom he pleases,\nmen are taught by this declaration to seek no cause beside his will.\n\nFootnote 463:\n\n  Ephes. i. 4.\n\nFootnote 464:\n\n  Col. i. 12.\n\nFootnote 465:\n\n  Ephes. i. 4, 5.\n\nFootnote 466:\n\n  2 Tim. i. 9.\n\nFootnote 467:\n\n  Ephes. i. 9.\n\nFootnote 468:\n\n  John xv. 16.\n\nFootnote 469:\n\n  Rom. xi. 35.\n\nFootnote 470:\n\n  Rom. ix. 6.\n\nFootnote 471:\n\n  Rom. ix. 11-13.\n\nFootnote 472:\n\n  Rom. ix. 15.\n\nFootnote 473:\n\n  Rom. xi. 2.\n\nFootnote 474:\n\n  Acts ii. 23.\n\nFootnote 475:\n\n  1 Pet. i. 2.\n\nFootnote 476:\n\n  Rom. xi. 2.\n\nFootnote 477:\n\n  2 Tim. ii. 19.\n\nFootnote 478:\n\n  John vi. 37, 39.\n\nFootnote 479:\n\n  John vi. 44, 45.\n\nFootnote 480:\n\n  John xvii. 9.\n\nFootnote 481:\n\n  John xiii. 18.\n\nFootnote 482:\n\n  John xv. 19.\n\nFootnote 483:\n\n  John xv. 16.\n\nFootnote 484:\n\n  Exod. xxxiii. 19.\n\nFootnote 485:\n\n  Amos iv. 7; viii. 11.\n\nFootnote 486:\n\n  Acts xvi. 6-10.\n\nFootnote 487:\n\n  Isaiah viii. 16, &c.\n\nFootnote 488:\n\n  Isaiah liii. 1.\n\nFootnote 489:\n\n  John i. 12.\n\nFootnote 490:\n\n  John i. 13.\n\nFootnote 491:\n\n  Titus i. 1.\n\nFootnote 492:\n\n  John vi. 46.\n\nFootnote 493:\n\n  John vi. 39, 40.\n\nFootnote 494:\n\n  John x. 4, 5.\n\nFootnote 495:\n\n  John x. 29.\n\nFootnote 496:\n\n  John x. 26.\n\nFootnote 497:\n\n  Rom. ix. 13.\n\nFootnote 498:\n\n  Rom. ix. 11.\n\nFootnote 499:\n\n  Rom. ix. 18.\n\n\n\n\n                             CHAPTER XXIII.\n  A REFUTATION OF THE CALUMNIES GENERALLY, BUT UNJUSTLY, URGED AGAINST\n                             THIS DOCTRINE.\n\n\nWhen the human mind hears these things, its petulance breaks all\nrestraint, and it discovers as serious and violent agitation as if\nalarmed by the sound of a martial trumpet. Many, indeed, as if they\nwished to avert odium from God, admit election in such a way as to deny\nthat any one is reprobated. But this is puerile and absurd, because\nelection itself could not exist without being opposed to reprobation.\nGod is said to separate those whom he adopts to salvation. To say that\nothers obtain by chance, or acquire by their own efforts, that which\nelection alone confers on a few, will be worse than absurd. Whom God\npasses by, therefore, he reprobates, and from no other cause than his\ndetermination to exclude them from the inheritance which he predestines\nfor his children. And the petulance of men is intolerable, if it refuses\nto be restrained by the word of God, which treats of his\nincomprehensible counsel, adored by angels themselves. But now we have\nheard that hardening proceeds from the Divine power and will, as much as\nmercy. Unlike the persons I have mentioned, Paul never strives to excuse\nGod by false allegations; he only declares that it is unlawful for a\nthing formed to quarrel with its maker.[500] Now, how will those, who\nadmit not that any are reprobated by God, evade this declaration of\nChrist: \u201cEvery plant which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be\nrooted up?\u201d[501] Upon all whom our heavenly Father has not deigned to\nplant as sacred trees in his garden, they hear destruction plainly\ndenounced. If they deny this to be a sign of reprobation, there is\nnothing so clear as to be capable of proof to such persons. But if they\ncease not their clamour, let the sobriety of faith be satisfied with\nthis admonition of Paul, that there is no cause for quarrelling with\nGod, if, on the one hand, willing to show his wrath, and to make his\npower known, he endures, \u201cwith much long-suffering, the vessels of wrath\nfitted to destruction;\u201d and on the other, makes \u201cknown the riches of his\nglory on the vessels of mercy, whom he had afore prepared unto\nglory.\u201d[502] Let the reader observe that, to preclude every pretext for\nmurmurs and censures, Paul ascribes supreme dominion to the wrath and\npower of God; because it is unreasonable for those deep judgments, which\nabsorb all our faculties, to be called in question by us. It is a\nfrivolous reply of our adversaries, that God does not wholly reject the\nobjects of his long-suffering, but remains in suspense towards them,\nawaiting the possibility of their repentance; as though Paul attributed\npatience to God, in expectation of the conversion of those whom he\nasserts to be fitted to destruction. For Augustine, in expounding this\npassage, where power is connected with patience, justly observes, that\nGod\u2019s power is not permissive, but influential. They observe, also, that\nit is not said without meaning, that the vessels of wrath are fitted to\ndestruction, but that God prepared the vessels of mercy; since by this\nmode of expression, he ascribes and challenges to God the praise of\nsalvation, and throws the blame of perdition upon those who by their\nchoice procure it to themselves. But though I concede to them, that Paul\nsoftens the asperity of the former clause by the difference of\nphraseology, yet it is not at all consistent to transfer the preparation\nfor destruction to any other than the secret counsel of God; which is\nalso asserted just before in the context, that \u201cGod raised up Pharaoh,\nand whom he will he hardeneth.\u201d Whence it follows, that the cause of\nhardening is the secret counsel of God. This, however, I maintain, which\nis observed by Augustine that when God turns wolves into sheep, he\nrenovates them by more powerful grace to conquer their obduracy; and\ntherefore the obstinate are not converted, because God exerts not that\nmightier grace, of which he is not destitute, if he chose to display it.\n\nII. These things will amply suffice for persons of piety and modesty,\nwho remember that they are men. But as these virulent adversaries are\nnot content with one species of opposition, we will reply to them all as\noccasion shall require. Foolish mortals enter into many contentions with\nGod, as though they could arraign him to plead to their accusations. In\nthe first place they inquire, by what right the Lord is angry with his\ncreatures who had not provoked him by any previous offence; for that to\ndevote to destruction whom he pleases, is more like the caprice of a\ntyrant than the lawful sentence of a judge; that men have reason,\ntherefore, to expostulate with God, if they are predestinated to eternal\ndeath without any demerit of their own, merely by his sovereign will. If\nsuch thoughts ever enter the minds of pious men, they will be\nsufficiently enabled to break their violence by this one consideration,\nhow exceedingly presumptuous it is only to inquire into the causes of\nthe Divine will; which is in fact, and is justly entitled to be, the\ncause of every thing that exists. For if it has any cause, then there\nmust be something antecedent, on which it depends; which it is impious\nto suppose. For the will of God is the highest rule of justice; so that\nwhat he wills must be considered just, for this very reason, because he\nwills it. When it is inquired, therefore, why the Lord did so, the\nanswer must be, Because he would. But if you go further, and ask why he\nso determined, you are in search of something greater and higher than\nthe will of God, which can never be found. Let human temerity,\ntherefore, desist from seeking that which is not, lest it should fail of\nfinding that which is. This will be a sufficient restraint to any one\ndisposed to reason with reverence concerning the secrets of his God.\nAgainst the audaciousness of the impious, who are not afraid openly to\nrail against God, the Lord will sufficiently defend himself by his own\njustice, without any vindication by us, when, depriving their\nconsciences of every subterfuge, he shall convict them and bind them\nwith a sense of their guilt. Yet we espouse not the notion of the Romish\ntheologians concerning the absolute and arbitrary power of God, which,\non account of its profaneness, deserves our detestation. We represent\nnot God as lawless, who is a law to himself; because, as Plato says,\nlaws are necessary to men, who are the subjects of evil desires; but the\nwill of God is not only pure from every fault, but the highest standard\nof perfection, even the law of all laws. But we deny that he is liable\nto be called to any account; we deny also that we are proper judges, to\ndecide on this cause according to our own apprehension. Wherefore, if we\nattempt to go beyond what is lawful, let us be deterred by the Psalmist,\nwho tells us, that God will be clear when he is judged by mortal\nman.[503]\n\nIII. Thus God is able to check his enemies by silence. But that we may\nnot suffer them to deride his holy name with impunity, he supplies us\nfrom his word with arms against them. Therefore, if any one attack us\nwith such an inquiry as this, why God has from the beginning\npredestinated some men to death, who, not yet being brought into\nexistence, could not yet deserve the sentence of death,\u2014we will reply by\nasking them, in return, what they suppose God owes to man, if he chooses\nto judge of him from his own nature. As we are all corrupted by sin, we\nmust necessarily be odious to God, and that not from tyrannical cruelty,\nbut in the most equitable estimation of justice. If all whom the Lord\npredestinates to death are in their natural condition liable to the\nsentence of death, what injustice do they complain of receiving from\nhim? Let all the sons of Adam come forward; let them all contend and\ndispute with their Creator, because by his eternal providence they were\npreviously to their birth adjudged to endless misery. What murmur will\nthey be able to raise against this vindication, when God, on the other\nhand, shall call them to a review of themselves. If they have all been\ntaken from a corrupt mass, it is no wonder that they are subject to\ncondemnation. Let them not, therefore, accuse God of injustice, if his\neternal decree has destined them to death, to which they feel\nthemselves, whatever be their desire or aversion, spontaneously led\nforward by their own nature. Hence appears the perverseness of their\ndisposition to murmur, because they intentionally suppress the cause of\ncondemnation, which they are constrained to acknowledge in themselves,\nhoping to excuse themselves by charging it upon God. But though I ever\nso often admit God to be the author of it, which is perfectly correct,\nyet this does not abolish the guilt impressed upon their consciences,\nand from time to time recurring to their view.\n\nIV. They further object, Were they not, by the decree of God,\nantecedently predestinated to that corruption which is now stated as the\ncause of condemnation? When they perish in their corruption, therefore,\nthey only suffer the punishment of that misery into which, in\nconsequence of his predestination, Adam fell, and precipitated his\nposterity with him. Is he not unjust, therefore, in treating his\ncreatures with such cruel mockery? I confess, indeed, that all the\ndescendants of Adam fell by the Divine will into that miserable\ncondition in which they are now involved; and this is what I asserted\nfrom the beginning, that we must always return at last to the sovereign\ndetermination of God\u2019s will, the cause of which is hidden in himself.\nBut it follows not, therefore, that God is liable to this reproach. For\nwe will answer them thus in the language of Paul: \u201cO man, who art thou\nthat repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed\nit, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay,\nof the same lump, to make one vessel unto honour and another unto\ndishonour?\u201d[504] They will deny this to be in reality any vindication of\nGod\u2019s justice, and call it a subterfuge, such as is commonly resorted to\nby persons destitute of a sufficient defence. For what appears to be the\nmeaning of this, but that God possesses power, that cannot be resisted,\nof doing any thing whatsoever according to his pleasure? But it is very\ndifferent. For what stronger reason can be alleged, than when we are\ndirected to consider who God is? How could any injustice be committed by\nhim who is the Judge of the world? If it is the peculiar property of the\nnature of God to do justice, then he naturally loves righteousness and\nhates iniquity. The apostle, therefore, has not resorted to sophistry,\nas if he were in danger of confutation, but has shown that the reason of\nthe Divine justice is too high to be measured by a human standard, or\ncomprehended by the littleness of the human mind. The apostle, indeed,\nacknowledges that there is a depth in the Divine judgments sufficient to\nabsorb the minds of all mankind, if they attempt to penetrate it. But he\nalso teaches how criminal it is to reduce the works of God to such a\nlaw, that on failing to discover the reason of them, we presume to\ncensure them. It is a well known observation of Solomon, though few\nrightly understand it, that \u201cthe great God, that formed all things, both\nrewardeth the fool, and rewardeth transgressors.\u201d[505] For he is\nproclaiming the greatness of God, whose will it is to punish fools and\ntransgressors, although he favours them not with his Spirit. And men\nbetray astonishing madness in desiring to comprehend immensity within\nthe limits of their reason. The angels who stood in their integrity,\nPaul calls \u201celect;\u201d[506] if their constancy rested on the Divine\npleasure, the defection of the others argues their being forsaken\u2014a fact\nfor which no other cause can be assigned than the reprobation hidden in\nthe secret counsel of God.\n\nV. Now, to any follower of Manes or Celestius, a calumniator of Divine\nProvidence, I reply with Paul, that no account ought to be given of it,\nfor its greatness far surpasses our understanding. What wonder or\nabsurdity is there in this? Would he have the Divine power so limited,\nas to be unable to execute more than his little capacity can comprehend?\nI say, with Augustine, that the Lord created those who, he certainly\nforeknew, would fall into destruction, and that this was actually so\nbecause he willed it; but of his will it belongs not to us to demand the\nreason, which we are incapable of comprehending; nor is it reasonable\nthat the Divine will should be made the subject of controversy with us,\nwhich, whenever it is discussed, is only another name for the highest\nrule of justice. Why, then, is any question started concerning\ninjustice, where justice is evidently conspicuous? Nor let us be ashamed\nto follow the example of Paul, and stop the mouths of unreasonable and\nwicked men in this manner, repeating the same answer as often as they\nshall dare to repeat their complaints. Who are you, miserable mortals,\npreferring an accusation against God, because he accommodates not the\ngreatness of his works to your ignorance? as though they were\nnecessarily wrong, because they are concealed from carnal view. Of the\nimmensity of God\u2019s judgments you have the clearest evidences. You know\nthey are called \u201ca great deep.\u201d Now, examine your contracted intellects,\nwhether they can comprehend God\u2019s secret decrees. What advantage or\nsatisfaction do you gain from plunging yourselves, by your mad\nresearches, into an abyss that reason itself pronounces will be fatal to\nyou? Why are you not at least restrained by some fear of what is\ncontained in the history of Job and the books of the prophets,\nconcerning the inconceivable wisdom and terrible power of God? If your\nmind is disturbed, embrace without reluctance the advice of Augustine:\n\u201cYou, a man, expect an answer from me, who am also a man. Let us,\ntherefore, both hear him, who says, O man, who art thou? Faithful\nignorance is better than presumptuous knowledge. Seek merits; you will\nfind nothing but punishment. O the depth! Peter denies; the thief\nbelieves; O the depth! Do you seek a reason? I will tremble at the\ndepth. Do you reason? I will wonder. Do you dispute? I will believe. I\nsee the depth, I reach not the bottom. Paul rested, because he found\nadmiration. He calls the judgments of God unsearchable; and are you come\nto scrutinize them? He says, his ways are past finding out; and are you\ncome to investigate them?\u201d We shall do no good by proceeding any\nfurther; it will not satisfy their petulance; and the Lord needs no\nother defence than what he has employed by his Spirit, speaking by the\nmouth of Paul; and we forget to speak well when we cease to speak with\nGod.\n\nVI. Impiety produces also a second objection, which directly tends, not\nso much to the crimination of God, as to the vindication of the sinner;\nthough the sinner whom God condemns cannot be justified without the\ndisgrace of the Judge. For this is their profane complaint, Why should\nGod impute as a fault to man those things which were rendered necessary\nby his predestination? What should they do? Should they resist his\ndecrees? This would be vain, for it would be impossible. Therefore they\nare not justly punished for those things of which God\u2019s predestination\nis the principal cause. Here I shall refrain from the defence commonly\nresorted to by ecclesiastical writers, that the foreknowledge of God\nprevents not man from being considered as a sinner, since God foresees\nman\u2019s evils, not his own. For then the cavil would not stop here; it\nwould rather be urged, that still God might, if he would, have provided\nagainst the evils he foresaw, and that not having done this, he created\nman expressly to this end, that he might so conduct himself in the\nworld; but if, by the Divine Providence, man was created in such a state\nas afterwards to do whatever he actually does, he ought not to be\ncharged with guilt for things which he cannot avoid, and to which the\nwill of God constrains him. Let us see, then, how this difficulty should\nbe solved. In the first place, the declaration of Solomon ought to be\nuniversally admitted, that \u201cthe Lord hath made all things for himself;\nyea, even the wicked for the day of evil.\u201d[507] Observe; all things\nbeing at God\u2019s disposal, and the decision of salvation or death\nbelonging to him, he orders all things by his counsel and decree in such\na manner, that some men are born devoted from the womb to certain death,\nthat his name may be glorified in their destruction. If any one pleads,\nthat no necessity was imposed on them by the providence of God, but\nrather that they were created by him in such a state in consequence of\nhis foresight of their future depravity,\u2014it will amount to nothing. The\nold writers used, indeed, to adopt this solution, though not without\nsome degree of hesitation. But the schoolmen satisfy themselves with it,\nas though it admitted of no opposition. I will readily grant, indeed,\nthat mere foreknowledge lays no necessity on the creatures, though this\nis not universally admitted; for there are some who maintain it to be\nthe actual cause of what comes to pass. But Valla, a man otherwise not\nmuch versed in theology, appears to me to have discovered superior\nacuteness and judiciousness, by showing that this controversy is\nunnecessary, because both life and death are acts of God\u2019s will, rather\nthan of his foreknowledge. If God simply foresaw the fates of men, and\ndid not also dispose and fix them by his determination, there would be\nroom to agitate the question, whether his providence or foresight\nrendered them at all necessary. But since he foresees future events only\nin consequence of his decree, that they shall happen, it is useless to\ncontend about foreknowledge, while it is evident that all things come to\npass rather by ordination and decree.\n\nVII. They say it is nowhere declared in express terms, that God decreed\nAdam should perish by his defection; as though the same God, whom the\nScripture represents as doing whatever he pleases, created the noblest\nof his creatures without any determinate end. They maintain, that he was\npossessed of free choice, that he might be the author of his own fate,\nbut that God decreed nothing more than to treat him according to his\ndesert. If so weak a scheme as this be received, what will become of\nGod\u2019s omnipotence, by which he governs all things according to his\nsecret counsel, independently of every person or thing besides? But\nwhether they wish it or dread it, predestination exhibits itself in\nAdam\u2019s posterity. For the loss of salvation by the whole race through\nthe guilt of one parent, was an event that did not happen by nature.\nWhat prevents their acknowledging concerning one man, what they\nreluctantly grant concerning the whole species? Why should they lose\ntheir labour in sophistical evasions? The Scripture proclaims, that all\nmen were, in the person of their father, sentenced to eternal death.\nThis, not being attributable to nature, it is evident must have\nproceeded from the wonderful counsel of God. The perplexity and\nhesitation discovered at trifles by these pious defenders of the justice\nof God, and their facility in overcoming great difficulties, are truly\nabsurd. I inquire again, how it came to pass that the fall of Adam,\nindependent of any remedy, should involve so many nations with their\ninfant children in eternal death, but because such was the will of God.\nTheir tongues, so loquacious on every other point, must here be struck\ndumb. It is an awful decree, I confess; but no one can deny that God\nforeknew the future final fate of man before he created him, and that he\ndid foreknow it because it was appointed by his own decree. If any one\nhere attacks God\u2019s foreknowledge, he rashly and inconsiderately\nstumbles. For what ground of accusation is there against the heavenly\nJudge for not being ignorant of futurity? If there is any just or\nplausible complaint, it lies against predestination. Nor should it be\nthought absurd to affirm, that God not only foresaw the fall of the\nfirst man, and the ruin of his posterity in him, but also arranged all\nby the determination of his own will. For as it belongs to his wisdom to\nforeknow every thing future, so it belongs to his power to rule and\ngovern all things by his hand. And this question also, as well as\nothers, is judiciously discussed by Augustine. \u201cWe most wholesomely\nconfess, what we most rightly believe, that the God and Lord of all\nthings, who created every thing very good, and foreknew that evil would\narise out of good, and knew that it was more suitable to his almighty\ngoodness to bring good out of evil than not to suffer evil to exist,\nordained the life of angels and men in such a manner as to exhibit in\nit, first, what free-will was capable of doing, and afterwards, what\ncould be effected by the blessings of his grace, and the sentence of his\njustice.\u201d\n\nVIII. Here they recur to the distinction between will and permission,\nand insist that God permits the destruction of the impious, but does not\nwill it. But what reason shall we assign for his permitting it, but\nbecause it is his will? It is not probable, however, that man procured\nhis own destruction by the mere permission, and without any appointment,\nof God; as though God had not determined what he would choose to be the\ncondition of the principal of his creatures. I shall not hesitate,\ntherefore, to confess plainly with Augustine, \u201cthat the will of God is\nthe necessity of things, and that what he has willed will necessarily\ncome to pass; as those things are really about to happen which he has\nforeseen.\u201d Now, if either Pelagians, or Manich\u00e6ans, or Anabaptists, or\nEpicureans, (for we are concerned with these four sects on this\nargument,) in excuse for themselves and the impious, plead the necessity\nwith which they are bound by God\u2019s predestination,\u2014they allege nothing\napplicable to the case. For if predestination is no other than a\ndispensation of Divine justice,\u2014mysterious indeed, but liable to no\nblame,\u2014since it is certain they were not unworthy of being predestinated\nto that fate, it is equally certain, that the destruction they incur by\npredestination is consistent with the strictest justice. Besides, their\nperdition depends on the Divine predestination in such a manner, that\nthe cause and matter of it are found in themselves. For the first man\nfell because the Lord had determined it was so expedient. The reason of\nthis determination is unknown to us. Yet it is certain that he\ndetermined thus, only because he foresaw it would tend to the just\nillustration of the glory of his name. Whenever you hear the glory of\nGod mentioned, think of his justice. For what deserves praise must be\njust. Man falls, therefore, according to the appointment of Divine\nProvidence; but he falls by his own fault. The Lord had a little before\npronounced \u201cevery thing that he had made\u201d to be \u201cvery good.\u201d Whence,\nthen, comes the depravity of man to revolt from his God? Lest it should\nbe thought to come from creation, God had approved and commended what\nhad proceeded from himself. By his own wickedness, therefore, he\ncorrupted the nature he had received pure from the Lord, and by his fall\nhe drew all his posterity with him into destruction. Wherefore let us\nrather contemplate the evident cause of condemnation, which is nearer to\nus in the corrupt nature of mankind, than search after a hidden and\naltogether incomprehensible one in the predestination of God. And we\nshould feel no reluctance to submit our understanding to the infinite\nwisdom of God, so far as to acquiesce in its many mysteries. To be\nignorant of things which it is neither possible nor lawful to know, is\nto be learned: an eagerness to know them, is a species of madness.\n\nIX. Some one perhaps will say, that I have not yet adduced a sufficient\nanswer to that sacrilegious excuse. I confess it is impossible ever\nwholly to prevent the petulance and murmurs of impiety; yet I think I\nhave said what should suffice to remove not only all just ground, but\nevery plausible pretext, for objection. The reprobate wish to be thought\nexcusable in sinning, because they cannot avoid a necessity of sinning;\nespecially since this necessity is laid upon them by the ordination of\nGod. But we deny this to be a just excuse; because the ordination of\nGod, by which they complain that they are destined to destruction, is\nguided by equity, unknown indeed to us, but indubitably certain. Whence\nwe conclude, that they sustain no misery that is not inflicted upon them\nby the most righteous judgment of God. In the next place, we maintain\nthat they act preposterously, who, in seeking for the origin of their\ncondemnation, direct their views to the secret recesses of the Divine\ncounsel, and overlook the corruption of nature, which is its real\nsource. The testimony God gives to his creation prevents their imputing\nit to him. For though, by the eternal providence of God, man was created\nto that misery to which he is subject, yet the ground of it he has\nderived from himself, not from God; since he is thus ruined solely in\nconsequence of his having degenerated from the pure creation of God to\nvicious and impure depravity.\n\nX. The doctrine of God\u2019s predestination is calumniated by its\nadversaries, as involving a third absurdity. For when we attribute it\nsolely to the determination of the Divine will, that those whom God\nadmits to be heirs of his kingdom are exempted from the universal\ndestruction, from this they infer, that he is a respecter of persons,\nwhich the Scripture uniformly denies; that, therefore, either the\nScripture is inconsistent with itself, or in the election of God regard\nis had to merits. In the first place, the Scripture denies that God is a\nrespecter of persons, in a different sense from that in which they\nunderstand it; for by the word _person_, it signifies not a man, but\nthose things in a man, which, being conspicuous to the eyes, usually\nconciliate favour, honour, and dignity, or attract hatred, contempt, and\ndisgrace. Such are riches, wealth, power, nobility, magistracy, country,\nelegance of form, on the one hand; and on the other hand, poverty,\nnecessity, ignoble birth, slovenliness, contempt, and the like. Thus\nPeter and Paul declare that God is not a respecter of persons, because\nhe makes no difference between the Jew and Greek, to reject one and\nreceive the other, merely on account of his nation.[508] So James uses\nthe same language when he means to assert, that God in his judgment pays\nno regard to riches.[509] And Paul, in another place, declares, that in\njudging, God has no respect to liberty or bondage.[510] There will,\ntherefore, be no contradiction in our affirming, that according to the\ngood pleasure of his will, God chooses whom he will as his children,\nirrespective of all merit, while he rejects and reprobates others. Yet,\nfor the sake of further satisfaction, the matter may be explained in the\nfollowing manner: They ask how it happens, that of two persons\ndistinguished from each other by no merit, God, in his election, leaves\none and takes another. I, on the other hand, ask them, whether they\nsuppose him that is taken to possess any thing that can attract the\nfavour of God. If they confess that he has not, as indeed they must, it\nwill follow, that God looks not at man, but derives his motive to favour\nhim from his own goodness. God\u2019s election of one man, therefore, while\nhe rejects another, proceeds not from any respect of man, but solely\nfrom his own mercy; which may freely display and exert itself wherever\nand whenever it pleases. For we have elsewhere seen also that, from the\nbeginning, not many noble, or wise, or honourable were called,[511] that\nGod might humble the pride of flesh; so far is his favour from being\nconfined to persons.\n\nXI. Wherefore some people falsely and wickedly charge God with a\nviolation of equal justice, because, in his predestination, he observes\nnot the same uniform course of proceeding towards all. If he finds all\nguilty, they say, let him punish all alike; if innocent, let him\nwithhold the rigour of justice from all. But they deal with him just as\nif either mercy were forbidden him, or, when he chooses to show mercy,\nhe were constrained wholly to renounce justice. What is it that they\nrequire? If all are guilty, that they shall all suffer the same\npunishment. We confess the guilt to be common, but we say, that some are\nrelieved by Divine mercy. They say, Let it relieve all. But we reply,\nJustice requires that he should likewise show himself to be a just judge\nin the infliction of punishment. When they object to this, what is it\nbut attempting to deprive God of the opportunity to manifest his mercy,\nor to grant it to him, at least, on the condition that he wholly abandon\nhis justice? Wherefore there is the greatest propriety in these\nobservations of Augustine: \u201cThe whole mass of mankind having fallen into\ncondemnation in the first man, the vessels that are formed from it to\nhonour, are not vessels of personal righteousness, but of Divine mercy;\nand the formation of others to dishonour, is to be attributed, not to\niniquity, but to the Divine decree,\u201d &c. While God rewards those whom he\nrejects with deserved punishment, and to those whom he calls, freely\ngives undeserved grace, he is liable to no accusation, but may be\ncompared to a creditor, who has power to release one, and enforce his\ndemands on another. The Lord, therefore, may give grace to whom he will,\nbecause he is merciful, and yet not give it to all, because he is a just\njudge; may manifest his free grace, by giving to some what they never\ndeserve, while, by not giving to all, he declares the demerit of all.\nFor when Paul says, that \u201cGod hath concluded all under sin, that he\nmight have mercy upon all,\u201d[512] it must, at the same time, be added,\nthat he is debtor to none; for no man \u201chath first given to him,\u201d to\nentitle him to demand a recompense.[513]\n\nXII. Another argument often urged to overthrow predestination is, that\nits establishment would destroy all solicitude and exertion for\nrectitude of conduct. For who can hear, they say, that either life or\ndeath is appointed for him by God\u2019s eternal and immutable decree,\nwithout immediately concluding that it is of no importance how he\nconducts himself; since no action of his can in any respect either\nimpede or promote the predestination of God? Thus all will abandon\nthemselves to despair, and run into every excess to which their\nlicentious propensities may lead them. And truly this objection is not\naltogether destitute of truth; for there are many impure persons who\nbespatter the doctrine of predestination with these vile blasphemies,\nand with this pretext elude all admonitions and reproofs: God knows what\nhe has determined to do with us: if he has decreed our salvation, he\nwill bring us to it in his own time; if he has destined us to death, it\nwill be in vain for us to strive against it. But the Scripture, while it\ninculcates superior awe and reverence of mind in the consideration of so\ngreat a mystery, instructs the godly in a very different conclusion, and\nfully refutes the wicked and unreasonable inferences of these persons.\nFor the design of what it contains respecting predestination is, not\nthat, being excited to presumption, we may attempt, with nefarious\ntemerity, to scrutinize the inaccessible secrets of God, but rather\nthat, being humbled and dejected, we may learn to tremble at his justice\nand admire his mercy. At this object believers will aim. But the impure\ncavils of the wicked are justly restrained by Paul. They profess to go\non securely in their vices; because if they are of the number of the\nelect, such conduct will not prevent their being finally brought into\nlife. But Paul declares the end of our election to be, that we may lead\na holy and blameless life.[514] If the object of election be holiness of\nlife, it should rather awaken and stimulate us to a cheerful practice of\nit, than be used as a pretext for slothfulness. But how inconsistent is\nit to cease from the practice of virtue because election is sufficient\nto salvation, while the end proposed in election is our diligent\nperformance of virtuous actions! Away, then, with such corrupt and\nsacrilegious perversions of the whole order of election. They carry\ntheir blasphemies much further, by asserting, that any one who is\nreprobated by God will labour to no purpose if he endeavour to approve\nhimself to him by innocence and integrity of life; but here they are\nconvicted of a most impudent falsehood. For whence could such exertion\noriginate but from election? Whoever are of the number of the reprobate,\nbeing vessels made to dishonour, cease not to provoke the Divine wrath\nagainst them by continual transgressions, and to confirm by evident\nproofs the judgment of God already denounced against them; so that their\nstriving with him in vain is what can never happen.\n\nXIII. This doctrine is maliciously and impudently calumniated by others,\nas subversive of all exhortations to piety of life. This formerly\nbrought great odium upon Augustine, which he removed by his Treatise on\nCorrection and Grace, addressed to Valentine, the perusal of which will\neasily satisfy all pious and teachable persons. Yet I will touch on a\nfew things, which I hope will convince such as are honest and not\ncontentious. How openly and loudly gratuitous election was preached by\nPaul, we have already seen; was he therefore cold in admonitions and\nexhortations? Let these good zealots compare his vehemence with theirs;\ntheirs will be found ice itself in comparison with his incredible\nfervour. And certainly every scruple is removed by this principle, that\n\u201cGod hath not called us to uncleanness but that every one should know\nhow to possess his vessel in sanctification and honour;\u201d[515] and again,\nthat \u201cwe are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works,\nwhich God hath before ordained, that we should walk in them.\u201d[516]\nIndeed, a slight acquaintance with Paul will enable any one to\nunderstand, without tedious arguments, how easily he reconciles things\nwhich they pretend to be repugnant to each other. Christ commands men to\nbelieve in him. Yet his limitation is neither false nor contrary to his\ncommand, when he says, \u201cNo man can come unto me, except it were given\nunto him of my Father.\u201d[517] Let preaching therefore have its course to\nbring men to faith, and by a continual progress to promote their\nperseverance. Nor let the knowledge of predestination be prevented, that\nthe obedient may not be proud as of any thing of their own, but may\nglory in the Lord. Christ had some particular meaning in saying, \u201cWho\nhath ears to hear, let him hear.\u201d[518] Therefore when we exhort and\npreach, persons endued with ears readily obey; and those who are\ndestitute of them exhibit an accomplishment of the Scripture, that\nhearing they hear not.[519] \u201cBut why (says Augustine) should some have\nears, and others not? \u2018Who hath known the mind of the Lord?\u2019[520] Must\nthat which is evident be denied, because that which is concealed cannot\nbe comprehended?\u201d These observations I have faithfully borrowed from\nAugustine; but as his words will perhaps have more authority than mine,\nI will proceed to an exact quotation of them. \u201cIf, on hearing this, some\npersons become torpid and slothful, and exchanging labour for lawless\ndesire, pursue the various objects of concupiscence, must what is\ndeclared concerning the foreknowledge of God be therefore accounted\nfalse? If God foreknew that they would be good, will they not be so, in\nwhatever wickedness they now live? and if he foreknew that they would be\nwicked, will they not be so, in whatever goodness they now appear? Are\nthese, then, sufficient causes why the truths which are declared\nconcerning the foreknowledge of God should be either denied or passed\nover in silence? especially when the consequence of silence respecting\nthese would be the adoption of other errors. The reason of concealing\nthe truth (he says) is one thing, and the necessity of declaring it is\nanother. It would be tedious to inquire after all the reasons for\npassing the truth over in silence; but this is one of them; lest those\nwho understand it not should become worse, while we wish to make those\nwho understand it better informed; who, indeed, are not made wiser by\nour declaring any such thing, nor are they rendered worse. But since the\ntruth is of such a nature, that when we speak of it, he becomes worse\nwho cannot understand it, and when we are silent about it, he who can\nunderstand it becomes worse,\u2014what do we think ought to be done? Should\nnot the truth rather be spoken, that he who is capable may understand\nit, than buried in silence; the consequence of which would be, not only\nthat neither would know it, but even the more intelligent of the two\nwould become worse, who, if he heard and understood it, would also teach\nit to many others? And we are unwilling to say what we are authorized to\nsay by the testimony of Scripture. For we are afraid, indeed, lest by\nspeaking we may offend him who cannot understand, but are not afraid\nlest in consequence of our silence, he who is capable of understanding\nthe truth may be deceived by falsehood.\u201d And condensing this sentiment\nafterwards into a smaller compass, he places it in a still stronger\nlight. \u201cWherefore, if the apostles and the succeeding teachers of the\nChurch both piously treated of God\u2019s eternal election, and held\nbelievers under the discipline of a pious life, what reason have these\nour opponents, when silenced by the invincible force of truth, to\nsuppose themselves right in maintaining that what is spoken of\npredestination, although it be true, ought not to be preached to the\npeople? But it must by all means be preached, that he who has ears to\nhear may hear. But who has them, unless he receives them from him who\nhas promised to bestow them? Certainly he who receives not may reject,\nprovided he who receives, takes and drinks, drinks and lives. For as\npiety must be preached that God may be rightly worshipped, so also must\npredestination, that he who has ears to hear of the grace of God, may\nglory in God, and not in himself.\u201d\n\nXIV. And yet, being peculiarly desirous of edification, that holy man\nregulates his mode of teaching the truth, so that offence may as far as\npossible be prudently avoided. For he suggests that whatever is asserted\nwith truth may also be delivered in a suitable manner. If any one\naddress the people in such a way as this, If you believe not, it is\nbecause you are by a Divine decree already destined to destruction,\u2014he\nnot only cherishes slothfulness, but even encourages wickedness. If any\none extend the declaration to the future, that they who hear will never\nbelieve because they are reprobated,\u2014this would be rather imprecation\nthan instruction. Such persons, therefore, as foolish teachers, or\ninauspicious, ominous prophets, Augustine charges to depart from the\nChurch. In another place, indeed, he justly maintains, \u201cthat a man then\nprofits by correction, when he, who causes whom he pleases to profit\neven without correction, compassionates and assists. But why some in one\nway, and some in another? Far be it from us to ascribe the choice to the\nclay instead of the potter.\u201d Again afterwards: \u201cWhen men are either\nintroduced or restored into the way of righteousness by correction, who\nworks salvation in their hearts, but he who gives the increase, whoever\nplants and waters? he whose determination to save is not resisted by any\nfree-will of man. It is beyond all doubt, therefore, that the will of\nGod, who has done whatever he has pleased in heaven and in earth, and\nwho has done even things that are yet future, cannot possibly be\nresisted by the will of man, so as to prevent the execution of his\npurposes: since he controls the wills of men according to his pleasure.\u201d\nAgain: \u201cWhen he designs to bring men to himself, does he bind them by\ncorporeal bonds? He acts inwardly; he inwardly seizes their hearts; he\ninwardly moves their hearts, and draws them by their wills, which he has\nwrought in them.\u201d But he immediately subjoins, what must by no means be\nomitted; \u201cthat because we know not who belongs, or does not belong, to\nthe number of the predestinated, it becomes us affectionately to desire\nthe salvation of all. The consequence will be, that whomsoever we meet\nwe shall endeavour to make him a partaker of peace. But our peace shall\nrest upon the sons of peace. On our part, therefore, salutary and severe\nreproof, like a medicine, must be administered to all, that they may\nneither perish themselves nor destroy others; but it will be the\nprovince of God to render it useful to them whom he had foreknown and\npredestinated.\u201d\n\nFootnote 500:\n\n  Rom. ix. 20.\n\nFootnote 501:\n\n  Matt. xv. 13.\n\nFootnote 502:\n\n  Rom. ix. 22, 23.\n\nFootnote 503:\n\n  Psalm li. 4.\n\nFootnote 504:\n\n  Rom. v. 20, 21.\n\nFootnote 505:\n\n  Prov. xxvi. 10.\n\nFootnote 506:\n\n  1 Tim. v. 21.\n\nFootnote 507:\n\n  Prov. xvi. 4.\n\nFootnote 508:\n\n  Acts x. 34. Rom. ii. 11. Gal. iii. 28.\n\nFootnote 509:\n\n  James ii. 5.\n\nFootnote 510:\n\n  Col. iii. 25. Eph. vi. 9.\n\nFootnote 511:\n\n  1 Cor. i. 26.\n\nFootnote 512:\n\n  Gal. iii. 22. Rom. xi. 32.\n\nFootnote 513:\n\n  Rom. xi. 35.\n\nFootnote 514:\n\n  Ephes. i. 4.\n\nFootnote 515:\n\n  1 Thess. iv. 4, 7.\n\nFootnote 516:\n\n  Ephes. ii. 10.\n\nFootnote 517:\n\n  John vi. 65.\n\nFootnote 518:\n\n  Matt. xiii. 9.\n\nFootnote 519:\n\n  Isaiah vi. 9.\n\nFootnote 520:\n\n  Rom. xi. 34.\n\n\n\n\n                             CHAPTER XXIV.\n ELECTION CONFIRMED BY THE DIVINE CALL. THE DESTINED DESTRUCTION OF THE\n                   REPROBATE PROCURED BY THEMSELVES.\n\n\nBut, in order to a further elucidation of the subject, it is necessary\nto treat of the calling of the elect, and of the blinding and hardening\nof the impious. On the former I have already made a few observations,\nwith a view to refute the error of those who suppose the generality of\nthe promises to put all mankind on an equality. But the discriminating\nelection of God, which is otherwise concealed within himself, he\nmanifests only by his calling, which may therefore with propriety be\ntermed the testification or evidence of it. \u201cFor whom he did foreknow,\nhe also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son.\nMoreover, whom he did predestinate, them he also called; and whom he\ncalled, them he also justified,\u201d in order to their eventual\nglorification.[521] Though by choosing his people, the Lord has adopted\nthem as his children, yet we see that they enter not on the possession\nof so great a blessing till they are called; on the other hand, as soon\nas they are called, they immediately enjoy some communication of his\nelection. On this account Paul calls the Spirit received by them, both\n\u201cthe Spirit of adoption, and the seal and earnest of the future\ninheritance;\u201d[522] because, by his testimony, he confirms and seals to\ntheir hearts the certainty of their future adoption. For though the\npreaching of the gospel is a stream from the source of election, yet,\nbeing common also to the reprobate, it would of itself be no solid proof\nof it. For God effectually teaches his elect, to bring them to faith, as\nwe have already cited from the words of Christ: \u201cHe which is of God,\nhe,\u201d and he alone, \u201chath seen the Father.\u201d[523] Again: \u201cI have\nmanifested thy name unto the men which thou gavest me.\u201d[524] For he says\nin another place, \u201cNo man can come to me, except the Father draw\nhim.\u201d[525] This passage is judiciously explained by Augustine in the\nfollowing words: \u201cIf, according to the declaration of truth, every one\nthat has learned comes, whosoever comes not, certainly has not learned.\nIt does not necessarily follow that he who can come actually comes,\nunless he has both willed and done it; but every one that has learned of\nthe Father, not only can come, but also actually comes; where there is\nan immediate union of the advantage of possibility, the inclination of\nthe will, and the consequent action.\u201d In another place he is still\nclearer: \u201cEvery one that hath heard and learned of the Father, cometh\nunto me. Is not this saying, There is no one that hears and learns of\nthe Father, and comes not unto me? For if every one that has heard and\nlearned of the Father comes, certainly every one that comes not has\nneither heard nor learned of the Father; for if he had heard and\nlearned, he would come. Very remote from carnal observation is this\nschool, in which men hear and learn of the Father to come to the Son.\u201d\nJust after he says, \u201cThis grace, which is secretly communicated to the\nhearts of men, is received by no hard heart; for the first object of its\ncommunication is, that hardness of heart may be taken away. When the\nFather is heard within therefore, he takes away the heart of stone, and\ngives a heart of flesh. For thus he forms children of promise and\nvessels of mercy whom he has prepared for glory. Why, then, does he not\nteach all, that they may come to Christ, but because all whom he\nteaches, he teaches in mercy? but whom he teaches not, he teaches not in\njudgment; for he hath mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will\nhe hardeneth.\u201d Those whom God has chosen, therefore, he designates as\nhis children, and determines himself to be their Father. By calling, he\nintroduces them into his family, and unites them to himself, that they\nmay be one. By connecting calling with election, the Scripture evidently\nsuggests that nothing is requisite to it but the free mercy of God. For\nif we inquire whom he calls, and for what reason, the answer is, those\nwhom he had elected. But when we come to election, we see nothing but\nmercy on every side. And so that observation of Paul is very applicable\nhere\u2014\u201cIt is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God\nthat showeth mercy;\u201d but not as it is commonly understood by those who\nmake a distribution between the grace of God, and the will and exertion\nof man. For they say, that human desires and endeavours have no efficacy\nof themselves, unless they are rendered successful by the grace of God;\nbut maintain that, with the assistance of his blessing, these things\nhave also their share in procuring salvation. To refute their cavil, I\nprefer Augustine\u2019s words to my own. \u201cIf the apostle only meant that it\nis not of him that wills, or of him that runs, without the assistance of\nthe merciful Lord, we may retort the converse proposition, that it is\nnot of mercy alone without the assistance of willing and running.\u201d If\nthis be manifestly impious, we may be certain that the apostle ascribes\nevery thing to the Lord\u2019s mercy, and leaves nothing to our wills or\nexertions. This was the opinion of that holy man. Nor is the least\nregard due to their paltry sophism, that Paul would not have expressed\nhimself so, if we had no exertion or will. For he considered not what\nwas in man; but seeing some persons attribute salvation partly to human\nindustry, he simply condemned their error in the former part of the\nsentence, and in the latter, vindicated the claim of Divine mercy to the\nwhole accomplishment of salvation. And what do the prophets, but\nperpetually proclaim the gratuitous calling of God?\n\nII. This point is further demonstrated by the very nature and\ndispensation of calling, which consists not in the mere preaching of the\nword, but in the accompanying illumination of the Spirit. To whom God\noffers his word, we are informed in the prophet: \u201cI am sought of them\nthat asked not for me: I am found of them that sought me not: I said,\nBehold me, behold me, unto a nation that was not called by my\nname.\u201d[526] And lest the Jews should suppose that this clemency extended\nonly to the Gentiles, he recalls to their remembrance the situation from\nwhich he took their father Abraham, when he deigned to draw him to\nhimself; that was from the midst of idolatry, in which he and all his\nfamily were sunk.[527] When he first shines upon the undeserving with\nthe light of his word, he thereby exhibits a most brilliant specimen of\nhis free goodness. Here, then, the infinite goodness of God is\ndisplayed, but not to the salvation of all; for heavier judgment awaits\nthe reprobate, because they reject the testimony of Divine love. And God\nalso, to manifest his glory, withdraws from them the efficacious\ninfluence of his Spirit. This internal call, therefore, is a pledge of\nsalvation, which cannot possibly deceive. To this purpose is that\npassage of John\u2014\u201cHereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit\nwhich he hath given us.\u201d[528] And lest the flesh should glory in having\nanswered at least to his call, and accepted his free offers, he affirms\nthat men have no ears to hear, or eyes to see, but such as he has\nformed; and that he acts in this, not according to individual gratitude,\nbut according to his own election. Of this fact Luke gives us an eminent\nexample, where Jews and Gentiles in common heard the preaching of Paul\nand Barnabas. Though they were all instructed on that occasion with the\nsame discourse, it is narrated that \u201cas many as were ordained to eternal\nlife, believed.\u201d[529] With what face, then, can we deny the freeness of\ncalling, in which election reigns alone, even to the last?\n\nIII. Here two errors are to be avoided. For some suppose man to be a\nco\u00f6perator with God, so that the validity of election depends on his\nconsent; thus, according to them, the will of man is superior to the\ncounsel of God. As though the Scripture taught, that we are only given\nan ability to believe, and not faith itself. Others, not thus enervating\nthe grace of the Holy Spirit, yet induced by I know not what mode of\nreasoning, suspend election on that which is subsequent to it; as though\nit were doubtful and ineffectual till it is confirmed by faith. That\nthis is its confirmation _to us_ is very clear; that it is the\nmanifestation of God\u2019s secret counsel before concealed, we have already\nseen; but all that we are to understand by this, is that what was before\nunknown is verified, and as it were ratified with a seal. But it is\ncontrary to the truth to assert, that election has no efficacy till\nafter we have embraced the gospel, and that this circumstance gives it\nall its energy. The certainty of it, indeed, we are to seek here; for if\nwe attempt to penetrate to the eternal decree of God, we shall be\ningulfed in the profound abyss. But when God has discovered it to us, we\nmust ascend to loftier heights, that the cause may not be lost in the\neffect. For what can be more absurd and inconsistent, when the Scripture\nteaches that we are illuminated according as God has chosen us, than\nthat our eyes should be so dazzled with the blaze of this light as to\nrefuse to contemplate election? At the same time I admit that, in order\nto attain an assurance of our salvation, we ought to begin with the\nword, and that with it our confidence ought to be satisfied, so as to\ncall upon God as our Father. For some persons, to obtain certainty\nrespecting the counsel of God, \u201cwhich is nigh unto us, in our mouth and\nin our heart,\u201d[530] preposterously wish to soar above the clouds. Such\ntemerity, therefore, should be restrained by the sobriety of faith, that\nwe may be satisfied with the testimony of God in his external word\nrespecting his secret grace; only the channel, which conveys to us such\na copious stream to satisfy our thirst, must not deprive the\nfountain-head of the honour which belongs to it.\n\nIV. As it is erroneous, therefore, to suspend the efficacy of election\nupon the faith of the gospel, by which we discover our interest in\nelection, so we shall observe the best order, if, in seeking an\nassurance of our election, we confine our attention to those subsequent\nsigns which are certain attestations of it. Satan never attacks\nbelievers with a more grievous or dangerous temptation, than when he\ndisquiets them with doubts of their election, and stimulates to an\nimproper desire of seeking it in a wrong way. I call it seeking in a\nwrong way, when miserable man endeavours to force his way into the\nsecret recesses of Divine wisdom, and to penetrate even to the highest\neternity, that he may discover what is determined concerning him at the\ntribunal of God. Then he precipitates himself to be absorbed in the\nprofound of an unfathomable gulf; then he entangles himself in\nnumberless and inextricable snares; then he sinks himself in an abyss of\ntotal darkness. For it is right that the folly of the human mind should\nbe thus punished with horrible destruction, when it attempts by its own\nability to rise to the summit of Divine wisdom. This temptation is the\nmore fatal, because there is no other to which men in general have a\nstronger propensity. For there is scarcely a person to be found, whose\nmind is not sometimes struck with this thought\u2014Whence can you obtain\nsalvation but from the election of God? And what revelation have you\nreceived of election? If this has once impressed a man, it either\nperpetually excruciates the unhappy being with dreadful torments, or\naltogether stupefies him with astonishment. Indeed, I should desire no\nstronger argument to prove how extremely erroneous the conceptions of\nsuch persons are respecting predestination, than experience itself;\nsince no error can affect the mind, more pestilent than such as disturbs\nthe conscience, and destroys its peace and tranquillity towards God.\nTherefore, if we dread shipwreck, let us anxiously beware of this rock,\non which none ever strike without being destroyed. But though the\ndiscussion of predestination may be compared to a dangerous ocean, yet,\nin traversing over it, the navigation is safe and serene, and I will\nalso add pleasant, unless any one freely wishes to expose himself to\ndanger. For as those who, in order to gain an assurance of their\nelection, examine into the eternal counsel of God without the word,\nplunge themselves into a fatal abyss, so they who investigate it in a\nregular and orderly manner, as it is contained in the word, derive from\nsuch inquiry the benefit of peculiar consolation. Let this, then, be our\nway of inquiry; to begin and end with the calling of God. Though this\nprevents not believers from perceiving, that the blessings they daily\nreceive from the hand of God descend from that secret adoption; as\nIsaiah introduces them, saying, \u201cThou hast done wonderful things; thy\ncounsels of old are faithfulness and truth;\u201d[531] for by adoption, as by\na token, God chooses to confirm to us all that we are permitted to know\nof his counsel. Lest this should be thought a weak testimony, let us\nconsider how much clearness and certainty it affords us. Bernard has\nsome pertinent observations on this subject. After speaking of the\nreprobate, he says, \u201cThe counsel of God stands, the sentence of peace\nstands, respecting them who fear him, concealing their faults and\nrewarding their virtues; so that to them, not only good things, but evil\nones also, co\u00f6perate for good. Who shall lay any thing to the charge of\nGod\u2019s elect? It is sufficient for me, for all righteousness, to possess\nhis favour alone, against whom alone I have sinned. All that he has\ndecreed not to impute to me, is just as if it had never been.\u201d And a\nlittle after: \u201cO place of true rest, which I might not improperly call a\nbed-chamber, in which God is viewed, not as disturbed with anger, or\nfilled with care, but where his will is proved to be good, and\nacceptable, and perfect. This view is not terrifying, but soothing; it\nexcites no restless curiosity, but allays it; it fatigues not the\nsenses, but tranquillizes them. Here true rest is enjoyed. A tranquil\nGod tranquillizes all things; and to behold rest, is to enjoy repose.\u201d\n\nV. In the first place, if we seek the fatherly clemency and propitious\nheart of God, our eyes must be directed to Christ, in whom alone the\nFather is well pleased.[532] If we seek salvation, life, and the\nimmortality of the heavenly kingdom, recourse must be had to no other;\nfor he alone is the Fountain of life, the Anchor of salvation, and the\nHeir of the kingdom of heaven. Now, what is the end of election, but\nthat, being adopted as children by our heavenly Father, we may by his\nfavour obtain salvation and immortality? Consider and investigate it as\nmuch as you please, you will not find its ultimate scope extend beyond\nthis. The persons, therefore, whom God has adopted as his children, he\nis said to have chosen, not in themselves, but in Christ; because it was\nimpossible for him to love them, except in him; or to honour them with\nthe inheritance of his kingdom, unless previously made partakers of him.\nBut if we are chosen in him, we shall find no assurance of our election\nin ourselves; nor even in God the Father, considered alone, abstractedly\nfrom the Son. Christ, therefore, is the mirror, in which it behoves us\nto contemplate our election; and here we may do it with safety. For as\nthe Father has determined to unite to the body of his Son all who are\nthe objects of his eternal choice, that he may have, as his children,\nall that he recognizes among his members, we have a testimony\nsufficiently clear and strong, that if we have communion with Christ, we\nare written in the book of life. And he gave us this certain communion\nwith himself, when he testified by the preaching of the gospel, that he\nwas given to us by the Father, to be ours with all his benefits. We are\nsaid to put him on, and to grow up into him, that we may live because he\nlives. This doctrine is often repeated. \u201cGod spared not his only\nbegotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish.\u201d[533]\n\u201cHe that believeth on him, is passed from death unto life.\u201d[534] In\nwhich sense he calls himself \u201cThe bread of life, he that eateth which,\nshall live for ever.\u201d[535] He, I say, is our witness, that all who\nreceive him by faith shall be considered as the children of his heavenly\nFather. If we desire any thing more than being numbered among the sons\nand heirs of God, we must rise above Christ. If this is our highest\nlimit, what folly do we betray in seeking out of him, that which we have\nalready obtained in him, and which can never be found any where else!\nBesides, as he is the Father\u2019s eternal Wisdom, immutable Truth, and\ndetermined Counsel, we have no reason to fear the least variation in the\ndeclarations of his word from that will of the Father, which is the\nobject of our inquiry; indeed, he faithfully reveals it to us, as it has\nbeen from the beginning, and will ever continue to be. This doctrine\nought to have a practical influence on our prayers. For though faith in\nelection animates us to call upon God, yet it would be preposterous to\nobtrude it upon him when we pray, or to stipulate this condition\u2014O Lord,\nif I am elected, hear me; since it is his pleasure that we should be\nsatisfied with his promises, and make no further inquiries whether he\nwill be propitious to our prayers. This prudence will extricate us from\nmany snares, if we know how to make a right use of what has been rightly\nwritten; but we must not inconsiderately apply to various purposes, what\nought to be restricted to the object particularly designed.\n\nVI. For the establishment of our confidence, there is also another\nconfirmation of election, which, we have said, is connected with our\ncalling. For those whom Christ illuminates with the knowledge of his\nname, and introduces into the bosom of his Church, he is said to receive\ninto his charge and protection. And all whom he receives are said to be\ncommitted and intrusted to him by the Father, to be kept to eternal\nlife. What do we wish for ourselves? Christ loudly proclaims that all\nwhose salvation was designed by the Father, had been delivered by him\ninto his protection.[536] If, therefore, we want to ascertain whether\nGod is concerned for our salvation, let us inquire whether he has\ncommitted us to Christ, whom he constituted the only Saviour of all his\npeople. Now, if we doubt whether Christ has received us into his charge\nand custody, he obviates this doubt, by freely offering himself as our\nShepherd, and declaring that if we hear his voice, we shall be numbered\namong his sheep. We therefore embrace Christ, thus kindly offered to us\nand advancing to meet us; and he will number us with his sheep, and\npreserve us enclosed in his fold. But yet we feel anxiety for our future\nstate; for as Paul declares that \u201cwhom he predestinated, them he also\ncalled,\u201d[537] so Christ informs us that \u201cmany are called, but few\nchosen.\u201d[538] Besides, Paul himself also, in another place, cautions\nagainst carelessness, saying, \u201cLet him that thinketh he standeth, take\nheed lest he fall.\u201d[539] Again: \u201cArt thou grafted among the people of\nGod? Be not high-minded, but fear. God is able to cut thee off again,\nand graft in others.\u201d[540] Lastly, experience itself teaches us that\nvocation and faith are of little value, unless accompanied by\nperseverance, which is not the lot of all. But Christ has delivered us\nfrom this anxiety, for these promises undoubtedly belong to the future:\n\u201cAll that the Father giveth me, shall come to me; and him that cometh to\nme, I will in no wise cast out. And this is the Father\u2019s will which hath\nsent me, that of all which he hath given me, I should lose nothing, but\nshould raise it up again at the last day.\u201d[541] Again: \u201cMy sheep hear my\nvoice, and I know them, and they follow me. And I give unto them eternal\nlife, and they shall never perish, neither shall any pluck them out of\nmy hand. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and none is\nable to pluck them out of my Father\u2019s hand.\u201d[542] Besides, when he\ndeclares, \u201cEvery plant which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall\nbe rooted up,\u201d[543] he fully implies on the contrary, that those who are\nrooted in God, can never by any violence be deprived of salvation. With\nthis corresponds that passage of John, \u201cIf they had been of us, they\nwould no doubt have continued with us.\u201d[544] Hence also that magnificent\nexultation of Paul, in defiance of life and death, of things present and\nfuture; which must necessarily have been founded in the gift of\nperseverance.[545] Nor can it be doubted that he applies this sentiment\nto all the elect. The same apostle in another place says, \u201cHe which hath\nbegun a good work in you, will perform it until the day of Jesus\nChrist.\u201d[546] This also supported David when his faith was failing:\n\u201cThou wilt not forsake the work of thine own hands.\u201d[547] Nor is it to\nbe doubted, that when Christ intercedes for all the elect, he prays for\nthem the same as for Peter, that their faith may never fail. Hence we\nconclude, that they are beyond all danger of falling away, because the\nintercessions of the Son of God for their perseverance in piety have not\nbeen rejected. What did Christ intend we should learn from this, but\nconfidence in our perpetual security, since we have once been introduced\ninto the number of his people?\n\nVII. But it daily happens, that they who appeared to belong to Christ,\nfall away from him again, and sink into ruin. Even in that very place,\nwhere he asserts that none perish of those who were given to him by the\nFather, he excepts the son of perdition. This is true; but it is equally\ncertain, that such persons never adhered to Christ with that confidence\nof heart which, we say, gives us an assurance of our election. \u201cThey\nwent out from us,\u201d says John, \u201cbut they were not of us; for if they had\nbeen of us, they would no doubt have continued with us.\u201d[548] I dispute\nnot their having similar signs of calling with the elect; but I am far\nfrom admitting them to possess that certain assurance of election which\nI enjoin believers to seek from the word of the gospel. Wherefore, let\nnot such examples move us from a tranquil reliance on our Lord\u2019s\npromise, where he declares, that all who receive him by faith were given\nhim by the Father, and that since he is their Guardian and Shepherd, not\none of them shall perish. Of Judas we shall speak afterwards. Paul is\ndissuading Christians, not from all security, but from supine,\nunguarded, carnal security, which is attended with pride, arrogance, and\ncontempt of others, extinguishes humility and reverence of God, and\nproduces forgetfulness of favours received. For he is addressing\nGentiles, teaching them that the Jews should not be proudly and\ninhumanly insulted because they had been rejected, and the Gentiles\nsubstituted in their place. He also inculcates fear; not such a fear as\nproduces terror and uncertainty, but such as teaches humble admiration\nof the grace of God, without any diminution of confidence in it; as has\nbeen elsewhere observed. Besides, he is not addressing individuals, but\ndistinct parties generally. For as the Church was divided into two\nparties, and emulation gave birth to dissension, Paul admonishes the\nGentiles, that their substitution in the place of the holy and peculiar\npeople ought to be a motive to fear and modesty. There were, however,\nmany clamorous people among them, whose empty boasting it was necessary\nto restrain. But we have already seen that our hope extends into\nfuturity, even beyond the grave, and that nothing is more contrary to\nits nature than doubts respecting our final destiny.\n\nVIII. The declaration of Christ, that \u201cmany are called, and few chosen,\u201d\nis very improperly understood. For there will be no ambiguity in it, if\nwe remember what must be clear from the foregoing observations, that\nthere are two kinds of calling. For there is a universal call, by which\nGod, in the external preaching of the word, invites all,\nindiscriminately, to come to him, even those to whom he intends it as a\nsavour of death, and an occasion of heavier condemnation. There is also\na special call, with which he, for the most part, favours only\nbelievers, when, by the inward illumination of his Spirit, he causes the\nword preached to sink into their hearts. Yet sometimes he also\ncommunicates it to those whom he only enlightens for a season, and\nafterwards forsakes on account of their ingratitude, and strikes with\ngreater blindness. Now, the Lord, seeing the gospel published far and\nwide, held in contempt by the generality of men, and justly appreciated\nby few, gives us a description of God, under the character of a king,\nwho prepares a solemn feast, and sends out his messengers in every\ndirection, to invite a great company, but can only prevail on very few,\nevery one alleging impediments to excuse himself; so that at length he\nis constrained by their refusal to bring in all who can be found in the\nstreets. Thus far, every one sees, the parable is to be understood of\nthe external call. He proceeds to inform us, that God acts like a good\nmaster of a feast, walking round the tables, courteously receiving his\nguests; but that if he finds any one not adorned with a nuptial garment,\nhe suffers not the meanness of such a person to disgrace the festivity\nof the banquet. I confess, this part is to be understood of those who\nenter into the Church by a profession of faith, but are not invested\nwith the sanctification of Christ. Such blemishes, and, as it were,\ncankers of his Church, God will not always suffer, but will cast them\nout of it, as their turpitude deserves. Few, therefore, are chosen out\nof a multitude that are called, but not with that calling by which we\nsay believers ought to judge of their election. For the former is common\nalso to the wicked; but the latter is attended with the Spirit of\nregeneration, the earnest and seal of the future inheritance, which\nseals our hearts to the day of the Lord.[549] In short, though\nhypocrites boast of piety as if they were true worshippers of God,\nChrist declares that he will finally cast them out of the place which\nthey unjustly occupy. Thus the Psalmist says, \u201cWho shall abide in thy\ntabernacle? He that worketh righteousness, and speaketh the truth in his\nheart.\u201d[550] Again: \u201cThis is the generation of them that seek him, that\nseek thy face, O Jacob.\u201d[551] And thus the Spirit exhorts believers to\npatience, that they may not be disturbed by Ishmaelites being united\nwith them in the Church, since the mask will at length be torn off, and\nthey will be cast out with disgrace.\n\nIX. The same reasoning applies to the exception lately cited, where\nChrist says, that \u201cnone of them is lost, but the son of perdition.\u201d[552]\nHere is, indeed, some inaccuracy of expression, but the meaning is\nclear. For he was never reckoned among the sheep of Christ, as being\nreally such, but only as he occupied the place of one. When the Lord\ndeclares he was chosen by himself with the other apostles, it only\nrefers to the ministerial office. \u201cHave not I chosen you twelve,\u201d says\nhe, \u201cand one of you is a devil?\u201d[553] That is, he had chosen him to the\noffice of an apostle. But when he speaks of election to salvation, he\nexcludes him from the number of the elect: \u201cI speak not of you all; I\nknow whom I have chosen.\u201d[554] If any one confound the term _election_\nin these passages, he will miserably embarrass himself; if he make a\nproper distinction, nothing is plainer. It is therefore a very erroneous\nand pernicious assertion of Gregory, that we are only conscious of our\ncalling, but uncertain of our election; from which he exhorts all to\nfear and trembling, using also this argument, that though we know what\nwe are to-day, yet we know not what we may be in future. But the context\nplainly shows the cause of his error on this point. For as he suspended\nelection on the merit of works, this furnished abundant reason for\ndiscouragement to the minds of men: he could never establish them, for\nwant of leading them from themselves to a confidence in the Divine\ngoodness. Hence believers have some perception of what we stated at the\nbeginning, that predestination, rightly considered, neither destroys nor\nweakens faith, but rather furnishes its best confirmation. Yet I will\nnot deny, that the Spirit sometimes accommodates his language to the\nlimited extent of our capacity, as when he says, \u201cThey shall not be in\nthe assembly of my people, neither shall they be written in the writing\nof the house of Israel.\u201d[555] As though God were beginning to write in\nthe book of life those whom he numbers among his people, whereas we know\nfrom the testimony of Christ, that the names of God\u2019s children have been\nwritten in the book of life from the beginning.[556] But these\nexpressions only signify the rejection of those who seemed to be the\nchief among the elect; as the Psalmist says, \u201cLet them be blotted out of\nthe book of the living, and not be written with the righteous.\u201d[557]\n\nX. Now, the elect are not gathered into the fold of Christ by calling,\nimmediately from their birth, nor all at the same time, but according as\nGod is pleased to dispense his grace to them. Before they are gathered\nto that chief Shepherd, they go astray, scattered in the common\nwilderness, and differing in no respect from others, except in being\nprotected by the special mercy of God from rushing down the precipice of\neternal death. If you observe them, therefore, you will see the\nposterity of Adam partaking of the common corruption of the whole\nspecies. That they go not to the most desperate extremes of impiety, is\nnot owing to any innate goodness of theirs, but because the eye of God\nwatches over them, and his hand is extended for their preservation. For\nthose who dream of I know not what seed of election sown in their hearts\nfrom their very birth, always inclining them to piety and the fear of\nGod, are unsupported by the authority of Scripture, and refuted by\nexperience itself. They produce, indeed, a few examples to prove that\ncertain elect persons were not entire strangers to religion, even before\nthey were truly enlightened; that Paul lived blameless in his\nPharisaism;[558] that Cornelius, with his alms and prayers, was accepted\nof God,[559] and if there are any other similar ones. What they say of\nPaul, we admit; but respecting Cornelius, we maintain that they are\ndeceived; for it is evident, he was then enlightened and regenerated,\nand wanted nothing but a clear revelation of the gospel. But what will\nthey extort from these very few examples? that the elect have always\nbeen endued with the spirit of piety? This is just as if any one, having\nproved the integrity of Aristides, Socrates, Xenocrates, Scipio, Curius,\nCamillus, and other heathens, should conclude from this, that all who\nwere left in the darkness of idolatry, were followers of holiness and\nvirtue. But this is contradicted in many passages of Scripture. Paul\u2019s\ndescription of the state of the Ephesians prior to regeneration,\nexhibits not a grain of this seed. \u201cYe were dead,\u201d he says, \u201cin\ntrespasses and sins, wherein in time past ye walked according to the\ncourse of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air,\nthe spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience; among whom\nalso we all had our conversation in times past, in the lusts of our\nflesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by\nnature the children of wrath, even as others.\u201d[560] Again: \u201cRemember\nthat at that time ye were without hope, and without God in the\nworld.\u201d[561] Again: \u201cYe were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in\nthe Lord; walk as children of light.\u201d[562] But perhaps they will plead,\nthat these passages refer to that ignorance of the true God, in which\nthey acknowledge the elect to be involved previously to their calling.\nThough this would be an impudent cavil, since the apostle\u2019s inferences\nfrom them are such as these: \u201cPut away lying; and let him that stole,\nsteal no more.\u201d[563] But what will they reply to other passages? such as\nthat where, after declaring to the Corinthians, that \u201cNeither\nfornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers\nof themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards,\nnor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God;\u201d he\nimmediately adds, \u201cAnd such were some of you; but ye are washed, but ye\nare sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and\nby the Spirit of our God.\u201d[564] And another passage, addressed to the\nRomans: \u201cAs ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness, and to\niniquity unto iniquity; even so now yield your members servants to\nrighteousness. What fruit had ye then in those things whereof ye are now\nashamed?\u201d[565]\n\nXI. What kind of seed of election was springing up in them, who were all\ntheir lives contaminated with various pollutions, and with desperate\nwickedness wallowed in the most nefarious and execrable of all crimes?\nIf he had intended to speak according to these teachers, he ought to\nhave shown how much they were obliged to the goodness of God, which had\npreserved them from falling into such great pollutions. So likewise the\npersons whom Peter addressed, he ought to have exhorted to gratitude on\naccount of the perpetual seed of election. But, on the contrary, he\nadmonishes them, \u201cthat the time past may suffice to have wrought the\nwill of the Gentiles.\u201d[566] What if we come to particular examples? What\nprinciple of righteousness was there in Rahab the harlot before\nfaith?[567] in Manasseh, when Jerusalem was dyed, and almost drowned,\nwith the blood of the prophets?[568] in the thief, who repented in his\ndying moments?[569] Away, then, with these arguments, which men of\npresumptuous curiosity raise to themselves without regarding the\nScripture. Let us rather abide by the declaration of the Scripture, that\n\u201call we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own\nway,\u201d[570] that is, destruction. Those whom the Lord has determined to\nrescue from this gulf of perdition, he defers till his appointed season;\nbefore which he only preserves them from falling into unpardonable\nblasphemy.\n\nXII. As the Lord, by his effectual calling of the elect, completes the\nsalvation to which he predestinated them in his eternal counsel, so he\nhas his judgments against the reprobate, by which he executes his\ncounsel respecting them. Those, therefore, whom he has created to a life\nof shame and a death of destruction, that they might be instruments of\nhis wrath, and examples of his severity, he causes to reach their\nappointed end, sometimes depriving them of the opportunity of hearing\nthe word, sometimes, by the preaching of it, increasing their blindness\nand stupidity. Of the former there are innumerable examples: let us only\nselect one that is more evident and remarkable than the rest. Before the\nadvent of Christ, there passed about four thousand years, in which the\nLord concealed the light of the doctrine of salvation from all the\nGentiles. If it be replied, that he withheld from them the participation\nof so great a blessing because he esteemed them unworthy, their\nposterity will be found equally unworthy of it. The truth of this, to\nsay nothing of experience, is sufficiently attested by Malachi, who\nfollows his reproofs of unbelief and gross blasphemies by an immediate\nprediction of the coming of the Messiah. Why, then, is he given to the\nposterity rather than to their ancestors? He will torment himself in\nvain, who seeks for any cause of this beyond the secret and inscrutable\ncounsel of God. Nor need we be afraid lest any disciple of Porphyry\nshould be imboldened to calumniate the justice of God by our silence in\nits defence. For while we assert that all deserve to perish, and it is\nof God\u2019s free goodness that any are saved, enough is said for the\nillustration of his glory, so that every subterfuge of ours is\naltogether unnecessary. The supreme Lord, therefore, by depriving of the\ncommunication of his light, and leaving in darkness, those whom he has\nreprobated, makes way for the accomplishment of his predestination. Of\nthe second class, the Scriptures contain many examples, and others\npresent themselves every day. The same sermon is addressed to a hundred\npersons; twenty receive it with the obedience of faith; the others\ndespise, or ridicule, or reject, or condemn it. If it be replied, that\nthe difference proceeds from their wickedness and perverseness, this\nwill afford no satisfaction; because the minds of others would have been\ninfluenced by the same wickedness, but for the correction of Divine\ngoodness. And thus we shall always be perplexed, unless we recur to\nPaul\u2019s question\u2014\u201cWho maketh thee to differ?\u201d[571] In which he signifies,\nthat the excellence of some men beyond others, is not from their own\nvirtue, but solely from Divine grace.\n\nXIII. Why, then, in bestowing grace upon some, does he pass over others?\nLuke assigns a reason for the former, that they \u201cwere ordained to\neternal life.\u201d What conclusion, then, shall we draw respecting the\nlatter, but that they are vessels of wrath to dishonour? Wherefore let\nus not hesitate to say with Augustine, \u201cGod could convert to good the\nwill of the wicked, because he is omnipotent. It is evident that he\ncould. Why, then, does he not? Because he would not. Why he would not,\nremains with himself.\u201d For we ought not to aim at more wisdom than\nbecomes us. That will be much better than adopting the evasion of\nChrysostom, \u201cthat he draws those who are willing, and who stretch out\ntheir hands for his aid;\u201d that the difference may not appear to consist\nin the decree of God, but wholly in the will of man. But an approach to\nhim is so far from being a mere effort of man, that even pious persons,\nand such as fear God, still stand in need of the peculiar impulse of the\nSpirit. Lydia, the seller of purple, feared God, and yet it was\nnecessary that her heart should be opened, to attend to, and profit by,\nthe doctrine of Paul. This declaration is not made respecting a single\nfemale, but in order to teach us that every one\u2019s advancement in piety\nis the secret work of the Spirit. It is a fact not to be doubted, that\nGod sends his word to many whose blindness he determines shall be\nincreased. For with what design does he direct so many commands to be\ndelivered to Pharaoh? Was it from an expectation that his heart would be\nsoftened by repeated and frequent messages? Before he began, he knew and\nforetold the result. He commanded Moses to go and declare his will to\nPharaoh, adding at the same time, \u201cBut I will harden his heart, that he\nshall not let the people go.\u201d[572] So, when he calls forth Ezekiel, he\napprizes him that he is sending him to a rebellious and obstinate\npeople, that he may not be alarmed if they refuse to hear him.[573] So\nJeremiah foretells that his word will be like fire, to scatter and\ndestroy the people like stubble.[574] But the prophecy of Isaiah\nfurnishes a still stronger confirmation; for this is his mission from\nthe Lord: \u201cGo and tell this people, Hear ye, indeed, but understand not,\nand see ye, indeed, but perceive not. Make the heart of this people fat,\nand make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their\neyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and\nconvert, and be healed.\u201d[575] Observe, he directs his voice to them, but\nit is that they may become more deaf; he kindles a light, but it is that\nthey may be made more blind; he publishes his doctrine, but it is that\nthey may be more besotted; he applies a remedy, but it is that they may\nnot be healed. John, citing this prophecy, declares that the Jews could\nnot believe, because this curse of God was upon them.[576] Nor can it be\ndisputed, that to such persons as God determines not to enlighten, he\ndelivers his doctrine involved in enigmatical obscurity, that its only\neffect may be to increase their stupidity. For Christ testifies that he\nconfined to his apostles the explanations of the parables in which he\nhad addressed the multitude; \u201cbecause to you it is given to know the\nmysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.\u201d[577]\nWhat does the Lord mean, you will say, by teaching those by whom he\ntakes care not to be understood? Consider whence the fault arises, and\nyou will cease the inquiry; for whatever obscurity there is in the word,\nyet there is always light enough to convince the consciences of the\nwicked.\n\nXIV. It remains now to be seen why the Lord does that which it is\nevident he does. If it be replied, that this is done because men have\ndeserved it by their impiety, wickedness, and ingratitude, it will be a\njust and true observation; but as we have not yet discovered the reason\nof this diversity, why some persist in obduracy while others are\ninclined to obedience, the discussion of it will necessarily lead us to\nthe same remark that Paul has quoted from Moses concerning Pharaoh:\n\u201cEven for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might show my\npower in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the\nearth.\u201d[578] That the reprobate obey not the word of God, when made\nknown to them, is justly imputed to the wickedness and depravity of\ntheir hearts, provided it be at the same time stated, that they are\nabandoned to this depravity, because they have been raised up, by a just\nbut inscrutable judgment of God, to display his glory in their\ncondemnation. So, when it is related of the sons of Eli, that they\nlistened not to his salutary admonitions, \u201cbecause the Lord would slay\nthem,\u201d[579] it is not denied that their obstinacy proceeded from their\nown wickedness, but it is plainly implied that though the Lord was able\nto soften their hearts, yet they were left in their obstinacy, because\nhis immutable decree had predestinated them to destruction. To the same\npurpose is that passage of John, \u201cThough he had done so many miracles\nbefore them, yet they believed not on him; that the saying of Esaias the\nprophet might be fulfilled, which he spake, \u2018Lord, who hath believed our\nreport?\u2019\u201d[580] For though he does not acquit the obstinate from the\ncharge of guilt, yet he satisfies himself with this reason, that the\ngrace of God has no charms for men till the Holy Spirit gives them a\ntaste for it. And Christ cites the prophecy of Isaiah, \u201cThey shall be\nall taught of God,\u201d[581] with no other design than to show, that the\nJews are reprobate and strangers to the Church, because they are\ndestitute of docility; and he adduces no other reason for it than that\nthe promise of God does not belong to them; which is confirmed by that\npassage of Paul, where \u201cChrist crucified, unto the Jews a\nstumbling-block, and unto the Greeks foolishness,\u201d is said to be \u201cunto\nthem which are called, the power of God, and the wisdom of God.\u201d[582]\nFor, after remarking what generally happens whenever the gospel is\npreached, that it exasperates some, and is despised by others, he\nrepresents it as duly appreciated only by \u201cthose who are called.\u201d A\nlittle before he had mentioned \u201cthem that believe;\u201d not that he had an\nintention to deny its proper place to the grace of God, which precedes\nfaith, but he seems to add this second description by way of correction,\nin order that those who had received the gospel might ascribe the praise\nof their faith to the Divine call. And so, likewise, in a subsequent\nsentence, he represents them as the objects of Divine election. When the\nimpious hear these things, they loudly complain that God, by a wanton\nexercise of power, abuses his wretched creatures for the sport of his\ncruelty. But we, who know that all men are liable to so many charges at\nthe Divine tribunal, that of a thousand questions they would be unable\nto give a satisfactory answer to one, confess that the reprobate suffer\nnothing but what is consistent with the most righteous judgment of God.\nThough we cannot comprehend the reason of this, let us be content with\nsome degree of ignorance where the wisdom of God soars into its own\nsublimity.\n\nXV. But as objections are frequently raised from some passages of\nScripture, in which God seems to deny that the destruction of the wicked\nis caused by his decree, but that, in opposition to his remonstrances,\nthey voluntarily bring ruin upon themselves,\u2014let us show by a brief\nexplication that they are not at all inconsistent with the foregoing\ndoctrine. A passage is produced from Ezekiel, where God says, \u201cI have no\npleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his\nway and live.\u201d[583] If this is to be extended to all mankind, why does\nhe not urge many to repentance, whose minds are more flexible to\nobedience than those of others, who grow more and more callous to his\ndaily invitations? Among the inhabitants of Nineveh and Sodom, Christ\nhimself declares that his evangelical preaching and miracles would have\nbrought forth more fruit than in Judea. How is it, then, if God will\nhave all men to be saved, that he opens not the gate of repentance to\nthose miserable men who would be more ready to receive the favour? Hence\nwe perceive it to be a violent perversion of the passage, if the will of\nGod, mentioned by the prophet, be set in opposition to his eternal\ncounsel, by which he has distinguished the elect from the reprobate.\nNow, if we inquire the genuine sense of the prophet, his only meaning is\nto inspire the penitent with hopes of pardon. And this is the sum, that\nit is beyond a doubt that God is ready to pardon sinners immediately on\ntheir conversion. Therefore he wills not their death, inasmuch as he\nwills their repentance. But experience teaches, that he does not will\nthe repentance of those whom he externally calls, in such a manner as to\naffect all their hearts. Nor should he on this account be charged with\nacting deceitfully; for, though his external call only renders those who\nhear without obeying it inexcusable, yet it is justly esteemed the\ntestimony of God\u2019s grace, by which he reconciles men to himself. Let us\nobserve, therefore, the design of the prophet in saying that God has no\npleasure in the death of a sinner; it is to assure the pious of God\u2019s\nreadiness to pardon them immediately on their repentance, and to show\nthe impious the aggravation of their sin in rejecting such great\ncompassion and kindness of God. Repentance, therefore, will always be\nmet by Divine mercy; but on whom repentance is bestowed, we are clearly\ntaught by Ezekiel himself, as well as by all the prophets and apostles.\n\nXVI. Another passage adduced is from Paul, where he states that \u201cGod\nwill have all men to be saved;\u201d[584] which, though somewhat different\nfrom the passage just considered, yet is very similar to it. I reply, in\nthe first place, that it is evident from the context, how God wills the\nsalvation of all; for Paul connects these two things together, that he\n\u201cwill have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the\ntruth.\u201d If it was fixed in the eternal counsel of God, that they should\nreceive the doctrine of salvation, what is the meaning of that question\nof Moses, \u201cWhat nation is there so great, who hath God so nigh unto them\nas we have?\u201d[585] How is it that God has deprived many nations of the\nlight of the gospel, which others enjoyed? How is it that the pure\nknowledge of the doctrine of piety has never reached some, and that\nothers have but just heard some obscure rudiments of it? Hence it will\nbe easy to discover the design of Paul. He had enjoined Timothy to make\nsolemn prayers in the Church for kings and princes; but as it might seem\nsomewhat inconsistent to pray to God for a class of men almost past\nhope,\u2014for they were not only strangers to the body of Christ, but\nstriving with all their power to ruin his kingdom,\u2014he subjoins, that\n\u201cthis is good and acceptable in the sight of God, who will have all men\nto be saved;\u201d which only imports, that God has not closed the way of\nsalvation against any order of men, but has diffused his mercy in such a\nmanner that he would have no rank to be destitute of it. The other texts\nadduced are not declarative of the Lord\u2019s determination respecting all\nmen in his secret counsel: they only proclaim that pardon is ready for\nall sinners who sincerely seek it.[586] For if they obstinately insist\non its being said that God is merciful to all, I will oppose to them,\nwhat is elsewhere asserted, that \u201cour God is in the heavens; he hath\ndone whatsoever he hath pleased.\u201d[587] This text, then, must be\nexplained in a manner consistent with another, where God says, \u201cI will\nbe gracious to whom I will be gracious, and I will show mercy on whom I\nwill show mercy.\u201d[588] He who makes a selection of objects for the\nexercise of his mercy, does not impart that mercy to all. But as it\nclearly appears that Paul is there speaking, not of individuals, but\norders of men, I shall forbear any further argument. It must be\nremarked, however, that Paul is not declaring the actual conduct of God\nat all times, in all places, and to all persons, but merely representing\nhim as at liberty to make kings and magistrates at length partakers of\nthe heavenly doctrine, notwithstanding their present rage against it in\nconsequence of their blindness. There is more apparent plausibility in\ntheir objection, from the declaration of Peter, that \u201cthe Lord is not\nwilling that any should perish, but that all should come to\nrepentance.\u201d[589] But the second clause furnishes an immediate solution\nof this difficulty; for the willingness that they should come to\nrepentance must be understood in consistence with the general tenor of\nScripture. Conversion is certainly in the power of God; let him be\nasked, whether he wills the conversion of all, when he promises a few\nindividuals to give them \u201ca heart of flesh,\u201d while he leaves others with\n\u201ca heart of stone.\u201d[590] If he were not ready to receive those who\nimplore his mercy, there would indeed be no propriety in this address,\n\u201cTurn ye unto me, and I will turn unto you;\u201d[591] but I maintain that no\nmortal ever approaches God without being divinely drawn. But if\nrepentance depended on the will of man, Paul would not have said, \u201cIf\nGod peradventure will give them repentance.\u201d[592] And if God, whose\nvoice exhorts all men to repentance, did not draw the elect to it by the\nsecret operation of his Spirit, Jeremiah would not have said, \u201cTurn thou\nme, and I shall be turned; for thou art the Lord my God. Surely after\nthat I was turned, I repented.\u201d[593]\n\nXVII. If this be correct, it will be said there can be but little faith\nin the promises of the gospel, which, in declaring the will of God,\nassert that he wills what is repugnant to his inviolable decree. But\nthis is far from a just conclusion. For if we turn our attention to the\neffect of the promises of salvation, we shall find that their\nuniversality is not at all inconsistent with the predestination of the\nreprobate. We know the promises to be effectual to us only when we\nreceive them by faith; on the contrary, the annihilation of faith is at\nonce an abolition of the promises. If this is their nature, we may\nperceive that there is no discordance between these two things\u2014God\u2019s\nhaving appointed from eternity on whom he will bestow his favour and\nexercise his wrath, and his proclaiming salvation indiscriminately to\nall. Indeed, I maintain that there is the most perfect harmony between\nthem. For his sole design in thus promising, is to offer his mercy to\nall who desire and seek it, which none do but those whom he has\nenlightened, and he enlightens all whom he has predestinated to\nsalvation. These persons experience the certain and unshaken truth of\nthe promises; so that it cannot be pretended that there is the least\ncontrariety between God\u2019s eternal election and the testimony of his\ngrace offered to believers. But why does he mention all? It is in order\nthat the consciences of the pious may enjoy the more secure\nsatisfaction, seeing that there is no difference between sinners,\nprovided they have faith; and, on the other hand, that the impious may\nnot plead the want of an asylum to flee to from the bondage of sin,\nwhile they ungratefully reject that which is offered to them. When the\nmercy of God is offered to both by the gospel, it is faith, that is, the\nillumination of God, which distinguishes between the pious and impious;\nso that the former experience the efficacy of the gospel, but the latter\nderive no benefit from it. Now, this illumination is regulated by God\u2019s\neternal election. The complaint and lamentation of Christ, \u201cO Jerusalem,\nJerusalem, how often would I have gathered thy children together, and ye\nwould not,\u201d[594] however they cite it, affords them no support. I\nconfess, that Christ here speaks not merely in his human character, but\nthat he is upbraiding the Jews for having in all ages rejected his\ngrace. But we must define the will of God which is here intended. It is\nwell known how sedulously God laboured to preserve that people to\nhimself, and with what extreme obstinacy, from the first to the last,\nthey refused to be gathered, being abandoned to their own wandering\ndesires; but this does not authorize the conclusion, that the counsel of\nGod was frustrated by the wickedness of men. They object, that nothing\nis more inconsistent with the nature of God than to have two wills. This\nI grant them, provided it be rightly explained. But why do they not\nconsider the numerous passages, where, by the assumption of human\naffections, God condescends beneath his own majesty? He says, \u201cI have\nspread out my hands all the day unto a rebellious people;\u201d[595] early\nand late endeavouring to bring them to himself. If they are determined\nto accommodate all this to God, and disregard the figurative mode of\nexpression, they will give rise to many needless contentions, which may\nbe settled by this one solution, that what is peculiar to man is\ntransferred to God. The solution, however, elsewhere stated by us, is\nfully sufficient\u2014that though to our apprehension the will of God is\nmanifold and various, yet he does not in himself will things at variance\nwith each other, but astonishes our faculties with his various and\n\u201cmanifold wisdom,\u201d according to the expression of Paul, till we shall be\nenabled to understand, that he mysteriously wills what now seems\ncontrary to his will. They impertinently object, that God being the\nFather of all, it is unjust for him to disinherit any but such as have\npreviously deserved this punishment by their own guilt. As if the\ngoodness of God did not extend even to dogs and swine. But if the\nquestion relates to the human race, let them answer why God allied\nhimself to one people as their Father; why he gathered even from them\nbut a very small number, as the flower of them. But their rage for\nslander prevents these railers from considering that God \u201cmaketh his sun\nto rise on the evil and on the good,\u201d[596] but that the inheritance is\nreserved for the few, to whom it shall one day be said, \u201cCome, ye\nblessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the\nfoundation of the world.\u201d[597] They further object, that God hates\nnothing he has made; which though I grant them, the doctrine I maintain\nstill remains unshaken, that the reprobate are hated by God, and that\nmost justly, because, being destitute of his Spirit, they can do nothing\nbut what is deserving of his curse. They further allege, that there is\nno difference between the Jew and the Gentile, and therefore that the\ngrace of God is offered indiscriminately to all: I grant it; only let\nthem admit, according to the declaration of Paul, that God calls whom he\npleases, both of the Jews and of the Gentiles,[598] so that he is under\nno obligation to any. In this way also we answer their arguments from\nanother text, which says, that \u201cGod hath concluded them all in unbelief,\nthat he might have mercy upon all;\u201d[599] which imports that he will have\nthe salvation of all who are saved ascribed to his mercy, though this\nblessing is not common to all. Now, while many arguments are advanced on\nboth sides, let our conclusion be to stand astonished with Paul at so\ngreat a mystery, and amidst the clamour of petulant tongues let us not\nbe ashamed of exclaiming with him, \u201cO man, who art thou that repliest\nagainst God?\u201d For, as Augustine justly contends, it is acting a most\nperverse part, to set up the measure of human justice as the standard by\nwhich to measure the justice of God.\n\nFootnote 521:\n\n  Rom. viii. 29, 30.\n\nFootnote 522:\n\n  Rom viii. 15, 16. Ephes. i. 13, 14.\n\nFootnote 523:\n\n  John vi. 46.\n\nFootnote 524:\n\n  John xvii. 6.\n\nFootnote 525:\n\n  John vi. 44.\n\nFootnote 526:\n\n  Isaiah lxv. 1.\n\nFootnote 527:\n\n  Joshua xxiv. 2, 3.\n\nFootnote 528:\n\n  1 John iii. 24.\n\nFootnote 529:\n\n  Acts xiii. 48.\n\nFootnote 530:\n\n  Deut. xxx. 14.\n\nFootnote 531:\n\n  Isaiah xxv. 1.\n\nFootnote 532:\n\n  Matt. iii. 17.\n\nFootnote 533:\n\n  Rom. viii. 32. John iii. 15, 16.\n\nFootnote 534:\n\n  John v. 24.\n\nFootnote 535:\n\n  John vi. 35-58.\n\nFootnote 536:\n\n  John vi. 37, 39; xvii. 6, 12.\n\nFootnote 537:\n\n  Rom. viii. 30.\n\nFootnote 538:\n\n  Matt. xxii. 14.\n\nFootnote 539:\n\n  1 Cor. x. 12.\n\nFootnote 540:\n\n  Rom. xi. 17-23.\n\nFootnote 541:\n\n  John vi. 37, 39.\n\nFootnote 542:\n\n  John x. 27-29.\n\nFootnote 543:\n\n  Matt. xv. 13.\n\nFootnote 544:\n\n  1 John ii. 19.\n\nFootnote 545:\n\n  Rom. viii. 35-39.\n\nFootnote 546:\n\n  Phil. i. 6.\n\nFootnote 547:\n\n  Psalm cxxxviii. 8.\n\nFootnote 548:\n\n  1 John ii. 19.\n\nFootnote 549:\n\n  Ephes. i. 13, 14.\n\nFootnote 550:\n\n  Psalm xv. 1.\n\nFootnote 551:\n\n  Psalm xxiv. 6.\n\nFootnote 552:\n\n  John xvii. 12.\n\nFootnote 553:\n\n  John vi. 70.\n\nFootnote 554:\n\n  John xiii. 18.\n\nFootnote 555:\n\n  Ezek. xiii. 9.\n\nFootnote 556:\n\n  Luke x. 20.\n\nFootnote 557:\n\n  Psalm lxix. 28.\n\nFootnote 558:\n\n  Phil. iii. 5, 6.\n\nFootnote 559:\n\n  Acts x. 2.\n\nFootnote 560:\n\n  Ephes. ii. 1-3.\n\nFootnote 561:\n\n  Ephes. ii. 11, 12.\n\nFootnote 562:\n\n  Ephes. v. 8; iv. 18.\n\nFootnote 563:\n\n  Ephes. iv. 25, 28.\n\nFootnote 564:\n\n  1 Cor. vi. 9-11.\n\nFootnote 565:\n\n  Rom. vi. 19, 21.\n\nFootnote 566:\n\n  1 Peter iv. 3.\n\nFootnote 567:\n\n  Josh. ii. 1, &c.\n\nFootnote 568:\n\n  2 Kings xxi. 16.\n\nFootnote 569:\n\n  Luke xxiii. 40-42.\n\nFootnote 570:\n\n  Isaiah liii. 6.\n\nFootnote 571:\n\n  1 Cor. iv. 7.\n\nFootnote 572:\n\n  Exod. iv. 21.\n\nFootnote 573:\n\n  Ezek. ii. 3; xii. 2.\n\nFootnote 574:\n\n  Jer. v. 14.\n\nFootnote 575:\n\n  Isaiah vi. 9, 10.\n\nFootnote 576:\n\n  John xii. 39, 40.\n\nFootnote 577:\n\n  Matt. xiii. 11.\n\nFootnote 578:\n\n  Rom. ix. 17.\n\nFootnote 579:\n\n  1 Sam. ii. 25.\n\nFootnote 580:\n\n  John xii. 37, 38.\n\nFootnote 581:\n\n  John vi. 45.\n\nFootnote 582:\n\n  1 Cor. i. 23, 24.\n\nFootnote 583:\n\n  Ezek. xxxiii. 11.\n\nFootnote 584:\n\n  1 Tim. ii. 4.\n\nFootnote 585:\n\n  Deut. iv. 7.\n\nFootnote 586:\n\n  Psalm cxlv. 9.\n\nFootnote 587:\n\n  Psalm cxv. 3.\n\nFootnote 588:\n\n  Exod. xxxiii. 19.\n\nFootnote 589:\n\n  2 Peter iii. 9.\n\nFootnote 590:\n\n  Ezek. xxxvi. 26.\n\nFootnote 591:\n\n  Zech. i. 3.\n\nFootnote 592:\n\n  2 Tim. ii. 25.\n\nFootnote 593:\n\n  Jer. xxxi. 18, 19.\n\nFootnote 594:\n\n  Matt. xxiii. 37.\n\nFootnote 595:\n\n  Isaiah lxv. 2.\n\nFootnote 596:\n\n  Matt. v. 48.\n\nFootnote 597:\n\n  Matt. xxv. 34.\n\nFootnote 598:\n\n  Rom. ix. 24.\n\nFootnote 599:\n\n  Rom. xi. 32.\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER XXV.\n                        THE FINAL RESURRECTION.\n\n\nThough Christ, the Sun of Righteousness, after having \u201cabolished death,\u201d\nis declared by Paul to have \u201cbrought life and immortality to light,\u201d\nshining upon us \u201cthrough the gospel,\u201d[600] whence also in believing we\nare said to have \u201cpassed from death unto life,\u201d[601] being \u201cno more\nstrangers and foreigners, but fellow-citizens with the saints, and of\nthe household of God,\u201d[602] who \u201chath made us sit together in heavenly\nplaces\u201d with his only begotten Son,[603] that nothing may be wanting to\nour complete felicity,\u2014yet, lest we should find it grievous to be still\nexercised with a severe warfare, as though we derived no benefit from\nthe victory gained by Christ, we must remember what is stated in another\nplace concerning the nature of hope. For \u201csince we hope for that we see\nnot,\u201d[604] and, according to another text, \u201cfaith is the evidence of\nthings not seen;\u201d[605] as long as we are confined in the prison of the\nflesh, \u201cwe are absent from the Lord.\u201d[606] Wherefore the same apostle\nsays, \u201cYe are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God;\u201d and \u201cwhen\nChrist, who is our life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with\nhim in glory.\u201d[607] This, then, is our condition, \u201cthat we should live\nsoberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world, looking for that\nblessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our\nSaviour Jesus Christ.\u201d[608] Here we have need of more than common\npatience, lest, being wearied, we pursue a retrograde course, or desert\nthe station assigned us. All that has hitherto been stated, therefore,\nconcerning our salvation, requires minds elevated towards heaven, that,\naccording to the suggestion of Peter, we may love Christ, whom we have\nnot seen, and, believing in him, may \u201crejoice with joy unspeakable and\nfull of glory,\u201d till we receive \u201cthe end of our faith.\u201d[609] For which\nreason, Paul represents the faith and hope of believers as having\nrespect to \u201cthe hope that is laid up in heaven.\u201d[610] When we are thus\nlooking towards heaven, with our eyes fixed upon Christ, and nothing\ndetains them on earth from carrying us forward to the promised\nblessedness, we realize the fulfilment of that declaration, \u201cWhere your\ntreasure is, there will your heart be also.\u201d[611] Hence it is, that\nfaith is so scarce in the world; because to our sluggishness nothing is\nmore difficult than to ascend through innumerable obstacles, \u201cpressing\ntoward the mark, for the prize of the high calling.\u201d[612] To the\naccumulation of miseries which generally oppress us, are added the\nmockeries of the profane, with which our simplicity is assailed; while\nvoluntarily renouncing the allurements of present advantage or pleasure,\nwe seem to pursue happiness, which is concealed from our view, like a\nshadow that continually eludes our grasp. In a word, above and below,\nbefore and behind, we are beset by violent temptations, which our minds\nwould long ago have been incapable of sustaining, if they had not been\ndetached from terrestrial things, and attached to the heavenly life,\nwhich is apparently at a remote distance. He alone, therefore, has made\na solid proficiency in the gospel who has been accustomed to continual\nmeditation on the blessed resurrection.\n\nII. The supreme good was a subject of anxious dispute, and even\ncontention, among the ancient philosophers; yet none of them, except\nPlato, acknowledged the chief good of man to consist in his union with\nGod. But of the nature of this union he had not even the smallest idea;\nand no wonder, for he was totally uninformed respecting the sacred bond\nof it. We know what is the only and perfect happiness even in this\nearthly pilgrimage; but it daily inflames our hearts with increasing\ndesires after it, till we shall be satisfied with its full fruition.\nTherefore I have observed that the advantage of Christ\u2019s benefits is\nsolely enjoyed by those who elevate their minds to the resurrection.\nThus Paul also sets before believers this object, towards which he tells\nus he directs all his own efforts, forgetting every thing else, \u201cif by\nany means he may attain unto it.\u201d[613] And it behoves us to press\nforward to the same point with the greater alacrity, lest, if this world\nengross our attention, we should be grievously punished for our sloth.\nHe therefore characterizes believers by this mark, \u201cOur conversation is\nin heaven, from whence also we look for the Saviour.\u201d[614] And that\ntheir minds may not flag in this course, he associates with them all\ncreatures as their companions. For as ruin and deformity are visible on\nevery side, he tells us that all things in heaven and earth are tending\nto renovation. For the fall of Adam having deranged the perfect order of\nnature, the bondage to which the creatures have been subjected by the\nsin of man is grievous and burdensome to them; not that they are endued\nwith any intelligence, but because they naturally aspire to the state of\nperfection from which they have fallen. Paul therefore attributes to\nthem groaning and travailing pains,[615] that we who have received the\nfirst-fruits of the Spirit may be ashamed of remaining in our\ncorruption, and not imitating at least the inanimate elements which bear\nthe punishment of the sin of others. But as a still stronger stimulus to\nus, he calls the second advent of Christ \u201cour redemption.\u201d It is true,\nindeed, that all the parts of our redemption are already completed; but\nbecause \u201cChrist was once offered to bear the sins of many, he shall\nappear the second time without sin unto salvation.\u201d[616] Whatever\ncalamities oppress us, this redemption should support us even till its\nfull consummation.\n\nIII. Let the importance of the object sharpen our pursuit. Paul justly\nargues, that \u201cif there be no resurrection of the dead,\u201d the whole gospel\nis vain and fallacious; for we should be \u201cof all men the most\nmiserable,\u201d being exposed to the hatred and reproaches of mankind,\n\u201cstanding in jeopardy every hour,\u201d[617] and being even like sheep\ndestined to the slaughter; and therefore its authority would fall to the\nground not in one point only, but in every thing it contains relating to\nadoption and the accomplishment of our salvation. To this subject, the\nmost important of all, let us give an attention never to be wearied by\nlength of time. With this view I have deferred what I shall briefly say\nof it to this place, that the reader, after receiving Christ as the\nAuthor of complete salvation, may learn to soar higher, and may know\nthat he is invested with heavenly glory and immortality, in order that\nthe whole body may be conformed to the Head; as in his person the Holy\nSpirit frequently gives an example of the resurrection. It is a thing\ndifficult to be believed, that bodies, after having been consumed by\ncorruption, shall at length, at the appointed time, be raised again.\nTherefore, while many of the philosophers asserted the immortality of\nthe soul, the resurrection of the body was admitted by few. And though\nthis furnishes no excuse, yet it admonishes us that this truth is too\ndifficult to command the assent of the human mind. To enable faith to\nsurmount so great an obstacle, the Scripture supplies us with two\nassistances: one consists in the similitude of Christ, the other in the\nomnipotence of God. Now, whenever the resurrection is mentioned, let us\nset before us the image of Christ, who, in our nature, which he assumed,\nfinished his course in this mortal life in such a manner, that, having\nnow obtained immortality, he is the pledge of future resurrection to us.\nFor in the afflictions that befall us, \u201cwe bear about in the body the\ndying of the Lord Jesus, that the life also of Jesus might be made\nmanifest in our body.\u201d[618] And to separate him from us, is not lawful,\nnor indeed possible, without rending him asunder. Hence the reasoning of\nPaul: \u201cIf there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not\nrisen;\u201d[619] for he assumes this as an acknowledged principle, that\nChrist neither fell under the power of death, nor triumphed over it in\nhis resurrection, for himself as a private individual; but that all this\nwas a commencement in the Head of what must be fulfilled in all the\nmembers, according to every one\u2019s order and degree. For it would not be\nright, indeed, for them to be in all respects equal to him. It is said\nin the Psalms, \u201cThou wilt not suffer thine Holy One to see\ncorruption.\u201d[620] Though a portion of this confidence belongs to us,\naccording to the measure bestowed upon us, yet the perfect\naccomplishment has been seen in Christ alone, who had his body restored\nto him entire, free from all corruption. Now that we may have no doubt\nof our fellowship with Christ in his blessed resurrection, and may be\nsatisfied with this pledge, Paul expressly affirms that the design of\nhis session in heaven, and his advent in the character of Judge at the\nlast day, is to \u201cchange our vile body, that it may be fashioned like\nunto his glorious body.\u201d[621] In another place also, he shows that God\nraised his Son from the dead, not in order to display a single specimen\nof his power, but to exert on believers the same energy of his Spirit,\nwhom he therefore calls \u201cour life\u201d while he dwells in us, because he was\ngiven for this very purpose, \u201cto quicken our mortal bodies.\u201d[622] I am\nbut briefly glancing at things which would admit of a fuller discussion,\nand are deserving of more elegance of style; but I trust the pious\nreader will find in a small compass sufficient matter for the\nedification of his faith. Christ, therefore, rose again, that we might\nbe the companions of his future life. He was raised by the Father,\ninasmuch as he was the Head of the church, from which he does not suffer\nhim to be separated. He was raised by the power of the Spirit, who is\ngiven to us also for the purpose of quickening us. In a word, he was\nraised that he might be \u201cthe resurrection and the life.\u201d But as we have\nobserved that this mirror exhibits to us a lively image of our\nresurrection, so it will furnish a firm foundation for our minds to rest\nupon, provided we are not wearied or disturbed by the long delay;\nbecause it is not ours to measure the moments of time by our own\ninclination, but to wait patiently for God\u2019s establishment of his\nkingdom in his own appointed time. To this purpose is the expression of\nPaul, \u201cChrist the first-fruits, afterward they that are Christ\u2019s at his\ncoming.\u201d[623] But that no doubt might be entertained of the resurrection\nof Christ, on which the resurrection of us all is founded, we see in how\nmany and various ways he has caused it to be attested to us. Scorners\nwill ridicule the history narrated by the evangelists, as a childish\nmockery. For what weight, they ask, is there in the message brought by\nsome women in a fright, and afterwards confirmed by the disciples half\ndead with fear? Why does not Christ rather set up the splendid trophies\nof his victory in the midst of the temple and the public places? Why\ndoes he not make a formidable entrance into the presence of Pilate? Why\ndoes he not prove himself to be again alive, to the priests and all the\ninhabitants of Jerusalem? Profane men will scarcely believe the persons\nselected by him to be competent witnesses. I reply, notwithstanding the\ncontemptible weakness evident in these beginnings, yet all this was\nconducted by the admirable providence of God, that they who were lately\ndispirited with fear, were hurried away to the sepulchre, partly by love\nto Christ and pious zeal, partly by their own unbelief, not only to be\neye-witnesses of the fact, but to hear from the angels the same as they\nsaw with their eyes. How can we suspect the authority of those who\nconsidered what they heard from the women \u201cas idle tales,\u201d till they had\nthe fact clearly before them?[624] As to the people at large, and the\ngovernor himself, it is no wonder that after the ample conviction they\nhad, they were denied a sight of Christ, or any other proofs. The\nsepulchre is sealed, a watch is set, the body is not found on the third\nday. The soldiers, corrupted by bribes, circulate a rumour that he was\nstolen away by his disciples;[625] as if they had power to collect a\nstrong force, or were furnished with arms, or were even accustomed to\nsuch a daring exploit. But if the soldiers had not courage enough to\nrepulse them, why did they not pursue them, that with the assistance of\nthe people they might seize some of them? The truth is, therefore, that\nPilate by his zeal attested the resurrection of Christ; and the guards\nwho were placed at the sepulchre, either by their silence or by their\nfalsehood, were in reality so many heralds to publish the same fact. In\nthe mean time, the voice of the angels loudly proclaimed, \u201cHe is not\nhere, but is risen.\u201d[626] Their celestial splendour evidently showed\nthem to be angels, and not men. After this, if there was any doubt still\nremaining, it was removed by Christ himself. More than once, his\ndisciples saw, and even felt and handled him; and their unbelief has\neminently contributed to the confirmation of our faith. He discoursed\namong them concerning the mysteries of the kingdom of God, and at length\nthey saw him ascend to heaven.[627] Nor was this spectacle exhibited\nonly to the eleven apostles, but \u201che was seen of above five hundred\nbrethren at once.\u201d[628] By the mission of the Holy Spirit he gave an\nundeniable proof, not only of his life, but also of his sovereign\ndominion; according to his prediction, \u201cIt is expedient for you that I\ngo away; for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but\nif I depart, I will send him unto you.\u201d[629] Paul, in his way to\nDamascus, was not prostrated to the ground by the influence of a dead\nman, but felt that the person whom he was opposing was armed with\nsupreme power. He appeared to Stephen for another reason\u2014to overcome the\nfear of death by an assurance of life.[630] To refuse credit to\ntestimonies so numerous and authentic, is not diffidence, but perverse\nand unreasonable obstinacy.\n\nIV. The remark we have made, that in proving the resurrection, our minds\nshould be directed to the infinite power of God, is briefly suggested in\nthese words of Paul: \u201cWho shall change our vile body, that it may be\nfashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby\nhe is able even to subdue all things unto himself.\u201d[631] It would\ntherefore be extremely unreasonable here, to consider what could\npossibly happen in the ordinary course of nature, when the object\nproposed to us is an inestimable miracle, the magnitude of which absorbs\nall our faculties. Yet Paul adduces an example from nature to reprove\nthe folly of those who deny the resurrection. \u201cThou fool,\u201d says he,\n\u201cthat which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die.\u201d[632] He tells\nus that seed sown displays an image of the resurrection, because the\ncorn is reproduced from putrefaction. Nor would it be a thing so\ndifficult to believe, if we paid proper attention to the miracles which\npresent themselves to our view in all parts of the world. But let us\nremember, that no man will be truly persuaded of the future\nresurrection, but he who is filled with admiration, and ascribes to the\npower of God the glory that is due to it. Transported with this\nconfidence, Isaiah exclaims, \u201cThy dead men shall live; together with my\ndead body shall they arise; awake and sing, ye that dwell in dust.\u201d[633]\nSurrounded by desperate circumstances, he has recourse to God, the\nAuthor of life, unto whom, as the Psalmist says, \u201cbelong the issues from\ndeath.\u201d[634] Even reduced to a state resembling a dead carcass more than\na living man, yet relying on the power of God, just as if he were in\nperfect health, Job looks forward without any doubts to that day. \u201cI\nknow,\u201d says he, \u201cthat my Redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the\nlatter day upon the earth,\u201d there to display his power; \u201cand though\nafter my skin, worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God;\nwhom I shall see for myself, and not another.\u201d[635] For though some\npersons employ great subtilty to pervert these texts, as if they ought\nnot to be understood of the resurrection, they nevertheless confirm what\nthey wish to destroy; since holy men, in the midst of calamities, seek\nconsolation from no other quarter than from the similitude of the\nresurrection; which more fully appears from a passage in Ezekiel.[636]\nFor when the Jews rejected the promise of their restoration, and\nobjected, that there was no more probability of a way being opened for\ntheir return, than of the dead coming forth from their sepulchres, a\nvision is presented to the prophet, of a field full of dry bones, and\nGod commands them to receive flesh and nerves. Though this figure is\nintended to inspire the people with a hope of restoration, he borrows\nthe argument for it from the resurrection; as it is to us also the\nprincipal model of all the deliverances which believers experience in\nthis world. So Christ, after having declared that the voice of the\ngospel communicates life, in consequence of its rejection by the Jews,\nimmediately adds, \u201cMarvel not at this; for the hour is coming, in the\nwhich all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come\nforth.\u201d[637] After the example of Paul, therefore, let us even now\ntriumphantly exult in the midst of our conflicts, that he who has\npromised us a life to come \u201cis able to keep that which we have committed\nto him;\u201d and thus let us glory that \u201cthere is laid up for us a crown of\nrighteousness, which the righteous Judge shall give us.\u201d[638] The\nconsequence of this will be, that all the troubles we suffer will point\nus to the life to come, \u201cseeing it is a righteous thing with God,\u201d and\nagreeable to his nature, \u201cto recompense tribulation to them that trouble\nus, and to us who are\u201d unjustly \u201ctroubled, rest, when the Lord Jesus\nshall be revealed, with his mighty angels, in flaming fire.\u201d[639] But we\nmust remember what immediately follows, that \u201che shall come to be\nglorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe,\u201d\nbecause they believe the gospel.\n\nV. Now, though the minds of men ought to be continually occupied with\nthe study of this subject, yet as if they expressly intended to abolish\nall remembrance of the resurrection, they have called death the end of\nall things, and the destruction of man. For Solomon certainly speaks\naccording to a common and received opinion, when he says, \u201cA living dog\nis better than a dead lion.\u201d[640] And again: \u201cWho knows whether the\nspirit of man goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast goeth\ndownward?\u201d[641] This brutish stupidity has infected all ages of the\nworld, and even forced its way into the Church; for the Sadducees had\nthe audacity publicly to profess, that there is no resurrection, and\nthat souls are mortal. But that none might be excused by this gross\nignorance, the very instinct of nature has always set before the eyes of\nunbelievers an image of the resurrection. For what is the sacred and\ninviolable custom of interring the dead, but a pledge of another life?\nNor can it be objected that this originated in error; for the rites of\nsepulture were always observed among the holy fathers; and it pleased\nGod that the same custom should be retained among the Gentiles, that\ntheir torpor might be roused by the image of the resurrection thereby\nset before them. Though this ceremony produced no good effects upon\nthem, yet it will be useful to us, if we wisely consider its tendency;\nfor it is no slight refutation of unbelief, that all united in\nprofessing a thing that none of them believed. But Satan has not only\nstupefied men\u2019s minds, to make them bury the memory of the resurrection\ntogether with the bodies of the dead, but has endeavoured to corrupt\nthis point of doctrine by various fictions, with an ultimate view to its\ntotal subversion. Not to mention that he began to oppose it in the days\nof Paul, not long after arose the Millenarians, who limited the reign of\nChrist to a thousand years. Their fiction is too puerile to require or\ndeserve refutation. Nor does the Revelation, which they quote in favour\nof their error, afford them any support; for the term of a thousand\nyears, there mentioned,[642] refers not to the eternal blessedness of\nthe Church, but to the various agitations which awaited the Church in\nits militant state upon earth. But the whole Scripture proclaims that\nthere will be no end of the happiness of the elect, or the punishment of\nthe reprobate. Now, all those things which are invisible to our eyes, or\nfar above the comprehension of our minds, must either be believed on the\nauthority of the oracles of God, or entirely rejected. Those who assign\nthe children of God a thousand years to enjoy the inheritance of the\nfuture life, little think what dishonour they cast on Christ and his\nkingdom. For if they are not invested with immortality, neither is\nChrist himself, into the likeness of whose glory they will be\ntransformed, received up into immortal glory. If their happiness will\nhave any end, it follows that the kingdom of Christ, on the stability of\nwhich it rests, is temporary. Lastly, either these persons are extremely\nignorant of all Divine things, or they are striving, with malignant\nperverseness, to overturn all the grace of God and power of Christ; and\nthese can never be perfectly fulfilled till sin is abolished, and death\nswallowed up, and eternal life completely established. But the folly of\nbeing afraid that too much cruelty is attributed to God, if the\nreprobate are doomed to eternal punishment, is even evident to the\nblind. Will the Lord do any injury by refusing the enjoyment of his\nkingdom to persons whose ingratitude shall have rendered them unworthy\nof it? But their sins are temporary. This I grant; but the majesty of\nGod, as well as his justice, which their sins have violated, is eternal.\nTheir iniquity, therefore, is justly remembered. Then the punishment is\nalleged to be excessive, being disproportioned to the crime. But this is\nintolerable blasphemy, when the majesty of God is so little valued, when\nthe contempt of it is considered of no more consequence than the\ndestruction of one soul. But let us pass by these triflers; lest,\ncontrary to what we have before said, we should appear to consider their\nreveries as worthy of refutation.\n\nVI. Beside these wild notions, the perverse curiosity of man has\nintroduced two others. Some have supposed that the whole man dies, and\nthat souls are raised again together with bodies; others, admitting the\nimmortality of souls, suppose they will be clothed with new bodies, and\nthereby deny the resurrection of the flesh. As I have touched on the\nformer of these notions in the creation of man, it will be sufficient\nagain to apprize my readers, that it is a brutish error, to represent\nthe spirit, formed after the image of God, as a fleeting breath which\nanimates the body only during this perishable life, and to annihilate\nthe temple of the Holy Spirit; in short, to despoil that part of us in\nwhich Divinity is eminently displayed, and the characters of immortality\nare conspicuous, of this property; so that the condition of the body\nmust be better and more excellent than that of the soul. Very different\nis the doctrine of Scripture, which compares the body to a habitation,\nfrom which we depart at death; because it estimates us by that part of\nour nature which constitutes the distinction between us and the brutes.\nThus Peter, when near his death, says, \u201cShortly I must put off this my\ntabernacle.\u201d[643] And Paul, speaking of believers, having said that \u201cif\nour earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building\nin the heavens,\u201d adds that \u201cwhilst we are at home in the body, we are\nabsent from the Lord, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and\nto be present with the Lord.\u201d[644] Unless our souls survive our bodies,\nwhat is it that is present with God when separated from the body? But\nthe apostle removes all doubt when he says that we are \u201ccome to the\nspirits of just men made perfect.\u201d[645] By which expression he means,\nthat we are associated with the holy fathers, who, though dead, still\nmaintain the same piety with us, so that we cannot be members of Christ\nwithout being united with them. If souls separated from bodies did not\nretain their existence so as to be capable of glory and felicity, Christ\nwould not have said to the thief, \u201cTo-day shalt thou be with me in\nparadise.\u201d[646] Supported by such undeniable testimonies, let us not\nhesitate, after the example of Christ, when we die, to commend our\nspirits to God; or, like Stephen, to resign them to the care of Christ,\nwho is justly called the faithful \u201cShepherd and Bishop of souls.\u201d\nOver-curious inquiry respecting their intermediate state is neither\nlawful nor useful. Many persons exceedingly perplex themselves by\ndiscussing what place they occupy, and whether they already enjoy the\nglory of heaven, or not. But it is folly and presumption to push our\ninquiries on unknown things beyond what God permits us to know. The\nScripture declares that Christ is present with them, and receives them\ninto paradise, where they enjoy consolation, and that the souls of the\nreprobate endure the torments which they have deserved; but it proceeds\nno further. Now, what teacher or doctor shall discover to us that which\nGod has concealed? The question respecting place is equally senseless\nand futile; because we know that the soul has no dimensions like the\nbody. The blessed assemblage of holy spirits being called the bosom of\nAbraham, teaches us that it is enough for us, at the close of this\npilgrimage, to be received by the common Father of believers, and to\nparticipate with him in the fruit of his faith. In the mean while, as\nthe Scripture uniformly commands us to look forward with eager\nexpectation to the coming of Christ, and defers the crown of glory which\nawaits us till that period, let us be content within these limits which\nGod prescribes to us\u2014that the souls of pious men, after finishing their\nlaborious warfare, depart into a state of blessed rest, where they wait\nwith joy and pleasure for the fruition of the promised glory; and so,\nthat all things remain in suspense till Christ appears as the Redeemer.\nAnd there is no doubt that the condition of the reprobate is the same as\nJude assigns to the devils, who are confined and bound in chains till\nthey are brought forth to the punishment to which they are doomed.\n\nVII. Equally monstrous is the error of those who imagine that souls will\nnot resume the bodies which at present belong to them, but will be\nfurnished with others altogether different. It was the very futile\nreasoning of the Manich\u00e6ans, that it is absurd to expect that the flesh\nwhich is so impure will ever rise again. As if there were no impurity\nattached to the souls, which they nevertheless encouraged to entertain\nhopes of a heavenly life. It was therefore just as if they had\nmaintained, that any thing infected with the contagion of sin is\nincapable of being purified by the power of God; for that reverie, that\nthe flesh was created by the devil, and therefore naturally impure, I at\npresent forbear to notice; and only observe, that whatever we have in us\nnow unworthy of heaven, will not hinder the resurrection. In the first\nplace, when Paul exhorts believers to \u201ccleanse\u201d themselves \u201cfrom all\nfilthiness of the flesh and spirit,\u201d[647] thence follows the judgment he\nelsewhere denounces, \u201cthat every one\u201d shall \u201creceive the things done in\nhis body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or\nbad;\u201d[648] with which agrees another passage, \u201cthat the life also of\nJesus might be made manifest in our body.\u201d[649] Wherefore in another\nplace, he prays to God that the whole person may \u201cbe preserved blameless\nunto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ,\u201d even the \u201cbody,\u201d as well as\nthe \u201csoul and spirit.\u201d[650] And no wonder; for that those bodies which\nGod has dedicated as temples for himself, should sink into corruption,\nwithout any hope of resurrection, would be absurd in the extreme. What\nis to be concluded from their being members of Christ?[651] from God\u2019s\nenjoining every part of them to be sanctified to himself, requiring\ntheir tongues to celebrate his name, their hands to be lifted up with\npurity to him,[652] and their bodies altogether to be presented to him\nas \u201cliving sacrifices?\u201d[653] This part of our nature therefore being\ndignified with such illustrious honour by the heavenly Judge, what\nmadness is betrayed by a mortal man, in asserting it to be reduced to\nashes without any hope of restoration! And Paul, when he gives us this\nexhortation, \u201cGlorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are\nGod\u2019s,\u201d[654] certainly does not countenance consigning to eternal\ncorruption that which he asserts to be consecrated to God. Nor is there\nany point more clearly established in Scripture, than the resurrection\nof our present bodies. \u201cThis corruptible,\u201d says Paul, \u201cmust put on\nincorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.\u201d[655] If new\nbodies were to be formed by God, what would become of this change of\nquality? If it had been said, that we must be renewed, the ambiguity of\nthe expression might have given occasion for cavil: now, when he\nparticularly designates the bodies that surround us, and promises that\nthey shall be \u201craised in incorruption,\u201d it is a sufficient denial of the\nformation of new ones. \u201cHe could not indeed,\u201d says Tertullian, \u201chave\nspoken more expressly, unless he had held his own skin in his hand.\u201d Nor\nwill any cavil evade the declaration of Isaiah, cited by the apostle,\nrespecting Christ as the future Judge of the world: \u201cAs I live, saith\nthe Lord, every knee shall bow to me;\u201d[656] for he plainly declares to\nthe persons addressed by him, that they shall be obliged to give an\naccount of their lives; which would not be reasonable, if new bodies\nwere to be placed at the tribunal. There is no obscurity in the language\nof Daniel: \u201cMany of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall\nawake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting\ncontempt.\u201d[657] For God does not collect fresh materials from the four\nelements for the fabrication of men, but calls the dead out of their\nsepulchres. And this the plainest reason dictates. For if death, which\noriginated in the fall of man, be adventitious, and not necessary to our\nnature, the restoration effected by Christ belongs to the same body\nwhich was thus rendered mortal. From the ridicule of the Athenians, when\nPaul asserted the resurrection, it is easy to infer the nature of his\ndoctrine; and that ridicule is of no small weight for the confirmation\nof our faith. The injunction of Christ also is worthy of attention:\n\u201cFear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul;\nbut rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in\nhell.\u201d[658] For there would be no reason for this fear, if the body\nwhich we now carry about were not liable to punishment. Another of\nChrist\u2019s declarations is equally plain: \u201cThe hour is coming, in the\nwhich all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come\nforth, they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life, and they\nthat have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.\u201d[659] Shall we\nsay that souls rest in graves, and will there hear the voice of Christ,\nand not rather that bodies at his command will return to the vigour they\nhad lost? Besides, if we are to receive new bodies, where will be the\nconformity between the Head and members? Christ rose; was it by making\nhimself a new body? No, but according to his prediction, \u201cDestroy this\ntemple, and in three days I will raise it up.\u201d[660] The mortal body\nwhich he before possessed, he again assumed. For it would have conduced\nbut little to our benefit, if there had been a substitution of a new\nbody, and an annihilation of that which had been offered as an atoning\nsacrifice. We must, therefore, maintain the connection stated by the\napostle\u2014that we shall rise, because Christ has risen;[661] for nothing\nis more improbable, than that our body, in which \u201cwe bear about the\ndying of the Lord Jesus,\u201d[662] should be deprived of a resurrection\nsimilar to his. There was an illustrious example of this immediately on\nChrist\u2019s resurrection, when \u201cthe graves were opened, and many bodies of\nthe saints which slept arose.\u201d[663] For it cannot be denied, that this\nwas a prelude, or rather an earnest, of the final resurrection, which we\nexpect; such as was exhibited before in Enoch and Elias, whom Tertullian\nspeaks of as \u201cthe candidates of the resurrection,\u201d because they were\ntaken into the immediate care of God, with an entire exemption from\ncorruption in body and soul.\n\nVIII. I am ashamed of consuming so many words on so clear a subject; but\nmy readers will cheerfully unite with me in submitting to this trouble,\nthat no room may be left for men of perverse and presumptuous minds to\ndeceive the unwary. The unsteady spirits I am now opposing, bring\nforward a figment of their own brains, that at the resurrection there\nwill be a creation of new bodies. What reason can induce them to adopt\nthis sentiment, but a seeming incredibility, in their apprehension, that\na body long consumed by corruption can ever return to its pristine\nstate? Unbelief, therefore, is the only source of this opinion. In the\nScripture, on the contrary, we are uniformly exhorted by the Spirit of\nGod to hope for the resurrection of our body. For this reason, baptism\nis spoken of by Paul as a seal of our future resurrection;[664] and we\nare as clearly invited to this confidence by the sacred Supper, when we\nreceive into our mouths the symbols of spiritual grace. And certainly\nthe exhortation of Paul, to \u201cyield our members as instruments of\nrighteousness unto God,\u201d[665] would lose all its force, if unaccompanied\nby what he afterwards subjoins: \u201cHe that raised up Christ from the dead,\nshall also quicken your mortal bodies.\u201d[666] For what would it avail to\ndevote our feet, hands, eyes, and tongues to the service of God, if they\nwere not to participate the benefit and reward? This is clearly\nconfirmed by the following passage of Paul: \u201cThe body is not for\nfornication, but for the Lord; and the Lord for the body. And God hath\nboth raised up the Lord, and will also raise up us by his own\npower.\u201d[667] The following passages are still plainer\u2014that our bodies\nare the \u201ctemples of the Holy Ghost,\u201d and \u201cmembers of Christ.\u201d[668] In\nthe mean time, we see how he connects the resurrection with chastity and\nholiness; and so he just after extends the price of redemption to our\nbodies. Now, it would be extremely unreasonable that the body of Paul,\nin which he \u201cbore the marks of the Lord Jesus,\u201d[669] and in which he\neminently glorified Christ, should be deprived of the reward of the\ncrown. Hence also that exultation: \u201cWe look for the Saviour from heaven,\nwho shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his\nglorious body.\u201d[670] And if it be true, \u201cthat we must through much\ntribulation enter into the kingdom of God,\u201d[671] there can be no reason\nfor prohibiting this entrance to the bodies, which God trains under the\nbanner of the cross, and honours with the glory of victory. Therefore no\ndoubt has ever been entertained by the saints, whether they should hope\nto be companions of Christ hereafter; who transfers to his own person\nall the afflictions with which we are tried, to teach us that they are\nconducting us to life. And God also established the holy fathers under\nthe law in this faith by an external ceremony. For to what purpose was\nthe rite of sepulture, as we have already seen, but to instruct them\nthat another life was prepared for the interred bodies? The same was\nsuggested by the spices and other symbols of immortality, which, like\nthe sacrifices under the law, assisted the obscurity of direct\ninstruction. Nor did this custom arise from superstition; for we find\nthe Holy Spirit as diligent in mentioning the sepultures, as in\ninsisting on the principal mysteries of faith. And Christ commends this\nas no mean office;[672] certainly for no other reason, but because it\nraises our eyes from the view of the grave, which corrupts and dissolves\nall things, to the spectacle of future renovation. Besides the very\ncareful observance of this ceremony, which is commended in the fathers,\nsufficiently proves it to have been an excellent and valuable assistance\nto faith. Nor would Abraham have discovered such solicitous concern\nabout the sepulchre of his wife, if he had not been actuated by motives\nof religion, and the prospect of more than worldly advantage; that by\nadorning her dead body with the emblems of the resurrection, he might\nconfirm his own faith, and that of his family.[673] There is yet a\nclearer proof of this in the example of Jacob; who, to testify to his\nposterity that the hope of the promised land did not forsake his heart\neven in death, commands his bones to be reconveyed thither.[674] If he\nwas to be furnished with a new body, would not this have been a\nridiculous command concerning dust that was soon to be annihilated?\nWherefore, if the authority of the Scripture has any weight with us, no\nclearer or stronger proof of any doctrine can possibly be desired. Even\nchildren understand this to be the meaning of the term \u201cresurrection;\u201d\nfor we never apply this term to any instance of original creation; nor\nwould it be consistent with that declaration of Christ, \u201cOf all which\nthe Father hath given me, I shall lose nothing, but will raise it up\nagain at the last day.\u201d[675] The same is implied in the word \u201csleeping,\u201d\nwhich is only applicable to the body. Hence the appellation of\n_cemetery_, or _sleeping-place_, given to places of burial. It remains\nfor me to touch a little on the manner of the resurrection. And I shall\nbut just hint at it; because Paul, by calling it a mystery, exhorts us\nto sobriety, and forbids all licentiousness of subtle and extravagant\nspeculation. In the first place, let it be remembered, as we have\nobserved, that we shall rise again with the same bodies we have now, as\nto the substance, but that the quality will be different; just as the\nvery body of Christ which had been offered as a sacrifice was raised\nagain, but with such new and superior qualities, as though it had been\naltogether different. Paul represents this by some familiar examples.\nFor as the flesh of man and of brutes is the same in substance, but not\nin quality; as the matter of all the stars is the same, but they differ\nin glory; so, though we shall retain the substance of our body, he tells\nus there will be a change, which will render its condition far more\nexcellent.[676] The \u201ccorruptible\u201d body, therefore, will neither perish\nnor vanish, in order to our resurrection; but having laid aside\ncorruption, will \u201cput on incorruption.\u201d[677] God, having all the\nelements subject to his control, will find no difficulty in commanding\nthe earth, the water, and the fire, to restore whatever they appear to\nhave consumed. This is declared in figurative language by Isaiah:\n\u201cBehold, the Lord cometh out of his place to punish the inhabitants of\nthe earth for their iniquity; the earth also shall disclose her blood,\nand shall no more cover her slain.\u201d[678] But we must remark the\ndifference between those who shall have been already dead, and those\nwhom that day shall find alive. \u201cWe shall not all sleep,\u201d says Paul,\n\u201cbut we shall all be changed;\u201d[679] that is, there will be no necessity\nfor any distance of time to intervene between death and the commencement\nof the next life; for \u201cin a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, the\ntrumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible,\u201d and\nthe living transformed by a sudden change into the same glory. So in\nanother Epistle he comforts believers who were to die, that those \u201cwhich\nare alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord, shall not prevent them\nwhich are asleep,\u201d but that \u201cthe dead in Christ shall rise first.\u201d[680]\nIf it be objected that the apostle says, \u201cIt is appointed unto men once\nto die,\u201d[681] the answer is easy,\u2014that where the state of the nature is\nchanged, it is a species of death, and may without impropriety be so\ncalled; and therefore there is a perfect consistence between these\nthings, that all will be removed by death when they put off the mortal\nbody, but that a separation of the body and soul will not be necessary,\nwhere there will be an instantaneous change.\n\nIX. But here arises a question of greater difficulty. How can the\nresurrection, which is a peculiar benefit of Christ, be common to the\nimpious and the subjects of the Divine curse? We know that in Adam all\nwere sentenced to death;[682] Christ comes as \u201cthe resurrection and the\nlife;\u201d[683] but was it to bestow life promiscuously on all mankind? But\nwhat would be more improbable, than that they should attain, in their\nobstinate blindness, what the pious worshippers of God recover by faith\nalone? Yet it remains certain, that one will be a resurrection to\njudgment, the other to life; and that Christ will come to \u201cseparate the\nsheep from the goats.\u201d[684] I reply, we ought not to think that so very\nstrange, which we see exemplified in our daily experience. We know that\nin Adam we lost the inheritance of the whole world, and have no more\nright to the enjoyment of common aliments, than to the fruit of the tree\nof life. How is it, then, that God not only \u201cmaketh his sun to rise on\nthe evil and on the good,\u201d[685] but that, for the accommodations of the\npresent life, his inestimable liberality is diffused in the most copious\nabundance? Hence we see, that things which properly belong to Christ and\nhis members, are also extended to the impious; not to become their\nlegitimate possession, but to render them more inexcusable. Thus impious\nmen frequently experience God\u2019s beneficence in remarkable instances,\nwhich sometimes exceed all the blessings of the pious, but which,\nnevertheless, are the means of aggravating their condemnation. If it be\nobjected, that the resurrection is improperly compared with fleeting and\nterrestrial advantages, I reply again, that when men were first\nalienated from God, the Fountain of life, they deserved the ruin of the\ndevil, to be altogether destroyed; yet the wonderful counsel of God\ndevised a middle state, that without life they might live in death. It\nought not to be thought more unreasonable, if the impious are raised\nfrom the dead, in order to be dragged to the tribunal of Christ, whom\nthey now refuse to hear as their Master and Teacher. For it would be a\nslight punishment to be destroyed by death, if they were not to be\nbrought before the Judge whose infinite and endless vengeance they have\nincurred, to receive the punishments due to their rebellion. But though\nwe must maintain what we have asserted, and what is asserted by Paul in\nhis celebrated confession before Felix, \u201cthat there shall be a\nresurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust,\u201d[686] yet the\nScripture more commonly exhibits the resurrection to the children of God\nalone, in connection with the glory of heaven; because, strictly\nspeaking, Christ will come, not for the destruction of the world, but\nfor purposes of salvation. This is the reason that the Creed mentions\nonly the life of blessedness.\n\nX. But, as the prophecy of \u201cdeath being swallowed up in victory,\u201d shall\nthen, and not till then, be fully accomplished,\u2014let us always reflect on\neternal felicity as the end of the resurrection; of the excellence of\nwhich, if every thing were said that could be expressed by all the\ntongues of men, yet the smallest part of it would scarcely be mentioned.\nFor though we are plainly informed, that the kingdom of God is full of\nlight, joy, felicity, and glory, yet all that is mentioned remains far\nabove our comprehension, and enveloped, as it were, in enigmatical\nobscurity, till the arrival of that day, when he shall exhibit his glory\nto us face to face. \u201cNow are we the sons of God, (says John,) and it\ndoth not yet appear what we shall be; but we know, that when he shall\nappear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.\u201d[687]\nWherefore the prophets, because they could not describe that spiritual\nblessedness by any terms expressive of its sublime nature, generally\nrepresented it under corporeal images. Yet, as any intimation of that\nhappiness must kindle in us a fervour of desire, let us chiefly dwell on\nthis reflection\u2014If God, as an inexhaustible fountain, contains within\nhimself a plenitude of all blessings, nothing beyond him can ever be\ndesired by those who aspire to the supreme good, and a perfection of\nhappiness. This we are taught in various passages of Scripture.\n\u201cAbraham,\u201d says God, \u201cI am thy exceeding great reward.\u201d[688] With this\nDavid agrees: \u201cThe Lord is the portion of mine inheritance; the lines\nare fallen unto me in pleasant places.\u201d[689] Again: \u201cI will behold thy\nface; I shall be satisfied.\u201d[690] Peter declares, that believers are\ncalled, \u201cthat they might be partakers of the Divine nature.\u201d[691] How\nwill this be? Because \u201che shall be glorified in his saints, and admired\nin all them that believe.\u201d[692] If the Lord will make the elect\npartakers of his glory, strength, and righteousness, and will even\nbestow himself upon them to be enjoyed, and, what is better than this,\nto be in some sense united to them,\u2014let us remember, that in this favour\nevery kind of felicity is comprised. And after we have made considerable\nprogress in this meditation, we may still acknowledge the conceptions of\nour minds to be extremely low, in comparison with the sublimity of this\nmystery. Sobriety, therefore, is the more necessary for us on this\nsubject, lest, forgetful of our slender capacity, we presumptuously soar\nto too high an elevation, and are overwhelmed with the blaze of\ncelestial glory. We perceive, likewise, how we are actuated by an\ninordinate desire of knowing more than is right; which gives rise to a\nvariety of questions, both frivolous and pernicious. I call those\nfrivolous, from which no advantage can possibly be derived. But those of\nthe second class are worse, involving persons, who indulge them, in\ninjurious speculations, and therefore I call them pernicious. What is\ntaught in the Scriptures, we ought to receive without any controversy;\nthat as God, in the various distribution of his gifts to the saints in\nthis world, does not equally enlighten them all, so in heaven, where God\nwill crown those gifts, there will be an inequality in the degrees of\ntheir glory. The language of Paul is not indiscriminately applicable to\nall\u2014\u201cYe are our glory and joy at our Lord\u2019s coming;\u201d[693] nor Christ\u2019s\naddress to his apostles\u2014\u201cYe shall sit judging the twelve tribes of\nIsrael.\u201d[694] But Paul, who knew that according as God enriches the\nsaints with spiritual gifts on earth, so he adorns them with glory in\nheaven, doubts not that there is in reserve for him a peculiar crown in\nproportion to his labours. And Christ commends to his apostles the\ndignity of the office with which they were invested, by assuring them\nthat the reward of it was laid up in heaven.[695] Thus also Daniel:\n\u201cThey that be wise, shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and\nthey that turn many to righteousness, as the stars, for ever and\never.\u201d[696] And an attentive consideration of the Scriptures will\nconvince us, that they not only promise eternal life generally to\nbelievers, but also a special reward to each individual. Whence that\nexpression of Paul\u2014\u201cThe Lord reward him according to his works.\u201d[697] It\nis also confirmed by the promise of Christ that his disciples should\nreceive a hundred-fold more in eternal life.[698] In a word, as Christ\nbegins the glory of his body by a manifold variety of gifts in this\nworld, and enlarges it by degrees, in the same manner he will also\nperfect it in heaven.\n\nXI. As all the pious will receive this with one consent, because it is\nsufficiently attested in the word of God, so, on the other hand,\ndismissing abstruse questions, which they know to be obstructions to\nthem, they will not transgress the limits prescribed to them. For\nmyself, I not only refrain as an individual from the unnecessary\ninvestigation of useless questions, but think it my duty to be cautious,\nlest I encourage the vanity of others by answering them. Men, thirsting\nafter useless knowledge, inquire what will be the distance between the\nprophets and apostles, and between the apostles and martyrs; and how\nmany degrees of difference there will be between those who have married\nand those who have lived and died in celibacy; in short, they leave not\na corner of heaven unexplored. The next object of their inquiry is, what\nend will be answered by the restoration of the world; since the children\nof God will want nothing of all its vast and incomparable abundance, but\nwill be like the angels of God, whose freedom from all animal\nnecessities is the symbol of eternal blessedness. I reply, there will be\nsuch great pleasantness in the very prospect, and such exquisite\nsweetness in the mere knowledge, without any use of it, that this\nfelicity will far exceed all the accommodations afforded us in the\npresent state. Let us suppose ourselves placed in some region the most\nopulent in the world, and furnished with every pleasure; who would not\nsometimes be prevented by disease from making use of the bounties of\nGod? who would not often have his enjoyment of them interrupted by the\nconsequences of intemperance? Hence it follows, that calm and serene\nenjoyment, pure from every vice and free from all defect, although there\nshould be no use of a corruptible life, is the perfection of happiness.\nOthers go further, and inquire, whether dross and all impurities in\nmetals are not removed from that restoration, and incompatible with such\na state. Though I in some measure grant this, I expect, with Paul, a\nreparation of all the evils caused by sin, for which he represents the\ncreatures as groaning and travailing. They proceed further still, and\ninquire, what better state awaits the human race, when the blessing of\nposterity shall no longer be enjoyed. The solution of this question also\nis easy. The splendid commendations of it in the Scriptures relate to\nthat progressive increase, by which God is continually carrying forward\nthe system of nature to its consummation. But as the unwary are easily\ncaught by such temptations, and are afterwards drawn further into the\nlabyrinth, till, at length, every one being pleased with his own\nopinion, there is no end to disputes,\u2014the best and shortest rule for our\nconduct, is to content ourselves with \u201cseeing through a glass darkly,\u201d\ntill we shall \u201csee face to face.\u201d[699] For very few persons are\nconcerned about the way that leads to heaven, but all are anxious to\nknow, before the time, what passes there. Men in general are slow, and\nreluctant to engage in the conflict, and yet portray to themselves\nimaginary triumphs.\n\nXII. Now, as no description can equal the severity of the Divine\nvengeance on the reprobate, their anguish and torment are figuratively\nrepresented to us under corporeal images; as, darkness, weeping, and\ngnashing of teeth, unextinguishable fire, a worm incessantly gnawing the\nheart.[700] For there can be no doubt but that, by such modes of\nexpression, the Holy Spirit intended to confound all our faculties with\nhorror; as when it is said, that \u201cTophet is ordained of old; the pile\nthereof is fire and much wood: the breath of the Lord, like a stream of\nbrimstone, doth kindle it.\u201d[701] As these representations should assist\nus in forming some conception of the wretched condition of the wicked,\nso they ought principally to fix our attention on the calamity of being\nalienated from the presence of God; and in addition to this,\nexperiencing such hostility from the Divine majesty as to be unable to\nescape from its continual pursuit. For, in the first place, his\nindignation is like a most violent flame, which devours and consumes all\nthat it touches. In the next place, all the creatures so subserve the\nexecution of his judgment, that those to whom the Lord will thus\nmanifest his wrath, will find the heaven, the earth, and the sea, the\nanimals, and all that exists, inflamed, as it were, with dire\nindignation against them, and all armed for their destruction. It is no\ntrivial threatening, therefore, denounced by the apostle, that\nunbelievers \u201cshall be punished with everlasting destruction from the\npresence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power.\u201d[702] And when\nthe prophets excite terror by corporeal figures, though they advance\nnothing hyperbolical for our dull understandings, yet they mingle\npreludes of the future judgment with the sun, the moon, and the whole\nfabric of the world. Wherefore miserable consciences find no repose, but\nare harassed and agitated with a dreadful tempest, feel themselves torn\nasunder by an angry God, and, transfixed and penetrated by mortal\nstings, are terrified at the thunderbolts of God, and broken by the\nweight of his hand; so that to sink into any gulfs and abysses would be\nmore tolerable than to stand for a moment in these terrors. How great\nand severe, then, is the punishment, to endure the never ceasing effects\nof his wrath! On which subject there is a memorable passage in the\nninetieth psalm; that though by his countenance he scatters all mortals,\nand turns them to destruction, yet he encourages his servants in\nproportion to their timidity in this world, to excite them, though under\nthe burden of the cross, to press forward, till he shall be all in all.\n\nFootnote 600:\n\n  2 Tim. i. 10.\n\nFootnote 601:\n\n  John v. 24.\n\nFootnote 602:\n\n  Ephes. ii. 19.\n\nFootnote 603:\n\n  Ephes. ii. 6.\n\nFootnote 604:\n\n  Rom. viii. 24.\n\nFootnote 605:\n\n  Heb. xi. 1.\n\nFootnote 606:\n\n  2 Cor. v. 6.\n\nFootnote 607:\n\n  Col. iii. 3, 4.\n\nFootnote 608:\n\n  Titus ii. 12, 13.\n\nFootnote 609:\n\n  1 Peter i. 8, 9.\n\nFootnote 610:\n\n  Col. i. 5.\n\nFootnote 611:\n\n  Matt. vi. 21.\n\nFootnote 612:\n\n  Phil. iii. 14.\n\nFootnote 613:\n\n  Phil. iii. 8-11.\n\nFootnote 614:\n\n  Phil. iii. 20.\n\nFootnote 615:\n\n  Rom. viii. 19-23.\n\nFootnote 616:\n\n  Heb. ix. 28.\n\nFootnote 617:\n\n  1 Cor. xv. 13, &c.\n\nFootnote 618:\n\n  2 Cor. iv. 10.\n\nFootnote 619:\n\n  1 Cor. xv. 13.\n\nFootnote 620:\n\n  Psalm xvi. 10.\n\nFootnote 621:\n\n  Phil. iii. 21.\n\nFootnote 622:\n\n  Col. iii. 4. Rom. viii. 11.\n\nFootnote 623:\n\n  1 Cor. xv. 23.\n\nFootnote 624:\n\n  Luke xxiv. 11.\n\nFootnote 625:\n\n  Matt. xxvii. 66; xxviii. 11, &c.\n\nFootnote 626:\n\n  Luke xxiv. 4-6. Matt. xxviii. 3-6.\n\nFootnote 627:\n\n  Acts i. 3, 9.\n\nFootnote 628:\n\n  1 Cor. xv. 6.\n\nFootnote 629:\n\n  John xvi. 7.\n\nFootnote 630:\n\n  Acts vii. 55.\n\nFootnote 631:\n\n  Phil. iii. 21.\n\nFootnote 632:\n\n  1 Cor. xv. 36.\n\nFootnote 633:\n\n  Isaiah xxvi. 19.\n\nFootnote 634:\n\n  Psalm lxviii. 20.\n\nFootnote 635:\n\n  Job xix. 25, 27.\n\nFootnote 636:\n\n  Ezek. xxxvii. 1-14.\n\nFootnote 637:\n\n  John v. 28, 29.\n\nFootnote 638:\n\n  2 Tim. i. 12; iv. 8.\n\nFootnote 639:\n\n  2 Thess. i. 6-8, 10.\n\nFootnote 640:\n\n  Eccl. ix. 4.\n\nFootnote 641:\n\n  Eccl. iii. 21.\n\nFootnote 642:\n\n  Rev. xx. 4.\n\nFootnote 643:\n\n  2 Peter i. 14.\n\nFootnote 644:\n\n  2 Cor. v. 1, 8.\n\nFootnote 645:\n\n  Heb. xii. 23.\n\nFootnote 646:\n\n  Luke xxiii. 43.\n\nFootnote 647:\n\n  2 Cor. vii. 1.\n\nFootnote 648:\n\n  2 Cor. v. 10.\n\nFootnote 649:\n\n  2 Cor. iv. 10.\n\nFootnote 650:\n\n  1 Thess. v. 23.\n\nFootnote 651:\n\n  1 Cor. vi. 15.\n\nFootnote 652:\n\n  1 Tim. ii. 8.\n\nFootnote 653:\n\n  Rom. xii. 1.\n\nFootnote 654:\n\n  1 Cor. vi. 20.\n\nFootnote 655:\n\n  1 Cor. xv. 54.\n\nFootnote 656:\n\n  Rom. xiv. 11, 12.\n\nFootnote 657:\n\n  Dan. xii. 2.\n\nFootnote 658:\n\n  Matt. x. 28.\n\nFootnote 659:\n\n  John v. 28, 29.\n\nFootnote 660:\n\n  John ii. 19.\n\nFootnote 661:\n\n  1 Cor. xv. 12, &c.\n\nFootnote 662:\n\n  2 Cor. iv. 10.\n\nFootnote 663:\n\n  Matt. xxvi. 52.\n\nFootnote 664:\n\n  Col. ii. 12.\n\nFootnote 665:\n\n  Rom. vi. 13.\n\nFootnote 666:\n\n  Rom. viii. 11.\n\nFootnote 667:\n\n  1 Cor. vi. 13, 14.\n\nFootnote 668:\n\n  1 Cor. vi. 15, 19, 20.\n\nFootnote 669:\n\n  Gal. vi. 17.\n\nFootnote 670:\n\n  Phil. iii. 20, 21.\n\nFootnote 671:\n\n  Acts xiv. 22.\n\nFootnote 672:\n\n  Matt. xxvi. 10, 12.\n\nFootnote 673:\n\n  Gen xxiii. 3-19.\n\nFootnote 674:\n\n  Gen. xlvii. 30.\n\nFootnote 675:\n\n  John vi. 39, 40.\n\nFootnote 676:\n\n  1 Cor. xv. 39-41.\n\nFootnote 677:\n\n  1 Cor. xv. 53.\n\nFootnote 678:\n\n  Isaiah xxvi. 21.\n\nFootnote 679:\n\n  1 Cor. xv. 51, 52.\n\nFootnote 680:\n\n  1 Thess. iv. 15, 16.\n\nFootnote 681:\n\n  Heb. ix. 27.\n\nFootnote 682:\n\n  Rom. v. 12.\n\nFootnote 683:\n\n  John xi. 25.\n\nFootnote 684:\n\n  Matt. xxv. 32.\n\nFootnote 685:\n\n  Matt. v. 45.\n\nFootnote 686:\n\n  Acts xxiv. 15.\n\nFootnote 687:\n\n  1 John iii. 2.\n\nFootnote 688:\n\n  Gen. xv. 1.\n\nFootnote 689:\n\n  Psalm xvi. 5, 6.\n\nFootnote 690:\n\n  Psalm xvii. 15.\n\nFootnote 691:\n\n  2 Peter i. 4.\n\nFootnote 692:\n\n  2 Thess. i. 10.\n\nFootnote 693:\n\n  1 Thess. ii. 19, 20.\n\nFootnote 694:\n\n  Matt. xix. 29.\n\nFootnote 695:\n\n  Matt. v. 12.\n\nFootnote 696:\n\n  Dan. xii. 3.\n\nFootnote 697:\n\n  2 Tim. iv. 14.\n\nFootnote 698:\n\n  Matt. xix. 29.\n\nFootnote 699:\n\n  1 Cor. xiii. 12.\n\nFootnote 700:\n\n  Matt. iii. 12; viii. 12; xxii. 13. Mark ix. 43, 44. Isaiah lxvi. 24.\n\nFootnote 701:\n\n  Isaiah xxx. 33.\n\nFootnote 702:\n\n  2 Thess. i. 9.\n\n\n\n\n                                BOOK IV.\nON THE EXTERNAL MEANS OR AIDS BY WHICH GOD CALLS US INTO COMMUNION WITH\n                     CHRIST, AND RETAINS US IN IT.\n\n\n                               ARGUMENT.\n\n\nThree parts of the Apostles\u2019 Creed, respecting God the Creator,\nRedeemer, and Sanctifier, have been explained in the former books. This\nlast book is an exposition of what remains, relating to the Holy\nCatholic Church, and the Communion of Saints.\n\nThe chapters contained in it may be conveniently arranged in three grand\ndivisions:\u2014\n\n                           I. The Church.\n                           II. The Sacraments.\n                           III. Civil Government.\n\nThe First Division, extending to the end of the thirteenth chapter,\ncontains many particulars, which, however, may all be referred to four\nprincipal heads:\u2014\n\nI. The marks of the Church, or the criteria by which it may be\ndistinguished; since we must cultivate union with it\u2014Chap. I. II.\n\nII. The government of the church\u2014Chap. III.-VII.\n\n1. The order of government in the church\u2014Chap. III.\n\n2. The form practised by the ancient Christians\u2014Chap. IV.\n\n3. The nature of the present ecclesiastical government under the\nPapacy\u2014Chap. V. The primacy of the Pope\u2014Chap. VI. And the degrees of his\nadvancement to this tyrannical power\u2014Chap. VII.\n\nIII. The power of the church\u2014Chap. VIII.-XI.\n\n1. Relating to articles of faith,\u2014which resides either in the respective\nbishops\u2014Chap. VIII.\u2014or in the church at large, represented in\ncouncils\u2014Chap. IX.\n\n2. In making laws\u2014Chap. X.\n\n3. In ecclesiastical jurisdiction\u2014Chap. XI.\n\nIV. The discipline of the Church\u2014Chap. XII. XIII.\n\n1. The principal use of it\u2014Chap. XII.\n\n2. The abuse of it\u2014Chap. XIII.\n\nThe Second Division, relating to the sacraments, contains three parts.\n\nI. The sacraments in general\u2014Chap. XIV.\n\nII. Each sacrament in particular\u2014Chap. XV.-XVIII.\n\n1. Baptism\u2014Chap. XV. Distinct discussion of P\u00e6dobaptism\u2014Chap. XVI.\n\n2. The Lord\u2019s Supper\u2014Chap. XVII.\u2014and its profanation\u2014Chap. XVIII.\n\nIII. The five other ceremonies, falsely called sacraments\u2014Chap. XIX.\n\nThe Third Division regards civil government.\n\nI. This government in general.\n\nII. Its respective branches.\n\n1. The magistrates.\n\n2. The laws.\n\n3. The people.\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAPTER I.\n  THE TRUE CHURCH, AND THE NECESSITY OF OUR UNION WITH HER, BEING THE\n                        MOTHER OF ALL THE PIOUS.\n\n\nThat by the faith of the gospel Christ becomes ours, and we become\npartakers of the salvation procured by him, and of eternal happiness,\nhas been explained in the preceding Book. But as our ignorance and\nslothfulness, and, I may add, the vanity of our minds, require external\naids, in order to the production of faith in our hearts, and its\nincrease and progressive advance even to its completion, God has\nprovided such aids in compassion to our infirmity; and that the\npreaching of the gospel might be maintained, he has deposited this\ntreasure with the Church. He has appointed pastors and teachers, that\nhis people might be taught by their lips; he has invested them with\nauthority; in short, he has omitted nothing that could contribute to a\nholy unity of faith, and to the establishment of good order.[703] First\nof all, he has instituted Sacraments, which we know by experience to be\nmeans of the greatest utility for the nourishment and support of our\nfaith. For as, during our confinement in the prison of our flesh, we\nhave not yet attained to the state of angels, God has, in his wonderful\nprovidence, accommodated himself to our capacity, by prescribing a way\nin which we might approach him, notwithstanding our immense distance\nfrom him. Wherefore the order of instruction requires us now to treat of\nthe Church and its government, orders, and power; secondly, of the\nSacraments; and lastly, of Civil Government; and at the same time to\ncall off the pious readers from the abuses of the Papacy, by which Satan\nhas corrupted every thing that God had appointed to be instrumental to\nour salvation. I shall begin with the Church, in whose bosom it is God\u2019s\nwill that all his children should be collected, not only to be nourished\nby her assistance and ministry during their infancy and childhood, but\nalso to be governed by her maternal care, till they attain a mature age,\nand at length reach the end of their faith. For it is not lawful to \u201cput\nasunder\u201d those things \u201cwhich God hath joined together;\u201d[704] that the\nChurch is the mother of all those who have him for their Father; and\nthat not only under the law, but since the coming of Christ also,\naccording to the testimony of the apostle, who declares the new and\nheavenly Jerusalem to be \u201cthe mother of us all.\u201d[705]\n\nII. That article of the Creed, in which we profess to believe THE\nCHURCH, refers not only to the visible Church of which we are now\nspeaking, but likewise to all the elect of God, including the dead as\nwell as the living. The word BELIEVE is used, because it is often\nimpossible to discover any difference between the children of God and\nthe ungodly; between his peculiar flock and wild beasts. The particle\nIN, interpolated by many, is not supported by any probable reason. I\nconfess that it is generally adopted at present, and is not destitute of\nthe suffrage of antiquity, being found in the Nicene Creed, as it is\ntransmitted to us in ecclesiastical history. Yet it is evident from the\nwritings of the fathers, that it was anciently admitted without\ncontroversy to say, \u201cI believe the Church,\u201d not \u201c_in_ the Church.\u201d For\nnot only is this word not used by Augustine and the ancient writer of\nthe work \u201cOn the Exposition of the Creed,\u201d which passes under the name\nof Cyprian, but they particularly remark that there would be an\nimpropriety in the expression, if this preposition were inserted; and\nthey confirm their opinion by no trivial reason. For we declare that we\nbelieve _in God_ because our mind depends upon him as true, and our\nconfidence rests in him. But this would not be applicable to the Church,\nany more than to \u201cthe remission of sins,\u201d or the \u201cresurrection of the\nbody.\u201d Therefore, though I am averse to contentions about words, yet I\nwould rather adopt a proper phraseology adapted to express the subject\nthan affect forms of expression by which the subject would be\nunnecessarily involved in obscurity. The design of this clause is to\nteach us, that though the devil moves every engine to destroy the grace\nof Christ, and all the enemies of God exert the most furious violence in\nthe same attempt, yet his grace cannot possibly be extinguished, nor can\nhis blood be rendered barren, so as not to produce some fruit. Here we\nmust regard both the secret election of God, and his internal vocation;\nbecause he alone \u201cknoweth them that are his;\u201d and keeps them enclosed\nunder his \u201cseal,\u201d to use the expression of Paul;[706] except that they\nbear his impression, by which they may be distinguished from the\nreprobate. But because a small and contemptible number is concealed\namong a vast multitude, and a few grains of wheat are covered with a\nheap of chaff, we must leave to God alone the knowledge of his Church\nwhose foundation is his secret election. Nor is it sufficient to include\nin our thoughts and minds the whole multitude of the elect, unless we\nconceive of such a unity of the Church, into which we know ourselves to\nbe truly ingrafted. For unless we are united with all the other members\nunder Christ our Head, we can have no hope of the future inheritance.\nTherefore the Church is called CATHOLIC, or universal; because there\ncould not be two or three churches, without Christ being divided, which\nis impossible. But all the elect of God are so connected with each other\nin Christ, that as they depend upon one head, so they grow up together\nas into one body, compacted together like members of the same body;\nbeing made truly one, as living by one faith, hope, and charity, through\nthe same Divine Spirit, being called not only to the same inheritance of\neternal life, but also to a participation of one God and Christ.\nTherefore, though the melancholy desolation which surrounds us, seems to\nproclaim that there is nothing left of the Church, let us remember that\nthe death of Christ is fruitful, and that God wonderfully preserves his\nChurch as it were in hiding-places; according to what he said to Elijah:\n\u201cI have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the\nknee to Baal.\u201d[707]\n\nIII. This article of the creed, however, relates in some measure to the\nexternal Church, that every one of us may maintain a brotherly agreement\nwith all the children of God, may pay due deference to the authority of\nthe Church, and, in a word, may conduct himself as one of the flock.\nTherefore we add THE COMMUNION OF SAINTS\u2014a clause which, though\ngenerally omitted by the ancients, ought not to be neglected, because it\nexcellently expresses the character of the Church; as though it had been\nsaid that the saints are united in the fellowship of Christ on this\ncondition, that whatever benefits God confers upon them, they should\nmutually communicate to each other. This destroys not the diversity of\ngrace, for we know that the gifts of the Spirit are variously\ndistributed; nor does it disturb the order of civil polity, which\nsecures to every individual the exclusive enjoyment of his property, as\nit is necessary for the preservation of the peace of society that men\nshould have peculiar and distinct possessions. But the community\nasserted is such as Luke describes, that \u201cthe multitude of them that\nbelieved were of one heart and of one soul;\u201d[708] and Paul, when he\nexhorts the Ephesians to be \u201cone body, and one spirit, even as they were\ncalled in one hope.\u201d[709] Nor is it possible, if they are truly\npersuaded that God is a common Father to them all, and Christ their\ncommon Head, but that, being united in brotherly affection, they should\nmutually communicate their advantages to each other. Now, it highly\nconcerns us to know what benefit we receive from this. For we believe\nthe Church, in order to have a certain assurance that we are members of\nit. For thus our salvation rests on firm and solid foundations, so that\nit cannot fall into ruin, though the whole fabric of the world should be\ndissolved. First, it is founded on the election of God, and can be\nliable to no variation or failure, but with the subversion of his\neternal providence. In the next place, it is united with the stability\nof Christ, who will no more suffer his faithful people to be severed\nfrom him, than his members to be torn in pieces. Besides, we are\ncertain, as long as we continue in the bosom of the Church, that we\nshall remain in possession of the truth. Lastly, we understand these\npromises to belong to us: \u201cIn mount Zion shall be deliverance.\u201d[710] God\nis in the midst of her; she shall not be moved.\u201c[711] Such is the effect\nof union with the Church, that it retains us in the fellowship of God.\nThe very word _communion_ likewise contains abundant consolation; for\nwhile it is certain that whatever the Lord confers upon his members and\nours belong to us, our hope is confirmed by all the benefits which they\nenjoy. But in order to embrace the unity of the Church in this manner,\nit is unnecessary, as we have observed, to see the Church with our eyes,\nor feel it with our hands; on the contrary, from its being an object of\nfaith, we are taught that it is no less to be considered as existing,\nwhen it escapes our observation, than if it were evident to our eyes.\nNor is our faith the worse, because it acknowledges the Church which we\ndo not fully comprehend; for we are not commanded here to distinguish\nthe reprobate from the elect, which is not our province, but that of God\nalone; we are only required to be assured in our minds, that all those\nwho, by the mercy of God the Father, through the efficacious influence\nof the Holy Spirit, have attained to the participation of Christ, are\nseparated as the peculiar possession and portion of God; and that being\nnumbered among them, we are partakers of such great grace.\n\nIV. But as our present design is to treat of the _visible_ Church, we\nmay learn even from the title of _mother_, how useful and even necessary\nit is for us to know her; since there is no other way of entrance into\nlife, unless we are conceived by her, born of her, nourished at her\nbreast, and continually preserved under her care and government till we\nare divested of this mortal flesh, and \u201cbecome like the angels.\u201d[712]\nFor our infirmity will not admit of our dismission from her school; we\nmust continue under her instruction and discipline to the end of our\nlives. It is also to be remarked, that out of her bosom there can be no\nhope of remission of sins, or any salvation, according to the testimony\nof Joel and Isaiah;[713] which is confirmed by Ezekiel,[714] when he\ndenounces that those whom God excludes from the heavenly life, shall not\nbe enrolled among his people. So, on the contrary, those who devote\nthemselves to the service of God, are said to inscribe their names among\nthe citizens of Jerusalem. For which reason the Psalmist says, \u201cRemember\nme, O Lord, with the favour that thou bearest unto thy people: O visit\nme with thy salvation; that I may see the good of thy chosen; that I may\nrejoice in the gladness of thy nation; that I may glory with thine\ninheritance.\u201d[715] In these words the paternal favour of God, and the\npeculiar testimony of the spiritual life, are restricted to his flock,\nto teach us that it is always fatally dangerous to be separated from the\nChurch.\n\nV. But let us proceed to state what belongs to this subject. Paul\nwrites, that Christ, \u201cthat he might fill all things, gave some apostles,\nand some prophets, and some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers;\nfor the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the\nedifying of the body of Christ: till we all come in the unity of the\nfaith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto\nthe measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ.\u201d[716] We see that\nthough God could easily make his people perfect in a single moment, yet\nit was not his will that they should grow to mature age, but under the\neducation of the Church. We see the means expressed; the preaching of\nthe heavenly doctrine is assigned to the pastors. We see that all are\nplaced under the same regulation, in order that they may submit\nthemselves with gentleness and docility of mind to be governed by the\npastors who are appointed for this purpose. Isaiah had long before\ndescribed the kingdom of Christ by this character: \u201cMy Spirit that is\nupon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart\nout of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth\nof thy seed\u2019s seed, from henceforth and for ever.\u201d[717] Hence it\nfollows, that all who reject the spiritual food for their souls, which\nis extended to them by the hands of the Church, deserve to perish with\nhunger and want. It is God who inspires us with faith, but it is through\nthe instrumentality of the gospel, according to the declaration of Paul,\n\u201cthat faith cometh by hearing.\u201d[718] So also the power to save resides\nin God, but, as the same apostle testifies in another place, he displays\nit in the preaching of the gospel. With this design, in former ages he\ncommanded solemn assemblies to be held in the sanctuary, that the\ndoctrine taught by the mouth of the priest might maintain the unity of\nthe faith; and the design of those magnificent titles, where the temple\nis called God\u2019s \u201crest,\u201d his \u201csanctuary,\u201d and \u201cdwelling-place,\u201d where he\nis said to \u201cdwell between the cherubim,\u201d[719] was no other than to\npromote the esteem, love, reverence, and dignity of the heavenly\ndoctrine; which the view of a mortal and despised man would otherwise\ngreatly diminish. That we may know, therefore, that we have an\ninestimable treasure communicated to us from earthen vessels,[720] God\nhimself comes forward, and as he is the Author of this arrangement, so\nhe will be acknowledged as present in his institution. Therefore, after\nhaving forbidden his people to devote themselves to auguries,\ndivinations, magical arts, necromancy, and other superstitions, he adds,\nthat he will give them what ought to be sufficient for every purpose,\nnamely, that he will never leave them without prophets. Now, as he did\nnot refer his ancient people to angels, but raised up earthly teachers,\nwho truly discharged the office of angels, so, in the present day, he is\npleased to teach us by the instrumentality of men. And as formerly he\nwas not content with the written law, but appointed the priests as\ninterpreters, at whose lips the people might inquire its true meaning,\nso, in the present day, he not only requires us to be attentive to\nreading, but has appointed teachers for our assistance. This is attended\nwith a twofold advantage. For on the one hand, it is a good proof of our\nobedience when we listen to his ministers, just as if he were addressing\nus himself; and on the other, he has provided for our infirmity, by\nchoosing to address us through the medium of human interpreters, that he\nmay sweetly allure us to him, rather than to drive us away from him by\nhis thunders. And the propriety of this familiar manner of teaching, is\nevident to all the pious, from the terror with which the majesty of God\njustly alarms them. Those who consider the authority of the doctrine as\nweakened by the meanness of the men who are called to teach it, betray\ntheir ingratitude; because among so many excellent gifts with which God\nhas adorned mankind, it is a peculiar privilege, that he deigns to\nconsecrate men\u2019s lips and tongues to his service, that his voice may be\nheard in them. Let us not therefore, on our parts, be reluctant to\nreceive and obey the doctrine of salvation proposed to us at his express\ncommand; for though the power of God is not confined to external means,\nyet he has confined us to the ordinary manner of teaching, the fanatical\nrejecters of which necessarily involve themselves in many fatal snares.\nMany are urged by pride, or disdain, or envy, to persuade themselves\nthat they can profit sufficiently by reading and meditating in private,\nand so to despise public assemblies, and consider preaching as\nunnecessary. But since they do all in their power to dissolve and break\nasunder the bond of unity, which ought to be preserved inviolable, not\none of them escapes the just punishment of this impious breach, but they\nall involve themselves in pestilent errors and pernicious reveries.\nWherefore, in order that the pure simplicity of faith may flourish among\nus, let us not be reluctant to use this exercise of piety, which the\nDivine institution has shown to be necessary, and which God so\nrepeatedly commends to us. There has never been found, among the most\nextravagant of mortals, one insolent enough to say that we ought to shut\nour ears against God; but the prophets and pious teachers, in all ages,\nhave had a difficult contest with the wicked, whose arrogance can never\nsubmit to be taught by the lips and ministry of men. Now, this is no\nother than effacing the image of God, which is discovered to us in the\ndoctrine. For the faithful under the former dispensation were directed\nto seek the face of God in the sanctuary;[721] and this is so frequently\nrepeated in the law, for no other reason, but because the doctrine of\nthe law and the exhortations of the prophets exhibited to them a lively\nimage of God; as Paul declares that his preaching displayed \u201cthe glory\nof God in the face of Jesus Christ.\u201d[722] And in so much the greater\ndetestation ought we to hold those apostates, who make it their study to\ncause divisions in churches, as if they would drive away the sheep from\nthe fold, and throw them into the jaws of wolves. But let us remember\nwhat we have quoted from Paul\u2014that the Church can only be edified by the\npreaching of this word, and that the saints have no common bond of union\nto hold them together, any longer than, while learning and profiting\nwith one accord, they observe the order which God has prescribed for the\nChurch. It was principally for this end, as I have already stated, that\nthe faithful under the law were commanded to resort to the sanctuary;\nbecause Moses not only celebrates it as the residence of God, but\nlikewise declares it to be the place where God has fixed the record of\nhis name;[723] which without the doctrine of piety, he plainly suggests,\nwould be of no use. And it is undoubtedly for the same reason that David\ncomplains, with great bitterness of soul, of being prevented from access\nto the tabernacle by the tyrannical cruelty of his enemies.[724] To many\npersons perhaps this appears to be a puerile lamentation, because it\ncould be but a very trivial loss, and not a privation of much\nsatisfaction to be absent from the court of the temple, provided he were\nin the possession of other pleasures. But by this one trouble, anxiety,\nand sorrow, he complains that he is grieved, tormented, and almost\nconsumed; because nothing is more valued by believers than this\nassistance, by which God gradually raises his people from one degree of\nelevation to another. For it is also to be remarked, that God always\nmanifested himself to the holy fathers, in the mirror of his doctrine,\nin such a manner that their knowledge of him was spiritual. Hence the\ntemple was not only called his _face_, but in order to guard against all\nsuperstition, was also designated as his _footstool_.[725] And this is\nthat happy conjunction in the unity of the faith spoken of by Paul, when\nall, from the highest to the lowest, are aspiring towards the head. All\nthe temples which the Gentiles erected to God with any other design,\nwere nothing but a profanation of his worship\u2014a crime which, though not\nto an equal extent, was also frequently committed by the Jews. Stephen\nreproaches them for it in the language of Isaiah: \u201cThe Most High\ndwelleth not in temples made with hands; as saith the prophet, Heaven is\nmy throne, and earth is my footstool,\u201d[726] because God alone sanctifies\ntemples by his word, that they may be legitimately used for his worship.\nAnd if we presumptuously attempt any thing without his command, the evil\nbeginning is immediately succeeded by further inventions, which multiply\nthe mischief without end. Xerxes, however, acted with great\nindiscretion, when, at the advice of the magi, he burned or demolished\nall the temples of Greece, from an opinion of the absurdity that gods,\nto whom all space ought to be left perfectly free, should be enclosed\nwithin walls and roofs. As if it were not in the power of God to descend\nin any way to us, and yet at the same time not to make any change of\nplace, or to confine us to earthly means, but rather to use them as\nvehicles to elevate us towards his celestial glory, which fills all\nthings with its immensity, as well as transcends the heavens in its\nsublimity.\n\nVI. Now, as the present age has witnessed a violent dispute respecting\nthe efficacy of the ministry, some exaggerating its dignity beyond\nmeasure, and others contending that it is a criminal transfer to mortal\nman of what properly belongs to the Holy Spirit, to suppose that\nministers and teachers penetrate the mind and heart, so as to correct\nthe blindness of the one, and the hardness of the other,\u2014we must proceed\nto a decision of this controversy. The arguments advanced on both sides\nmay be easily reconciled by a careful observation of the passages, in\nwhich God, the Author of preaching, connecting his Spirit with it,\npromises that it shall be followed with success; or those in which,\nseparating himself from all external aids, he attributes the\ncommencement of faith, as well as its subsequent progress, entirely and\nexclusively to himself. The office of the second Elias, according to\nMalachi, was to illuminate the minds and to \u201cturn the hearts of the\nfathers to the children,\u201d and the disobedient to the wisdom of the\njust.[727] Christ declares that he sent his disciples, that they \u201cshould\nbring forth fruit\u201d[728] from their labours. What that fruit was, is\nbriefly defined by Peter, when he says that we are \u201cborn again, not of\ncorruptible seed, but of incorruptible.\u201d[729] Therefore Paul glories\nthat he had \u201cbegotten\u201d the Corinthians \u201cthrough the gospel,\u201d and that\nthey were \u201cthe seal of his apostleship;\u201d[730] and even that he was \u201cnot\na minister of the letter,\u201d merely striking the ear with a vocal sound,\nbut that the energy of the Spirit had been given to him to render his\ndoctrine efficacious.[731] In the same sense, he affirms, in another\nEpistle, that his \u201cgospel came not in word only, but also in\npower.\u201d[732] He declares also to the Galatians, that they \u201creceived the\nSpirit by the hearing of faith.\u201d[733] In short, there are several\nplaces, in which he not only represents himself as a \u201clabourer together\nwith God,\u201d[734] but even attributes to himself the office of\ncommunicating salvation. He certainly never advanced all these things,\nin order to arrogate to himself the least praise independent of God, as\nhe briefly states in other passages: \u201cOur entrance in unto you was not\nin vain.\u201d[735] \u201cI labour, striving according to his working, which\nworketh in me mightily.\u201d[736] \u201cHe that wrought effectually in Peter to\nthe apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward\nthe Gentiles.\u201d[737] Besides, it is evident, from other places, that he\nleaves ministers possessed of nothing, considered in themselves:\n\u201cNeither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but\nGod that giveth the increase.\u201d[738] Again: \u201cI laboured more abundantly\nthan they all; yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me.\u201d[739]\nAnd it is certainly necessary to bear in memory those passages, in which\nGod ascribes to himself the illumination of the mind and renovation of\nthe heart, and thereby declares it to be sacrilege for man to arrogate\nto himself any share in either. Yet every one who attends with docility\nof mind to the ministers whom God has appointed, will learn from the\nbeneficial effect, that this mode of teaching has not in vain been\npleasing to God, and that this yoke of modesty has not without reason\nbeen imposed upon believers.\n\nVII. From what has been said, I conceive it must now be evident what\njudgment we ought to form respecting the Church, which is visible to our\neyes, and falls under our knowledge. For we have remarked that the word\n_Church_ is used in the sacred Scriptures in two senses. Sometimes, when\nthey mention the Church, they intend that which is really such in the\nsight of God, into which none are received but those who by adoption and\ngrace are the children of God, and by the sanctification of the Spirit\nare the true members of Christ. And then it comprehends not only the\nsaints at any one time resident on earth, but all the elect who have\nlived from the beginning of the world. But the word _Church_ is\nfrequently used in the Scriptures to designate the whole multitude,\ndispersed all over the world, who profess to worship one God and Jesus\nChrist, who are initiated into his faith by baptism, who testify their\nunity in true doctrine and charity by a participation of the sacred\nsupper, who consent to the word of the Lord, and preserve the ministry\nwhich Christ has instituted for the purpose of preaching it. In this\nChurch are included many hypocrites, who have nothing of Christ but the\nname and appearance; many persons ambitious, avaricious, envious,\nslanderous, and dissolute in their lives, who are tolerated for a time,\neither because they cannot be convicted by a legitimate process, or\nbecause discipline is not always maintained with sufficient vigour. As\nit is necessary, therefore, to believe that Church, which is invisible\nto us, and known to God alone, so this Church, which is visible to men,\nwe are commanded to honour, and to maintain communion with it.\n\nVIII. As far, therefore, as was important for us to know it, the Lord\nhas described it by certain marks and characters. It is the peculiar\nprerogative of God himself to \u201cknow them that are his,\u201d[740] as we have\nalready stated from Paul. And to guard against human presumption ever\ngoing to such an extreme, the experience of every day teaches us how\nvery far his secret judgments transcend all our apprehensions. For those\nwho seemed the most abandoned, and were generally considered past all\nhope, are recalled by his goodness into the right way; while some, who\nseemed to stand better than others, fall into perdition. \u201cAccording to\nthe secret predestination of God,\u201d therefore, as Augustine observes,\n\u201cthere are many sheep without the pale of the Church, and many wolves\nwithin.\u201d For he knows and seals those who know not either him or\nthemselves. Of those who externally bear his seal, his eyes alone can\ndiscern who are unfeignedly holy, and will persevere to the end; which\nis the completion of salvation. On the other hand, as he saw it to be in\nsome measure requisite that we should know who ought to be considered as\nhis children, he has in this respect accommodated himself to our\ncapacity. And as it was not necessary that on this point we should have\nan assurance of faith, he has substituted in its place a judgment of\ncharity, according to which we ought to acknowledge as members of the\nChurch all those who by a confession of faith, an exemplary life, and a\nparticipation of the sacraments, profess the same God and Christ with\nourselves. But the knowledge of the body itself being more necessary to\nour salvation, he has distinguished it by more clear and certain\ncharacters.\n\nIX. Hence the visible Church rises conspicuous to our view. For wherever\nwe find the word of God purely preached and heard, and the sacraments\nadministered according to the institution of Christ, there, it is not to\nbe doubted, is a Church of God; for his promise can never deceive\u2014\u201cwhere\ntwo or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst\nof them.\u201d[741] But, that we may have a clear understanding of the whole\nof this subject, let us proceed by the following steps: That the\nuniversal Church is the whole multitude, collected from all nations,\nwho, though dispersed in countries widely distant from each other,\nnevertheless consent to the same truth of Divine doctrine, and are\nunited by the bond of the same religion; that in this universal Church\nare comprehended particular churches, distributed according to human\nnecessity in various towns and villages; and that each of these\nrespectively is justly distinguished by the name and authority of a\nchurch; and that individuals, who, on a profession of piety, are\nenrolled among Churches of the same description, though they are really\nstrangers to any particular Church, do nevertheless in some respect\nbelong to it, till they are expelled from it by a public decision. There\nis some difference, however, in the mode of judging respecting private\npersons and churches. For it may happen, in the case of persons whom we\nthink altogether unworthy of the society of the pious, that, on account\nof the common consent of the Church, by which they are tolerated in the\nbody of Christ, we may be obliged to treat them as brethren, and to\nclass them in the number of believers. In our private opinion we approve\nnot of such persons as members of the Church, but we leave them the\nstation they hold among the people of God, till it be taken away from\nthem by legitimate authority. But respecting the congregation itself, we\nmust form a different judgment. If they possess and honour the ministry\nof the word, and the administration of the sacraments, they are, without\nall doubt, entitled to be considered as a Church; because it is certain\nthat the word and sacraments cannot be unattended with some good\neffects. In this manner, we preserve the unity of the universal Church,\nwhich diabolical spirits have always been endeavouring to destroy; and\nat the same time without interfering with the authority of those\nlegitimate assemblies, which local convenience has distributed in\ndifferent places.\n\nX. We have stated that the marks by which the Church is to be\ndistinguished, are, the preaching of the word and the administration of\nthe sacraments. For these can nowhere exist without bringing forth\nfruit, and being prospered with the blessing of God. I assert not that\nwherever the word is preached, the good effects of it immediately\nappear; but that it is never received so as to obtain a permanent\nestablishment, without displaying some efficacy. However this may be,\nwhere the word is heard with reverence, and the sacraments are not\nneglected, there we discover, while that is the case, an appearance of\nthe Church, which is liable to no suspicion of uncertainty, of which no\none can safely despise the authority, or reject the admonitions, or\nresist the counsels, or slight the censures, much less separate from it\nand break up its unity. For so highly does the Lord esteem the communion\nof his Church, that he considers every one as a traitor and apostate\nfrom religion, who perversely withdraws himself from any Christian\nsociety which preserves the true ministry of the word and sacraments. He\ncommends the authority of the Church, in such a manner as to account\nevery violation of it an infringement of his own. For it is not a\ntrivial circumstance, that the Church is called \u201cthe house of God, the\npillar and ground of truth.\u201d[742] For in these words Paul signifies that\nin order to keep the truth of God from being lost in the world, the\nChurch is its faithful guardian; because it has been the will of God, by\nthe ministry of the Church, to preserve the pure preaching of his word,\nand to manifest himself as our affectionate Father, while he nourishes\nus with spiritual food, and provides all things conducive to our\nsalvation. Nor is it small praise, that the Church is chosen and\nseparated by Christ to be his spouse, \u201cnot having spot or wrinkle,\u201d[743]\nto be \u201chis body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.\u201d[744] Hence\nit follows, that a departure from the Church is a renunciation of God\nand Christ. And such a criminal dissension is so much the more to be\navoided, because, while we endeavour, as far as lies in our power, to\ndestroy the truth of God, we deserve to be crushed with the most\npowerful thunders of his wrath. Nor is it possible to imagine a more\natrocious crime, than that sacrilegious perfidy, which violates the\nconjugal relation that the only begotten Son of God has condescended to\nform with us.\n\nXI. Let us, therefore, diligently retain those characters impressed upon\nour minds, and estimate them according to the judgment of God. For there\nis nothing that Satan labours more to accomplish, than to remove and\ndestroy one or both of them; at one time to efface and obliterate these\nmarks, and so to take away all true and genuine distinction of the\nChurch; at another to inspire us with contempt of them, and so to drive\nus out of the Church by an open separation. By his subtlety it has\nhappened, that in some ages the pure preaching of the word has\naltogether disappeared; and in the present day he is labouring with the\nsame malignity to overturn the ministry; which, however, Christ has\nordained in his Church, so that if it were taken away, the edification\nof the Church would be quite at an end. How dangerous, then, how fatal\nis the temptation, when it even enters into the heart of a man to\nwithdraw himself from that congregation, in which he discovers those\nsigns and characters which the Lord has deemed sufficiently descriptive\nof his Church! We see, however, that great caution requires to be\nobserved on both sides. For, to prevent imposture from deceiving us,\nunder the name of the Church, every congregation assuming this name\nshould be brought to that proof, like gold to the touchstone. If it have\nthe order prescribed by the Lord in the word and sacraments, it will not\ndeceive us; we may securely render to it the honour due to all churches.\nOn the contrary, if it pretend to the name of a Church, without the word\nand sacraments, we ought to beware of such delusive pretensions, with as\nmuch caution as, in the other case, we should use in avoiding\npresumption and pride.\n\nXII. When we affirm the pure ministry of the word, and pure order in the\ncelebration of the sacraments, to be a sufficient pledge and earnest,\nthat we may safely embrace the society in which both these are found, as\na true Church, we carry the observation to this point, that such a\nsociety should never be rejected as long as it continues in those\nthings, although in other respects it may be chargeable with many\nfaults. It is possible, moreover, that some fault may insinuate itself\ninto the preaching of the doctrine, or the administration of the\nsacraments, which ought not to alienate us from its communion. For all\nthe articles of true doctrine are not of the same description. Some are\nso necessary to be known, that they ought to be universally received as\nfixed and indubitable principles, as the peculiar maxims of religion;\nsuch as, that there is one God; that Christ is God and the Son of God;\nthat our salvation depends on the mercy of God; and the like. There are\nothers, which are controverted among the churches, yet without\ndestroying the unity of the faith. For why should there be a division on\nthis point, if one church be of opinion, that souls, at their departure\nfrom their bodies, are immediately removed to heaven; and another church\nventure to determine nothing respecting their local situation, but be\nnevertheless firmly convinced, that they live to the Lord; and if this\ndiversity of sentiment on both sides be free from all fondness for\ncontention and obstinacy of assertion? The language of the apostle is,\n\u201cLet us therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus minded; and if in any\nthing ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you.\u201d[745]\nDoes not this sufficiently show, that a diversity of opinion respecting\nthese nonessential points ought not to be a cause of discord among\nChristians? It is of importance, indeed, that we should agree in every\nthing; but as there is no person who is not enveloped with some cloud of\nignorance, either we must allow of no church at all, or we must forgive\nmistakes in those things, of which persons may be ignorant, without\nviolating the essence of religion, or incurring the loss of salvation.\nHere I would not be understood to plead for any errors, even the\nsmallest, or to recommend their being encouraged by connivance or\nflattery. But I maintain, that we ought not, on account of every trivial\ndifference of sentiment, to abandon the Church, which retains the saving\nand pure doctrine that insures the preservation of piety, and supports\nthe use of the sacraments instituted by our Lord. In the mean time, if\nwe endeavour to correct what we disapprove, we are acting in this case\naccording to our duty. And to this we are encouraged by the direction of\nPaul: \u201cIf any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the\nfirst hold his peace.\u201d[746] From which it appears, that every member of\nthe Church is required to exert himself for the general edification,\naccording to the measure of his grace, provided he do it decently and in\norder; that is to say, that we should neither forsake the communion of\nthe Church, nor, by continuing in it, disturb its peace and well\nregulated discipline.\n\nXIII. But in bearing with imperfections of life, we ought to carry our\nindulgence a great deal further. For this is a point in which we are\nvery liable to err, and here Satan lies in wait to deceive us with no\ncommon devices. For there have always been persons, who, from a false\nnotion of perfect sanctity, as if they were already become disembodied\nspirits, despised the society of all men in whom they could discover any\nremains of human infirmity. Such, in ancient times, were the Cathari,\nand also the Donatists, who approached to the same folly. Such, in the\npresent day, are some of the Anabaptists, who would be thought to have\nmade advances in piety beyond all others. There are others who err, more\nfrom an inconsiderate zeal for righteousness, than from this\nunreasonable pride. For when they perceive, that among those to whom the\ngospel is preached, its doctrine is not followed by correspondent\neffects in the life, they immediately pronounce, that there no church\nexists. This is, indeed, a very just ground of offence, and one for\nwhich we furnish more than sufficient occasion in the present unhappy\nage; nor is it possible to excuse our abominable inactivity, which the\nLord will not suffer to escape with impunity, and which he has already\nbegun to chastise with heavy scourges. Woe to us, therefore, who, by the\ndissolute licentiousness of our crimes, cause weak consciences to be\nwounded on our account! But, on the other hand, the error of the persons\nof whom we now speak, consists in not knowing how to fix any limits to\ntheir offence. For where our Lord requires the exercise of mercy, they\nentirely neglect it, and indulge themselves in immoderate severity.\nSupposing it impossible for the Church to exist, where there is not a\nperfect purity and integrity of life, through a hatred of crimes they\ndepart from the true Church, while they imagine themselves to be only\nwithdrawing from the factions of the wicked. They allege, that the\nChurch of Christ is holy. But that they may also understand, that it is\ncomposed of good and bad men mingled together, let them hear that\nparable from the lips of Christ, where it is compared to a net, in which\nfishes of all kinds are collected, and no separation is made till they\nare exposed on the shore.[747] Let them hear another parable, comparing\nthe Church to a field, which, after having been sown with good seed, is,\nby the craft of an enemy, corrupted with tares, from which it is never\ncleared till the harvest is brought into the barn.[748] Lastly, let them\nhear another comparison of the Church to a threshing-floor, in which the\nwheat is collected in such a manner, that it lies concealed under the\nchaff, till, after being carefully purged, by winnowing and sifting, it\nis at length laid up in the garner.[749] But if our Lord declares, that\nthe Church is to labour under this evil, and to be encumbered with a\nmixture of wicked men, even till the day of judgment, it is vain to seek\nfor a Church free from every spot.\n\nXIV. But they exclaim, that it is an intolerable thing that the\npestilence of crimes so generally prevails. I grant it would be happy if\nthe fact were otherwise; but in reply, I would present them with the\njudgment of the apostle. Among the Corinthians, more than a few had gone\nastray, and the infection had seized almost the whole society; there was\nnot only one species of sin, but many; and they were not trivial faults,\nbut dreadful crimes; and there was not only a corruption of morals, but\nalso of doctrine. In this case, what is the conduct of the holy apostle,\nthe organ of the heavenly Spirit, by whose testimony the Church stands\nor falls? Does he seek to separate from them? Does he reject them from\nthe kingdom of Christ? Does he strike them with the thunderbolt of the\nseverest anathema? He not only does none of these things, but, on the\ncontrary, acknowledges and speaks of them as a Church of Christ and a\nsociety of saints. If there remained a church among the Corinthians,\nwhere contentions, factions, and emulations were raging; where cupidity,\ndisputes, and litigations were prevailing; where a crime held in\nexecration even among the Gentiles, was publicly sanctioned; where the\nname of Paul, whom they ought to have revered as their father, was\ninsolently defamed; where some ridiculed the doctrine of the\nresurrection, with the subversion of which the whole gospel would be\nannihilated; where the graces of God were made subservient to ambition,\ninstead of charity; where many things were conducted without decency and\norder;[750] and if there still remained a Church, because the ministry\nof the word and sacraments was not rejected\u2014who can refuse the name of a\nChurch to those who cannot be charged with a tenth part of those crimes?\nAnd those who display such violence and severity against the Churches of\nthe present age, I ask, how would they have conducted themselves towards\nthe Galatians, who almost entirely deserted the gospel, but among whom,\nnevertheless, the same apostle found Churches?[751]\n\nXV. They object that Paul bitterly reproves the Corinthians for\nadmitting an atrocious offender into their company, and follows this\nreproof with a general declaration, that with a man of scandalous life\nit is not lawful even to eat.[752] Here they exclaim, If it be not\nlawful to eat common bread with him, how can it be lawful to unite with\nhim in eating the bread of the Lord? I confess it is a great disgrace,\nif persons of immoral lives occupy places among the children of God; and\nif the sacred body of Christ be prostituted to them, the disgrace is\nvastly increased. And, indeed, if Churches be well regulated, they will\nnot suffer persons of abandoned characters among them, nor will they\npromiscuously admit the worthy and the unworthy to that sacred supper.\nBut because the pastors are not always so diligent in watching over\nthem, and sometimes exercise more indulgence than they ought, or are\nprevented from exerting the severity they would wish, it happens that\neven those who are openly wicked are not always expelled from the\nsociety of the saints. This I acknowledge to be a fault, nor have I any\ninclination to extenuate it, since Paul sharply reproves it in the\nCorinthians. But though the Church may be deficient in its duty, it does\nnot therefore follow that it is the place of every individual to pass\njudgment of separation for himself. I admit that it is the duty of a\npious man to withdraw himself from all private intimacy with the wicked,\nand not to involve himself in any voluntary connection with them. But it\nis one thing to avoid familiar intercourse with the wicked; and another\nthing, from hatred of them, to renounce the communion of the Church. And\npersons who deem it sacrilege to participate with them the bread of the\nLord, are in this respect far more rigid than Paul. For when he exhorts\nus to a pure and holy participation of it, he requires not one to\nexamine another, or every one to examine the whole Church, but each\nindividual to prove himself. If it were unlawful to communicate with an\nunworthy person, Paul would certainly have enjoined us to look around\nus, to see whether there were not some one in the multitude by whose\nimpurity we might be contaminated. But as he only requires every one to\nexamine himself, he shows that it is not the least injury to us if some\nunworthy persons intrude themselves with us. And this is fully implied\nin what he afterwards subjoins: \u201cHe that eateth and drinketh unworthily,\neateth and drinketh judgment to himself.\u201d[753] He says, not to others,\nbut to himself, and with sufficient reason. For it ought not to be left\nto the judgment of every individual _who_ ought to be admitted into the\nChurch, and _who_ ought to be expelled from it. This authority belongs\nto the whole Church, and cannot be exercised without legitimate order,\nas will be stated more at large hereafter. It would be unjust,\ntherefore, that any individual should be contaminated with the\nunworthiness of another, whose approach it is neither in his power nor\nhis duty to prevent.\n\nXVI. But though this temptation sometimes arises even to good men, from\nan inconsiderate zeal for righteousness, yet we shall generally find\nthat excessive severity is more owing to pride and haughtiness, and a\nfalse opinion which persons entertain of their own superior sanctity,\nthan to true holiness, and a real concern for its interests. Those,\ntherefore, who are most daring in promoting a separation from the\nChurch, and act, as it were, as standard-bearers in the revolt, have in\ngeneral no other motive than to make an ostentatious display of their\nown superior excellence, and their contempt of all others. Augustine\ncorrectly and judiciously observes\u2014\u201cWhereas the pious rule and method of\necclesiastical discipline ought principally to regard the unity of the\nSpirit in the bond of peace, which the apostle enjoined to be preserved\nby mutual forbearance, and which not being preserved, the medicinal\npunishment is evinced to be not only superfluous, but even pernicious,\nand therefore to be no longer medicinal; those wicked children, who, not\nfrom a hatred of the iniquities of others, but from a fondness for their\nown contentions, earnestly endeavour to draw the simple and uninformed\nmultitude wholly after them, by entangling them with boasting of their\nown characters, or at least to divide them; those persons, I say,\ninflated with pride, infuriated with obstinacy, insidious in the\ncirculation of calumnies, and turbulent in raising seditions, conceal\nthemselves under the mask of a rigid severity, lest they should be\nproved to be destitute of the truth; and those things which in the Holy\nScriptures are commanded to be done with great moderation, and without\nviolating the sincerity of love, or breaking the unity of peace, for the\ncorrection of the faults of our brethren, they pervert to the sacrilege\nof schism, and an occasion of separation from the Church.\u201d To pious and\npeaceable persons he gives this advice: that they should correct in\nmercy whatever they can; that what they cannot, they should patiently\nbear, and affectionately lament, till God either reform and correct it,\nor, at the harvest, root up the tares and sift out the chaff. All pious\npersons should study to fortify themselves with these counsels, lest,\nwhile they consider themselves as valiant and strenuous defenders of\nrighteousness, they depart from the kingdom of heaven, which is the only\nkingdom of righteousness. For since it is the will of God that the\ncommunion of his Church should be maintained in this external society,\nthose who, from an aversion to wicked men, destroy the token of that\nsociety, enter on a course in which they are in great danger of falling\nfrom the communion of saints. Let them consider, in the first place,\nthat in a great multitude there are many who escape their observation,\nwho, nevertheless, are truly holy and innocent in the sight of God.\nSecondly, let them consider, that of those who appear subject to moral\nmaladies, there are many who by no means please or flatter themselves in\ntheir vices, but are oftentimes aroused, with a serious fear of God, to\naspire to greater integrity. Thirdly, let them consider that judgment\nought not to be pronounced upon a man from a single act, since the\nholiest persons have sometimes most grievous falls. Fourthly, let them\nconsider, that the ministry of the word, and the participation of the\nsacraments, have too much influence in preserving the unity of the\nChurch, to admit of its being destroyed by the guilt of a few impious\nmen. Lastly, let them consider, that in forming an estimate of the\nChurch, the judgment of God is of more weight than that of man.\n\nXVII. When they allege that there must be some reason why the Church is\nsaid to be holy, it is necessary to examine the holiness in which it\nexcels; lest by refusing to admit the existence of a Church without\nabsolute and sinless perfection, we should leave no Church in the world.\nIt is true, that, as Paul tells us, \u201cChrist loved the Church, and gave\nhimself for it, that he might sanctify and cleanse it, by the washing of\nwater by the word, that he might present it to himself a glorious\nChurch, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing.\u201d[754] It is\nnevertheless equally true, that the Lord works from day to day in\nsmoothing its wrinkles, and purging away its spots; whence it follows,\nthat its holiness is not yet perfect. The Church, therefore, is so far\nholy, that it is daily improving, but has not yet arrived at perfection;\nthat it is daily advancing, but has not yet reached the mark of\nholiness; as in another part of this work will be more fully explained.\nThe predictions of the prophets, therefore, that \u201cJerusalem shall be\nholy, and there shall no strangers pass through her any more,\u201d and that\nthe way of God shall be a \u201cway of holiness, over which the unclean shall\nnot pass,\u201d[755] are not to be understood as if there were no blemish\nremaining in any of the members of the Church; but because they aspire\nwith all their souls towards perfect holiness and purity, the goodness\nof God attributes to them that sanctity to which they have not yet fully\nattained. And though such evidences of sanctification are oftentimes\nrarely to be found among men, yet it must be maintained, that, from the\nfoundation of the world, there has never been a period in which God had\nnot his Church in it; and that, to the consummation of all things, there\nnever will be a time in which he will not have his Church. For although,\nin the very beginning of time, the whole human race was corrupted and\ndefiled by the sin of Adam; yet, from this polluted mass, God always\nsanctifies some vessels to honour, so that there is no age which has not\nexperienced his mercy. This he has testified by certain promises, such\nas the following: \u201cI have made a covenant with my chosen: I have sworn\nunto David, my servant, Thy seed will I establish for ever, and build up\nthy throne to all generations.\u201d[756] Again: \u201cThe Lord hath chosen Zion;\nhe hath desired it for his habitation. This is my rest for ever.\u201d[757]\nAgain: \u201cThus saith the Lord, which giveth the sun for a light by day,\nand the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night: If\nthose ordinances depart from before me, saith the Lord, then the seed of\nIsrael also shall cease from being a nation before me for ever.\u201d[758]\n\nXVIII. Of this truth Christ himself, the apostles, and almost all the\nprophets, have given us an example. Dreadful are those descriptions in\nwhich Isaiah, Jeremiah, Joel, Habakkuk, and others, deplore the\ndisorders of the Church of Jerusalem. There was such general and extreme\ncorruption in the people, in the magistrates, and in the priests, that\nIsaiah does not hesitate to compare Jerusalem to Sodom and Gomorrah.\nReligion was partly despised, partly corrupted. Their manners were\ngenerally disgraced by thefts, robberies, treacheries, murders, and\nsimilar crimes. Nevertheless, the prophets on this account neither\nraised themselves new churches, nor built new altars for the oblation of\nseparate sacrifices; but whatever were the characters of the people, yet\nbecause they considered that God had deposited his word among that\nnation, and instituted the ceremonies in which he was there worshipped,\nthey lifted up pure hands to him even in the congregation of the\nimpious. If they had thought that they contracted any contagion from\nthese services, surely they would have suffered a hundred deaths rather\nthan have permitted themselves to be dragged to them. There was nothing\ntherefore to prevent their departure from them, but the desire of\npreserving the unity of the Church. But if the holy prophets were\nrestrained by a sense of duty from forsaking the Church on account of\nthe numerous and enormous crimes which were practised, not by a few\nindividuals, but almost by the whole nation,\u2014it is extreme arrogance in\nus, if we presume immediately to withdraw from the communion of a Church\nwhere the conduct of all the members is not compatible either with our\njudgment, or even with the Christian profession.\n\nXIX. Now, what kind of an age was that of Christ and his apostles? Yet\nthe desperate impiety of the Pharisees, and the dissolute lives every\nwhere led by the people, could not prevent _them_ from using the same\nsacrifices, and assembling in the same temple with others, for the\npublic exercises of religion. How did this happen, but from a knowledge\nthat the society of the wicked could not contaminate those who with pure\nconsciences united with them in the same solemnities? If any one pay no\ndeference to the prophets and apostles, let him at least acquiesce in\nthe authority of Christ. Cyprian has excellently remarked, \u201cAlthough\ntares, or impure vessels, are found in the Church, yet this is not a\nreason why we should withdraw from it. It only behoves us to labour that\nwe may be the wheat, and to use our utmost endeavours and exertions,\nthat we may be vessels of gold or of silver. But to break in pieces the\nvessels of earth belongs to the Lord alone, to whom a rod of iron is\nalso given. Nor let any one arrogate to himself what is exclusively the\nprovince of the Son of God, by pretending to fan the floor, clear away\nthe chaff, and separate all the tares by the judgment of man. This is\nproud obstinacy and sacrilegious presumption, originating in a corrupt\nfrenzy.\u201d Let these two points, then, be considered as decided; first,\nthat he who voluntarily deserts the external communion of the Church\nwhere the word of God is preached, and the sacraments are administered,\nis without any excuse; secondly, that the faults either of few persons\nor of many, form no obstacles to a due profession of our faith in the\nuse of the ceremonies instituted by God; because the pious conscience is\nnot wounded by the unworthiness of any other individual, whether he be a\npastor or a private person; nor are the mysteries less pure and salutary\nto a holy and upright man, because they are received at the same time by\nthe impure.\n\nXX. Their severity and haughtiness go to still greater lengths.\nAcknowledging no church but such as is pure from the smallest blemishes,\nthey are even angry with honest teachers, because, by exhorting\nbelievers to progressive improvements, they teach them to groan under\nthe burden of sins, and to seek for pardon all their lifetime. For\nhereby, they pretend, the people are drawn away from perfection. I\nconfess, that in urging men to perfection, we ought to labour with\nunremitting ardour and diligence; but to inspire their minds with a\npersuasion that they have already attained it, while they are yet in the\npursuit of it, I maintain to be a diabolical invention. Therefore, in\nthe Creed, _the communion of saints_ is immediately followed by _the\nforgiveness of sins_, which can only be obtained by the citizens and\nmembers of the Church, as we read in the prophet.[759] The heavenly\nJerusalem, therefore, ought first to be built, in which this favour of\nGod may be enjoyed, that whoever shall enter it, their iniquity shall be\nblotted out. Now, I affirm that this ought first to be built; not that\nthere can ever be any Church without remission of sins, but because God\nhas not promised to impart his mercy, except in the communion of saints.\nOur first entrance, therefore, into the Church and kingdom of God, is\nthe remission of sins, without which we have no covenant or union with\nGod. For thus he speaks by the prophet: \u201cIn that day will I make a\ncovenant for them with the beasts of the field, and with the fowls of\nheaven, and with the creeping things of the ground; and I will break the\nbow and the sword, and the battle out of the earth, and will make them\nto lie down safely. And I will betroth thee unto me for ever; yea, I\nwill betroth thee unto me in righteousness, and in judgment, and in\nloving-kindness, and in mercies.\u201d[760] We see how God reconciles us to\nhimself by his mercy. So in another place, where he foretells the\nrestoration of the people whom he had scattered in his wrath, he says,\n\u201cI will cleanse them from all their iniquity, whereby they have sinned\nagainst me.\u201d[761] Wherefore it is by the sign of ablution, that we are\ninitiated into the society of his Church; by which we are taught that\nthere is no admittance for us into the family of God, unless our\npollution be first taken away by his goodness.\n\nXXI. Nor does God only once receive and adopt us into his Church by the\nremission of sins; he likewise preserves and keeps us in it by the same\nmercy. For to what purpose would it be, if we obtained a pardon which\nwould afterwards be of no use? And that the mercy of the Lord would be\nvain and delusive, if it were only granted for once, all pious persons\ncan testify to themselves; for every one of them is all his lifetime\nconscious of many infirmities, which need the Divine mercy. And surely\nit is not without reason, that God particularly promises this grace to\nthe members of his family, and commands the same message of\nreconciliation to be daily addressed to them. As we carry about with us\nthe relics of sin, therefore, as long as we live, we shall scarcely\ncontinue in the Church for a single moment, unless we are sustained by\nthe constant grace of the Lord in forgiving our sins. But the Lord has\ncalled his people to eternal salvation; they ought, therefore, to\nbelieve that his grace is always ready to pardon their sins. Wherefore\nit ought to be held as a certain conclusion, that from the Divine\nliberality, by the intervention of the merit of Christ, through the\nsanctification of the Spirit, pardon of sins has been, and is daily,\nbestowed upon us, who have been admitted and ingrafted into the body of\nthe Church.\n\nXXII. It was to dispense this blessing to us, that the keys were given\nto the Church.[762] For, when Christ gave commandment to his apostles,\nand conferred on them the power of remitting sins,[763] it was not with\nan intention that they should merely absolve from their sins those who\nwere converted from impiety to the Christian faith, but rather that they\nshould continually exercise this office among the faithful. This is\ntaught by Paul, when he says, that the message of reconciliation was\ncommitted to the ministers of the Church, that in the name of Christ\nthey might daily exhort the people to be reconciled to God.[764] In the\ncommunion of saints, therefore, sins are continually remitted to us by\nthe ministry of the Church, when the presbyters or bishops, to whom this\noffice is committed, confirm pious consciences, by the promises of the\ngospel, in the hope of pardon and remission; and that as well publicly\nas privately, according as necessity requires. For there are many\npersons who, on account of their infirmity, stand in need of separate\nand private consolation. And Paul tells us that he \u201ctaught,\u201d not only\npublicly, but also \u201cfrom house to house, testifying repentance toward\nGod, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ;\u201d[765] and admonished every\nindividual separately respecting the doctrine of salvation. Here are\nthree things, therefore, worthy of our observation. First, that whatever\nholiness may distinguish the children of God, yet such is their\ncondition as long as they inhabit a mortal body, that they cannot stand\nbefore God without remission of sins. Secondly, that this benefit\nbelongs to the Church; so that we cannot enjoy it unless we continue in\nits communion. Thirdly, that it is dispensed to us by the ministers and\npastors of the Church, either in the preaching of the gospel, or in the\nadministration of the sacraments; and that this is the principal\nexercise of the power of the keys, which the Lord has conferred on the\nsociety of believers. Let every one of us, therefore, consider it as his\nduty, not to seek remission of sins any where but where the Lord has\nplaced it. Of public reconciliation, which is a branch of discipline, we\nshall speak in its proper place.\n\nXXIII. But as those fanatic spirits, of whom I spoke, endeavour to rob\nthe Church of this sole anchor of salvation, our consciences ought to be\nstill more strongly fortified against such a pestilent opinion. The\nNovatians disturbed the ancient Churches with this tenet; but the\npresent age also has witnessed some of the Anabaptists, who resemble the\nNovatians by falling into the same follies. For they imagine that by\nbaptism the people of God are regenerated to a pure and angelic life,\nwhich cannot be contaminated by any impurities of the flesh. And if any\none be guilty of sin after baptism, they leave him no prospect of\nescaping the inexorable judgment of God. In short, they encourage no\nhope of pardon in any one who sins after having received the grace of\nGod; because they acknowledge no other remission of sins than that by\nwhich we are first regenerated. Now, though there is no falsehood more\nclearly refuted in the Scripture than this, yet because its advocates\nfind persons to submit to their impositions, as Novatus formerly had\nnumerous followers, let us briefly show how very pernicious their error\nis both to themselves and to others. In the first place, when the saints\nobey the command of the Lord by a daily repetition of this prayer,\n\u201cforgive us our debts,\u201d[766] they certainly confess themselves to be\nsinners. Nor do they pray in vain, for our Lord has not enjoined the use\nof any petitions, but such as he designed to grant. And after he had\ndeclared that the whole prayer would be heard by the Father, he\nconfirmed this absolution by a special promise. What do we want more?\nThe Lord requires from the saints a confession of sins, and that daily\nas long as they live, and he promises them pardon. What presumption is\nit either to assert that they are exempt from sin, or, if they have\nfallen, to exclude them from all grace! To whom does he enjoin us to\ngrant forgiveness seventy times seven times? Is it not to our brethren?\nAnd what was the design of this injunction, but that we might imitate\nhis clemency? He pardons, therefore, not once or twice, but as often as\nthe sinner is alarmed with a sense of his sins, and sighs for mercy.\n\nXXIV. But to begin from the infancy of the Church: the patriarchs had\nbeen circumcised, admitted to the privileges of the covenant, and\nwithout doubt instructed in justice and integrity by the care of their\nfather, when they conspired to murder their brother. This was a crime to\nbe abominated even by the most desperate and abandoned robbers. At\nlength, softened by the admonitions of Judah, they sold him for a slave.\nThis also was an intolerable cruelty. Simon and Levi, in a spirit of\nnefarious revenge, condemned even by the judgment of their father,\nmurdered the inhabitants of Sichem. Reuben was guilty of execrable\nincest with his father\u2019s concubine. Judah, with an intention of\nindulging a libidinous passion, violated the law of nature by a criminal\nconnection with his son\u2019s wife. Yet they are so far from being expunged\nout of the number of the chosen people, that, on the contrary, they are\nconstituted the heads of the nation.[767] What shall we say of David?\nThough he was the official guardian of justice, how scandalously did he\nprepare the way for the gratification of a blind passion, by the\neffusion of innocent blood! He had already been regenerated, and among\nthe regenerate had been distinguished by the peculiar commendations of\nthe Lord; yet he perpetrated a crime even among heathens regarded with\nhorror, and yet he obtained mercy.[768] And not to dwell any longer on\nparticular examples, the numerous promises which the law and the\nprophets contain, of Divine mercy towards the Israelites, are so many\nproofs of the manifestation of God\u2019s placability to the offences of his\npeople. For what does Moses promise to the people in case of their\nreturn to the Lord, after having fallen into idolatry? \u201cThen the Lord\nthy God will turn thy captivity, and have compassion upon thee, and will\nreturn and gather thee from all the nations, whither the Lord thy God\nhath scattered thee. If any of thine be driven out unto the outmost\nparts of heaven, from thence will the Lord thy God gather thee.\u201d[769]\n\nXXV. But I am unwilling to commence an enumeration which would have no\nend. For the prophets are full of such promises, which offer mercy to\nthe people, though covered with innumerable crimes. What sin is worse\nthan rebellion? It is described as a divorce between God and the Church:\nyet this is overcome by the goodness of God. Hear his language by the\nmouth of Jeremiah: \u201cIf a man put away his wife, and she go from him, and\nbecome another man\u2019s, shall he return unto her again? Shall not that\nland be greatly polluted? But thou hast played the harlot with many\nlovers, and thou hast polluted the land with thy whoredoms and with thy\nwickedness. Yet return again to me, thou backsliding Israel, saith the\nLord, and I will not cause mine anger to fall upon you; for I am\nmerciful, saith the Lord, and will not keep anger for ever.\u201d[770] And\nsurely there cannot possibly be any other disposition in him who\naffirms, that he \u201chath no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that\nthe wicked turn from his way and live.\u201d[771] Therefore, when Solomon\ndedicated the temple, he appointed it also for this purpose, that\nprayers, offered to obtain pardon of sins, might there be heard and\nanswered. His words are, \u201cIf they sin against thee, (for there is no man\nthat sinneth not,) and thou be angry with them, and deliver them to the\nenemy, so that they carry them away captives unto the land of the enemy,\nfar or near; yet if they shall bethink themselves, and repent in the\nland whither they were carried captives, and repent and make\nsupplication unto thee in the land of those that carried them captives,\nsaying, We have sinned, and have done perversely, we have committed\nwickedness; and pray unto thee toward the land which thou gavest unto\ntheir fathers, the city which thou hast chosen, and the house which I\nhave built for thy name; then hear thou their prayer and their\nsupplication in heaven, and forgive thy people that have sinned against\nthee, and all their transgressions wherein they have transgressed\nagainst thee.\u201d[772] Nor was it without cause that in the law the Lord\nordained daily sacrifices for sins; for unless he had foreseen that his\npeople would be subject to the maladies of daily sins, he would never\nhave appointed these remedies.[773]\n\nXXVI. Now, I ask whether, by the advent of Christ, in whom the fulness\nof grace was displayed, believers have been deprived of this benefit, so\nthat they can no longer presume to supplicate for the pardon of their\nsins; so that if they offend against the Lord, they can obtain no mercy.\nWhat would this be but to affirm, that Christ came for the destruction\nof his people, and not for their salvation; if the loving-kindness of\nGod, in the pardon of sins, which was continually ready to be exercised\nto the saints under the Old Testament, be maintained to be now entirely\nwithdrawn? But if we give any credit to the Scriptures, which proclaim\nthat in Christ the grace and philanthropy of God have at length been\nfully manifested, that his mercy has been abundantly diffused, and\nreconciliation between God and man accomplished,[774] we ought not to\ndoubt that the clemency of our heavenly Father is displayed to us in\ngreater abundance, rather than restricted or diminished. Examples to\nprove this are not wanting. Peter, who had been warned that he who would\nnot confess the name of Christ before men would be denied by him before\nangels, denied him three times in one night, and accompanied the denial\nwith execrations; yet he was not refused pardon.[775] Those of the\nThessalonians who led disorderly lives, are reprehended by the apostle,\nin order to be invited to repentance.[776] Nor does Peter drive Simon\nMagus himself to despair; but rather directs him to cherish a favourable\nhope, when he persuades him to pray for forgiveness.[777]\n\nXXVII. What are we to say of cases in which the most enormous sins have\nsometimes seized whole Churches? From this situation Paul rather\nmercifully reclaimed them, than abandoned them to the curse. The\ndefection of the Galatians was no trivial offence.[778] The Corinthians\nwere still less excusable, their crimes being more numerous and equally\nenormous.[779] Yet neither are excluded from the mercy of the Lord: on\nthe contrary, the very persons who had gone beyond all others in\nimpurity, unchastity, and fornication, are expressly invited to\nrepentance. For the covenant of the Lord will ever remain eternal and\ninviolable, which he has made with Christ, the antitype of Solomon, and\nwith all his members, in these words: \u201cIf his children forsake my law,\nand walk not in my judgments; if they break my statutes, and keep not my\ncommandments; then will I visit their transgression with the rod, and\ntheir iniquity with stripes. Nevertheless my loving-kindness will I not\nutterly take from him.\u201d[780] Finally, the order of the Creed teaches us\nthat pardon of sins ever continues in the Church of Christ, because,\nafter having mentioned the Church, it immediately adds _the forgiveness\nof sins_.\n\nXXVIII. Some persons, who are a little more judicious, perceiving the\nnotion of Novatus to be so explicitly contradicted by the Scripture, do\nnot represent every sin as unpardonable, but only voluntary\ntransgression, into which a person may have fallen with the full\nexercise of his knowledge and will. These persons admit of no pardon for\nany sins, but such as may have been the mere errors of ignorance. But as\nthe Lord, in the law, commanded some sacrifices to be offered to expiate\nthe voluntary sins of believers, and others to atone for sins of\nignorance, what extreme presumption is it to deny that there is any\npardon for voluntary transgression! I maintain, that there is nothing\nmore evident, than that the one sacrifice of Christ is available for the\nremission of the voluntary sins of the saints, since the Lord has\ntestified the same by the legal victims, as by so many types. Besides,\nwho can plead ignorance as an excuse for David, who was evidently so\nwell acquainted with the law? Did not David know that adultery and\nmurder were great crimes, which he daily punished in others? Did the\npatriarchs consider fratricide as lawful? Had the Corinthians learned so\nlittle that they could imagine impurity, incontinence, fornication,\nanimosities, and contentions, to be pleasing to God? Could Peter, who\nhad been so carefully warned, be ignorant how great a crime it was to\nabjure his Master? Let us not, therefore, by our cruelty, shut the gate\nof mercy which God has so liberally opened.\n\nXXIX. I am fully aware that the old writers have explained those sins,\nwhich are daily forgiven to believers, to be the smaller faults, which\nare inadvertently committed through the infirmity of the flesh; but\nsolemn repentance, which was then required for greater offences, they\nthought, was no more to be repeated than baptism. This sentiment is not\nto be understood as indicating their design, either to drive into\ndespair such persons as had relapsed after their first repentance, or to\nextenuate those errors, as if they were small in the sight of God. For\nthey knew that the saints frequently stagger through unbelief; that they\nsometimes utter unnecessary oaths; that they occasionally swell into\nanger, and even break out into open reproaches; and that they are\nlikewise chargeable with other faults, which the Lord holds in the\ngreatest abomination. They expressed themselves in this manner, to\ndistinguish between private offences and those public crimes which were\nattended with great scandal in the Church. But the difficulty, which\nthey made, of forgiving those who had committed any thing deserving of\necclesiastical censure, did not arise from an opinion that it was\ndifficult for them to obtain pardon from the Lord; they only intended by\nthis severity to deter others from rashly running into crimes, which\nwould justly be followed by their exclusion from the communion of the\nChurch. The word of the Lord, however, which ought to be our only rule\nin this case, certainly prescribes greater moderation. For it teaches,\nthat the rigour of discipline ought not to be carried to such an extent,\nas to overwhelm with sorrow the person whose benefit we are required to\nregard as its principal object; as we have before shown more at large.\n\nFootnote 703:\n\n  Ephes. iv. 11-16.\n\nFootnote 704:\n\n  Mark x. 9.\n\nFootnote 705:\n\n  Gal. iv. 26.\n\nFootnote 706:\n\n  2 Tim. ii. 19.\n\nFootnote 707:\n\n  Rom. xi. 4. 1 Kings xix. 18.\n\nFootnote 708:\n\n  Acts iv. 32.\n\nFootnote 709:\n\n  Ephes. iv. 4.\n\nFootnote 710:\n\n  Joel ii. 32. Obad. 17.\n\nFootnote 711:\n\n  Psalm xlvi. 5.\n\nFootnote 712:\n\n  Matt. xxii. 30.\n\nFootnote 713:\n\n  Isaiah xxxvii. 35. Joel ii. 32.\n\nFootnote 714:\n\n  Ezek. xiii. 9.\n\nFootnote 715:\n\n  Psalm cvi. 4, 5.\n\nFootnote 716:\n\n  Ephes. iv. 10-13.\n\nFootnote 717:\n\n  Isaiah lix. 21.\n\nFootnote 718:\n\n  Rom. x. 17.\n\nFootnote 719:\n\n  Psalm cxxxii. 14; lxxx. 1.\n\nFootnote 720:\n\n  2 Cor. iv. 7.\n\nFootnote 721:\n\n  Psalm cv. 4.\n\nFootnote 722:\n\n  2 Cor. iv. 6.\n\nFootnote 723:\n\n  Exod. xx. 24.\n\nFootnote 724:\n\n  Psalm lxxxiv.\n\nFootnote 725:\n\n  Psalm cxxxii. 7. xcix. 5.\n\nFootnote 726:\n\n  Acts vii. 48, 49.\n\nFootnote 727:\n\n  Mal. iv. 6.\n\nFootnote 728:\n\n  John xv. 16.\n\nFootnote 729:\n\n  1 Peter i. 23.\n\nFootnote 730:\n\n  1 Cor. iv. 15. ix. 2.\n\nFootnote 731:\n\n  2 Cor. iii. 6.\n\nFootnote 732:\n\n  1 Thess. i. 5.\n\nFootnote 733:\n\n  Gal. iii. 2.\n\nFootnote 734:\n\n  1 Cor. iii. 9; xv. 10. 2 Cor. vi. 1.\n\nFootnote 735:\n\n  1 Thess. ii. 1.\n\nFootnote 736:\n\n  Col. i. 29.\n\nFootnote 737:\n\n  Gal. ii. 8.\n\nFootnote 738:\n\n  1 Cor. iii. 7.\n\nFootnote 739:\n\n  1 Cor. xv. 10.\n\nFootnote 740:\n\n  2 Tim. ii. 19.\n\nFootnote 741:\n\n  Matt. xviii. 20.\n\nFootnote 742:\n\n  1 Tim. iii. 15.\n\nFootnote 743:\n\n  Eph. v. 27.\n\nFootnote 744:\n\n  Eph. i. 23.\n\nFootnote 745:\n\n  Phil. iii. 15.\n\nFootnote 746:\n\n  1 Cor. xiv. 30.\n\nFootnote 747:\n\n  Matt. xiii. 47.\n\nFootnote 748:\n\n  Matt. xiii. 24.\n\nFootnote 749:\n\n  Matt. iii. 12.\n\nFootnote 750:\n\n  1 Cor. i. 11; iii. 3; v. 1; vi. 7; ix. 1; xiv. 26, 40; xv. 12.\n\nFootnote 751:\n\n  Gal. i. 6; iii. 1; iv. 11.\n\nFootnote 752:\n\n  1 Cor. v. 2, 11, 12.\n\nFootnote 753:\n\n  1 Cor. xi. 28, 29.\n\nFootnote 754:\n\n  Ephes. v. 25-27.\n\nFootnote 755:\n\n  Joel iii. 17. Isaiah xxxv. 8.\n\nFootnote 756:\n\n  Psalm lxxxix. 3, 4.\n\nFootnote 757:\n\n  Psalm cxxxii. 13, 14.\n\nFootnote 758:\n\n  Jer. xxxi. 35, 36.\n\nFootnote 759:\n\n  Isaiah xxxiii. 24.\n\nFootnote 760:\n\n  Hos. ii. 18, 19.\n\nFootnote 761:\n\n  Jerem. xxxiii. 8.\n\nFootnote 762:\n\n  Matt. xvi. 19; xviii. 18.\n\nFootnote 763:\n\n  John xx. 23.\n\nFootnote 764:\n\n  2 Cor. v. 18-20.\n\nFootnote 765:\n\n  Acts xx. 20, 21.\n\nFootnote 766:\n\n  Matt. vi. 12.\n\nFootnote 767:\n\n  Gen. xxxvii. 18, 28; xxxiv. 25; xxxv. 22; xxxviii. 16.\n\nFootnote 768:\n\n  2 Sam. xi. 4, 15; xii. 13.\n\nFootnote 769:\n\n  Deut. xxx. 3, 4.\n\nFootnote 770:\n\n  Jer. iii. 1, 2, 12.\n\nFootnote 771:\n\n  Ezek. xxxiii. 11.\n\nFootnote 772:\n\n  1 Kings viii. 46-50.\n\nFootnote 773:\n\n  Numb. xxviii. 3.\n\nFootnote 774:\n\n  2 Tim. i. 9, 10. Tit. ii. 11; iii. 4-7.\n\nFootnote 775:\n\n  Matt. x. 33. Mark viii. 38. Matt. xxvi. 69, &c.\n\nFootnote 776:\n\n  2 Thess. iii. 6, 11, 12.\n\nFootnote 777:\n\n  Acts viii. 22.\n\nFootnote 778:\n\n  Gal. i. 6; iii. 1; iv. 9.\n\nFootnote 779:\n\n  1 Cor. i. 11, 12; v. 1. 2 Cor. xii. 21.\n\nFootnote 780:\n\n  Psalm lxxxix. 30-33.\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER II.\n                  THE TRUE AND FALSE CHURCH COMPARED.\n\n\nWe have already stated the importance which we ought to attach to the\nministry of the word and sacraments, and the extent to which our\nreverence for it ought to be carried, so as to account it a perpetual\nmark and characteristic of the Church. That is to say, that wherever\n_that_ exists entire and uncorrupted, no errors and irregularities of\nconduct form a sufficient reason for refusing the name of a Church. In\nthe next place, that the ministry itself is not so far vitiated by\nsmaller errors, as to be considered on that account less legitimate. It\nhas further been shown, that the errors which are entitled to this\nforgiveness are those by which the grand doctrine of religion is not\ninjured, which do not suppress the points in which all believers ought\nto agree as articles of faith, and which, in regard to the sacraments,\nneither abolish nor subvert the legitimate institution of their Author.\nBut as soon as falsehood has made a breach in the fundamentals of\nreligion, and the system of necessary doctrine is subverted, and the use\nof the sacraments fails, the certain consequence is the ruin of the\nChurch, as there is an end of a man\u2019s life when his throat is cut, or\nhis heart is mortally wounded. And this is evident from the language of\nPaul, when he declares the Church to be \u201cbuilt upon the foundation of\nthe apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief\ncorner-stone.\u201d[781] If the foundation of the Church be the doctrine of\nthe prophets and apostles, which enjoins believers to place their\nsalvation in Christ alone, how can the edifice stand any longer, when\nthat doctrine is taken away? The Church, therefore, must of necessity\nfall, where that system of religion is subverted which alone is able to\nsustain it. Besides, if the true Church be \u201cthe pillar and ground of\ntruth,\u201d[782] that certainly can be no Church where delusion and\nfalsehood have usurped the dominion.\n\nII. As this is the state of things under the Papacy, it is easy to judge\nhow much of the Church remains there. Instead of the ministry of the\nword, there reigns a corrupt government, composed of falsehoods, by\nwhich the pure light is suppressed or extinguished. An execrable\nsacrilege has been substituted for the supper of the Lord. The worship\nof God is deformed by a multifarious and intolerable mass of\nsuperstitions. The doctrine, without which Christianity cannot exist,\nhas been entirely forgotten or exploded. The public assemblies have\nbecome schools of idolatry and impiety. In withdrawing ourselves,\ntherefore, from the pernicious participation of so many enormities,\nthere is no danger of separating ourselves from the Church of Christ.\nThe communion of the Church was not instituted as a bond to confine us\nin idolatry, impiety, ignorance of God, and other evils; but rather as a\nmean to preserve us in the fear of God, and obedience of the truth. I\nknow that the Papists give us the most magnificent commendations of\ntheir Church, to make us believe that there is no other in the world;\nand then, as if they had gained their point, they conclude all who dare\nto withdraw themselves from that Church which they describe, to be\nschismatics, and pronounce all to be heretics who venture to open their\nmouths in opposition to its doctrine. But by what reasons do they prove\ntheirs to be the true Church? They allege from ancient records what\nformerly occurred in Italy, in France, in Spain; that they are descended\nfrom those holy men, who by sound doctrine founded and raised the\nChurches in these countries, and confirmed their doctrine and the\nedification of the Church by their blood; and that the Church, thus\nconsecrated among them, both by spiritual gifts, and by the blood of\nmartyrs, has been preserved by a perpetual succession of bishops, that\nit might never be lost. They allege the importance attached to this\nsuccession by Iren\u00e6us, Tertullian, Origen, Augustine, and others. To\nthose who are willing to attend me in a brief examination of these\nallegations, I will clearly show that they are frivolous, and manifestly\nridiculous. I would likewise exhort those who advance them, to pay a\nserious attention to the subject, if I thought my arguments could\nproduce any effect upon them; but as their sole object is to promote\ntheir own interest by every method in their power, without any regard to\ntruth, I shall content myself with making a few observations, with which\ngood men, and inquirers after truth, may be able to answer their cavils.\nIn the first place, I ask them, why they allege nothing respecting\nAfrica, and Egypt, and all Asia. It is because, in all those countries,\nthere has been a failure of this sacred succession of bishops, by virtue\nof which they boast that the Church has been preserved among them. They\ncome to this point, therefore, that they have the true Church, because\nfrom its commencement it has never been destitute of bishops, for that\nsome have been succeeded by others in an uninterrupted series. But what\nif I oppose them with the example of Greece? I ask them again,\ntherefore, why they assert that the Church has been lost among the\nGreeks, among whom there has never been any interruption of that\nsuccession of bishops, which they consider as the sole guard and\npreservative of the Church? They call the Greeks schismatics. For what\nreason? Because, it is pretended, they have lost their privilege by\nrevolting from the Apostolical see. But do not they much more deserve to\nlose it, who have revolted from Christ himself? It follows, therefore,\nthat their plea of uninterrupted succession is a vain pretence, unless\nthe truth of Christ, which was transmitted from the fathers, be\npermanently retained pure and uncorrupted by their posterity.\n\nIII. The pretensions of the Romanists, therefore, in the present day,\nare no other than those which appear to have been formerly set up by the\nJews, when they were reproved by the prophets of the Lord for blindness,\nimpiety, and idolatry. For as the Jews boasted of the temple, the\nceremonies, and the priesthood, in which things they firmly believed the\nChurch to consist; so, instead of the Church, the Papists produce\ncertain external forms, which are often at a great distance from the\nChurch, and are not at all necessary to its existence. Wherefore we need\nno other argument to refute them, than that which was urged by Jeremiah\nagainst that foolish confidence of the Jews: \u201cTrust ye not in lying\nwords, saying, The temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord, the\ntemple of the Lord, are these.\u201d[783] For the Lord acknowledges no place\nas his temple, where his word is not heard and devoutly observed. So,\nthough the glory of God resided between the cherubim in the sanctuary,\nand he had promised his people that he would make it his permanent seat,\nyet when the priests had corrupted his worship by perverse\nsuperstitions, he departed, and left the place without any sanctity. If\nthat temple which appeared to be consecrated to the perpetual residence\nof God, could be forsaken and desecrated by him, there can be no reason\nfor their pretending that God is so attached to persons or places, or\nconfined to external observances, as to be constrained to remain among\nthose who have nothing but the name and appearance of the Church. And\nthis is the argument which is maintained by Paul in the Epistle to the\nRomans, from the ninth chapter to the twelfth. For it had violently\ndisturbed weak consciences, to observe that, while the Jews appeared to\nbe the people of God, they not only rejected, but also persecuted, the\ndoctrine of the gospel. Therefore, after having discussed that doctrine,\nhe removes this difficulty; and denies the claim of those Jews, who were\nenemies of the truth, to be considered as the Church, though in other\nrespects they wanted nothing that could be requisite to its external\nform. And the only reason for this denial was, because they did not\nreceive Christ. He speaks rather more explicitly in the Epistle to the\nGalatians,[784] where, in a comparison between Ishmael and Isaac, he\nrepresents many as occupying a place in the Church, who have no right to\nthe inheritance, because they are not the children of a free mother.\nHence he proceeds to a contrast of the two Jerusalems, because as the\nlaw was given on Mount Sinai, but the gospel came forth from Jerusalem,\nso many who have been born and educated in bondage, confidently boast of\nbeing the children of God and of the Church, and though they are\nthemselves a spurious offspring, look down with contempt on his genuine\nand legitimate children. But as for us, on the contrary, who have once\nheard it proclaimed from heaven, \u201cCast out the bondwoman and her son,\u201d\nlet us confide in this inviolable decree, and resolutely despise their\nridiculous pretensions. For if they pride themselves on an external\nprofession, Ishmael also was circumcised. If they depend on antiquity,\nhe was the first born. Yet we see that he was rejected. If the cause of\nthis be inquired, Paul tells us that none are accounted children but\nthose who are born of the pure and legitimate seed of the word.[785]\nAccording to this reason, the Lord declares that he is not confined to\nimpious priests, because he had made a covenant with their father Levi\nto be his angel or messenger.[786] He even retorts on them their false\nboasting, with which they were accustomed to oppose the prophets, that\nthe dignity of the priesthood ought to be held in peculiar estimation.\nThis he readily admits, and argues with them on this ground, because he\nwas prepared to observe the covenant, whereas they failed of discharging\nthe correspondent obligations, and therefore deserved to be rejected.\nSee, then, what such succession is worth, unless it be connected with a\ncontinual imitation and conformity. Without this, the descendants, who\nare convicted of a departure from their predecessors, must immediately\nbe deprived of all honour; unless, indeed, because Caiaphas was the\nsuccessor of many pious priests, and there had been an uninterrupted\nseries even from Aaron to him, that execrable assembly be deemed worthy\nto be called the Church. But it would not be tolerated even in earthly\ngovernments, that the tyranny of Caligula, Nero, Heliogabalus, and\nothers, should be called the true state of the republic, because they\nsucceeded the Bruti, the Scipios, and the Camilli. But in regard to the\ngovernment of the Church, nothing can be more frivolous than to place\nthe succession in the persons, to the neglect of the doctrine. And\nnothing was further from the intentions of the holy doctors, whose\nauthority they falsely obtrude upon us, than to prove that Churches\nexisted by a kind of hereditary right, wherever there has been a\nconstant succession of bishops. But as it was beyond all doubt that,\nfrom the beginning even down to their times, no change had taken place\nin the doctrine, they assumed, what would suffice for the confutation of\nall new errors, that they were repugnant to the doctrine which had been\nconstantly and unanimously maintained even from the days of the\napostles. They will gain nothing, therefore, by persisting to disguise\nthemselves under the name of the Church. The Church we regard with\nbecoming reverence; but when they come to the definition, they are\nmiserably embarrassed, for they substitute an execrable harlot in the\nplace of the holy spouse of Christ. That we may not be deceived by such\na substitution, beside other admonitions, let us remember this of\nAugustine; for, speaking of the Church, he says, \u201cIt is sometimes\nobscured and beclouded by a multitude of scandals; sometimes it appears\nquiet and unmolested in a season of tranquillity, and is sometimes\ndisturbed and overwhelmed with the waves of tribulations and\ntemptations.\u201d He produces examples, that those who were its firmest\npillars, have either undauntedly suffered banishment on account of the\nfaith, or secluded themselves from all society.\n\nIV. In the same manner, the Romanists in the present day harass us, and\nterrify ignorant persons with the name of the Church, though there are\nno greater enemies to Christ than themselves. Although they may pretend\ntherefore to the temple, the priesthood, and other similar forms, this\nvain glitter, which dazzles the eyes of the simple, ought by no means to\ninduce us to admit the existence of a Church, where we cannot discover\nthe word of God. For this is the perpetual mark by which our Lord has\ncharacterized his people: \u201cEvery one that is of the truth heareth my\nvoice.\u201d[787] And, \u201cI am the good Shepherd, and know my sheep, and am\nknown of mine.\u201d \u201cMy sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they\nfollow me.\u201d He had just before said, \u201cThe sheep follow their shepherd;\nfor they know his voice; and a stranger will they not follow, but will\nflee from him, for they know not the voice of strangers.\u201d[788] Why,\nthen, do we wilfully run into error in forming a judgment of the Church,\nsince Christ has designated it by an unequivocal character, that\nwherever it is discovered, it infallibly assures us of the existence of\na Church, and wherever it is wanting, there is no real evidence of a\nChurch left. For Paul declares the Church to be founded, not upon the\nopinions of men, not upon the priesthood, but upon the \u201cdoctrine of the\napostles and prophets.\u201d[789] And Jerusalem is to be distinguished from\nBabylon, the Church of Christ from the synagogue of Satan, by this\ndifference, by which Christ has discriminated them from each other: \u201cHe\nthat is of God, heareth God\u2019s words; ye therefore hear them not, because\nye are not of God.\u201d[790] In fine, as the Church is the kingdom of\nChrist, and he reigns only by his word, can any person doubt the\nfalsehood of those pretensions, which represent the kingdom of Christ as\ndestitute of his sceptre, that is, of his holy word?\n\nV. With respect to the charge which they bring against us of heresy and\nschism, because we preach a different doctrine from theirs, and submit\nnot to their laws, and hold separate assemblies for prayers, for\nbaptism, for the administration of the Lord\u2019s supper, and other sacred\nexercises, it is indeed a most heavy accusation, but such as by no means\nrequires a long or laborious defence. The appellations of heretics and\nschismatics are applied to persons who cause dissension, and destroy the\ncommunion of the Church. Now, this communion is preserved by two\nbonds\u2014agreement in sound doctrine, and brotherly love. Between heretics\nand schismatics, therefore, Augustine makes the following\ndistinction\u2014that the former corrupt the purity of the faith by false\ndoctrines, and that the latter break the bond of affection, sometimes\neven while they retain the same faith. But it is also to be remarked,\nthat this union of affection is dependent on the unity of faith, as its\nfoundation, end, and rule. Let us remember, therefore, that, whenever\nthe unity of the Church is enjoined upon us in the Scripture, it is\nrequired, that, while our minds hold the same doctrines in Christ, our\nwills should likewise be united in mutual benevolence in Christ.\nTherefore, Paul, when he exhorts us to it, assumes as a foundation, that\nthere is \u201cone Lord, one faith, and one baptism.\u201d[791] And when he\ninculcates our being \u201clike-minded, and having the same love, being of\none accord, of one mind,\u201d[792] he immediately adds, that this should be\nin Christ, or according to Christ; signifying that all union which is\nformed without the word of the Lord, is a faction of the impious, and\nnot an association of believers.\n\nVI. Cyprian, also, after the example of Paul, deduces the origin of all\necclesiastical concord from the supreme bishopric of Christ. He\nafterwards subjoins, \u201cThere is but one Church, which is widely extended\ninto a multitude by the offspring of its fertility; just as there are\nmany rays of the sun, but the light is one; and a tree has many\nbranches, but only one trunk, fixed on a firm root. And when many rivers\nissue from one source, though by its exuberant abundance the stream is\nmultiplied into numerous currents, yet the unity of the fountain still\nremains. Separate a ray from the body of the sun, and its unity sustains\nno division. Break off a branch from a tree, and the broken branch can\nnever bud. Cut off a river from the source, and it immediately dries up.\nSo the Church, overspread with the light of the Lord, is extended over\nthe whole world: yet it is one and the same light which is universally\ndiffused.\u201d No representation could be more elegant to express that\ninseparable connection which subsists between all the members of Christ.\nWe see how he continually recalls us to the fountain-head. Therefore he\npronounces the origin of heresies and schisms to be, that men neither\nreturn to the source of truth, nor seek the Head, nor attend to the\ndoctrine of the heavenly Master. Now, let the Romanists exclaim that we\nare heretics, because we have withdrawn from their church; while the\nsole cause of our secession has been, that theirs cannot possibly be the\npure profession of the truth. I say nothing of their having expelled us\nwith anathemas and execrations. But this reason is more than sufficient\nfor our exculpation, unless they are determined to pronounce sentence of\nschism also against the apostles, with whom we have but one common\ncause. Christ, I say, foretold to his apostles, that for his name\u2019s sake\nthey should be cast out of the synagogues.[793] Now, those synagogues,\nof which he spoke, were then accounted legitimate Churches. Since it is\nevident, then, that we have been cast out, and we are prepared to prove\nthat this has been done for the name of Christ, it is necessary to\ninquire into the cause, before any thing be determined respecting us,\neither on one side or the other. But this point I readily relinquish to\nthem. It is sufficient for me that it was necessary for us to withdraw\nfrom them, in order to approach to Christ.\n\nVII. But it will be still more evident, in what estimation we ought to\nhold all the Churches who have submitted to the tyranny of the Roman\npontiff, if we compare them with the ancient Church of Israel, as\ndelineated by the prophets. There was a true Church among the Jews and\nthe Israelites, while they continued to observe the laws of the\ncovenant; because they then obtained from the favour of God those things\nwhich constitute a Church. They had the doctrine of truth in the law;\nthe ministry of it was committed to the priests and prophets; they were\ninitiated into the Church by the sign of circumcision; and were\nexercised in other sacraments for the confirmation of their faith. There\nis no doubt that the commendations, with which the Lord has honoured his\nChurch, truly belonged to their society. But after they deserted the law\nof the Lord, and fell into idolatry and superstition, they partly lost\nthis privilege. For who would dare to refuse the title of a Church to\nthose among whom God deposited the preaching of his word, and the\nobservance of his mysteries? On the other hand, who would dare to give\nthe appellation of a Church, without any exception, to that society,\nwhere the word of God is openly and fearlessly trampled under foot;\nwhere its ministry, the principal sinew, and even the soul of the\nChurch, is discontinued?\n\nVIII. What, then, it will be said, was there no particle of a Church\nleft among the Jews from the moment of their defection to idolatry? The\nanswer is easy. In the first place, I observe, that in this defection\nthere were several degrees. Nor will we maintain the fall of Judah, and\nthat of Israel, to have been exactly the same, at the time when they\nboth began to depart from the pure worship of God. When Jeroboam made\nthe calves, in opposition to the express prohibition of God, and\ndedicated a place which it was not lawful to use for the oblation of\nsacrifices, in this case religion was totally corrupted. The Jews\npolluted themselves with practical impieties and superstitions, before\nthey made any unlawful changes in the external forms of religion. For\nthough they generally adopted many corrupt ceremonies in the time of\nRehoboam, yet as the doctrine of the law, and the priesthood, and the\nrites which God had instituted, were still preserved at Jerusalem,\nbelievers had in that kingdom a tolerable form of a Church. Among the\nIsraelites, there was no reformation down to the reign of Ahab, and in\nhis time there was an alteration for the worse. Of the succeeding kings,\neven to the subversion of the kingdom, some resembled Ahab, and others,\nwho would be a little better, followed the example of Jeroboam; but all,\nwithout exception, were impious idolaters. In Judah there were various\nchanges; some kings corrupted the worship of God with false and\ngroundless superstitions, and others restored religion from its abuses;\ntill, at length, the priests themselves polluted the temple of God with\nidolatrous and abominable rites.\n\nIX. Now, however the Papists may extenuate their vices, let them deny,\nif they can, that the state of religion is as corrupt and depraved among\nthem, as it was in the kingdom of Israel, in the time of Jeroboam. But\nthey practise a grosser idolatry, and their doctrine is equally, if not\nmore, impure. God is my witness, and all men who are endued with\nmoderate judgment, and the fact itself declares, that in this I am\nguilty of no exaggeration. Now, when they try to drive us into the\ncommunion of their Church, they require two things of us\u2014first, that we\nshould communicate in all their prayers, sacraments, and ceremonies;\nsecondly, that whatever honour, power, and jurisdiction, Christ has\nconferred upon his Church, we should attribute the same to theirs. With\nrespect to the first point, I confess that the prophets who were at\nJerusalem, when the state of affairs there was very corrupt, neither\noffered up sacrifices apart from others, nor held separate assemblies\nfor prayer. For they had the express command of God, that they were to\nassemble in the temple of Solomon; and they knew that the Levitical\npriests, because they had been ordained by the Lord as ministers of the\nsacrifices, and had not been deposed, however unworthy they might be of\nsuch honour, still retained the lawful possession of that place. But,\nwhat is the principal point of the whole controversy, they were not\nconstrained to join in any superstitious worship; on the contrary, they\nengaged in no service that was not of Divine institution. But what\nresemblance is there to this among the Papists? We can scarcely assemble\nwith them on a single occasion, without polluting ourselves with open\nidolatry. The principal bond of their communion is certainly the mass,\nwhich we abominate as the greatest sacrilege. Whether we are right or\nwrong in this, will be seen in another place. It is sufficient, at\npresent, to show that, in this respect, our case is different from that\nof the prophets, who, though they were present at the sacrifices of\nimpious persons, were never compelled to use, or to witness, any\nceremonies but those which God had instituted. And if we wish to have an\nexample entirely similar, we must take it from the kingdom of Israel.\nAccording to the regulations of Jeroboam, circumcision continued,\nsacrifices were offered, the law was regarded as sacred, the people\ninvoked the same God whom their fathers had worshipped; yet, on account\nof novel ceremonies invented in opposition to the Divine prohibitions,\nGod disapproved and condemned all that was done there. Show me a single\nprophet, or any pious man, who even once worshipped or offered sacrifice\nat Bethel. They knew that they could not do it without contaminating\nthemselves with sacrilege. We have established this point, therefore,\nthat the attachment of pious persons to the communion of the Church,\nought not to be carried to such an extent, as to oblige them to remain\nin it, if it degenerated into profane and impure rites.\n\nX. But against their second requisition, we contend upon still stronger\nground. For if the Church be held in such consideration that we are\nrequired to revere its judgment, to obey its authority, to receive its\nadmonitions, to fall under its censures, and scrupulously and uniformly\nto adhere to its communion, we cannot allow their claim to the character\nof the Church, without necessarily obliging ourselves to subjection and\nobedience. Yet we readily concede to them what the prophets conceded to\nthe Jews and Israelites of their time, when things among them were in a\nsimilar, or even in a better state. But we see how they frequently\nexclaim, that their assemblies were iniquitous meetings,[794] a\nconcurrence in which were as criminal as a renunciation of God. And\ncertainly, if those assemblies were Churches, it follows that Elijah,\nMicaiah, and others in Israel, were strangers to the Church of God; and\nthe same would be true of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Hosea, and others of that\ndescription in Judah, whom the false prophets, priests, and people of\ntheir day, hated and execrated as if they had been worse than any\nheathens. If such assemblies were Churches, then the Church is not the\npillar of truth, but a foundation of falsehood, not the sanctuary of the\nliving God, but a receptacle of idols. They found themselves under a\nnecessity, therefore, of withdrawing from all connection with those\nassemblies, which were nothing but a conspiracy against God. For the\nsame reason, if any one acknowledges the assemblies of the present day,\nwhich are contaminated with idolatry, superstition, and false doctrine,\nas true Churches, in full communion with which a Christian man ought to\ncontinue, and in whose doctrine he ought to coincide, this will be a\ngreat error. For if they be Churches, they possess the power of the\nkeys; but the keys are inseparably connected with the word, which is\nexploded from among them. Again, if they be Churches, that promise of\nChrist must be applicable to them\u2014\u201cWhatsoever ye shall bind on earth\nshall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall\nbe loosed in heaven.\u201d[795] On the contrary, all who sincerely profess\nthemselves to be the servants of Christ, they expel from their\ncommunion. Either, therefore, the promise of Christ must be vain, or in\nthis respect they are not Churches. Lastly, instead of the ministry of\nthe word, they have schools of impiety, and a gulf of every species of\nerrors. Either, therefore, in this respect they are not Churches, or no\nmark will be left to distinguish the legitimate assemblies of believers\nfrom the conventions of Turks.\n\nXI. Nevertheless, as in former times the Jews continued in possession of\nsome peculiar privileges of the Church, so we refuse not to acknowledge,\namong the Papists of the present day, those vestiges of the Church which\nit has pleased the Lord should remain among them after its removal. When\nGod had once made his covenant with the Jews, it continued among them,\nrather because it was supported by its own stability in opposition to\ntheir impiety, than in consequence of their observance of it. Such,\ntherefore, was the certainty and constancy of the Divine goodness, the\ncovenant of the Lord remained among them; his faithfulness could not be\nobliterated by their perfidy; nor could circumcision be so profaned by\ntheir impure hands, but that it was always the true sign and sacrament\nof his covenant. Hence the children that were born to them, God calls\nhis own,[796] though they could not have belonged to him but by a\nspecial benediction. So after he had deposited his covenant in France,\nItaly, Germany, Spain, and England, when those countries were oppressed\nby the tyranny of Antichrist, still, in order that the covenant might\nremain inviolable, as a testimony of that covenant, he preserved baptism\namong them, which, being consecrated by his lips, retains its virtue in\nopposition to all the impiety of men. He also, by his providence, caused\nother vestiges of the Church to remain, that it might not be entirely\nlost. And as buildings are frequently demolished in such a manner as to\nleave the foundations and ruins remaining, so the Lord has not suffered\nAntichrist either to subvert his Church from the foundation, or to level\nit with the ground; though, to punish the ingratitude of men who\ndespised his word, he has permitted a dreadful concussion and\ndilapidation to be made; yet, amidst this devastation, he has been\npleased to preserve the edifice from being entirely destroyed.\n\nXII. While we refuse, therefore, to allow to the Papists the title of\nthe Church, without any qualification or restriction, we do not deny\nthat there are Churches among them. We only contend for the true and\nlegitimate constitution of the Church, which requires not only a\ncommunion in the sacraments, which are the signs of a Christian\nprofession, but above all, an agreement in doctrine. Daniel and Paul had\npredicted that Antichrist would sit in the temple of God.[797] The head\nof that cursed and abominable kingdom, in the Western Church, we affirm\nto be the Pope. When his seat is placed in the temple of God, it\nsuggests, that his kingdom will be such, that he will not abolish the\nname of Christ, or the Church. Hence it appears, that we by no means\ndeny that Churches may exist, even under his tyranny; but he has\nprofaned them by sacrilegious impiety, afflicted them by cruel\ndespotism, corrupted and almost terminated their existence by false and\npernicious doctrines, like poisonous potions; in such Churches, Christ\nlies half buried, the gospel is suppressed, piety exterminated, and the\nworship of God almost abolished; in a word, they are altogether in such\na state of confusion, that they exhibit a picture of Babylon, rather\nthan of the holy city of God. To conclude, I affirm that they are\nChurches, inasmuch as God has wonderfully preserved among them a remnant\nof his people, though miserably dispersed and dejected, and as there\nstill remain some marks of the Church, especially those, the efficacy of\nwhich neither the craft of the devil nor the malice of men can ever\ndestroy. But, on the other hand, because those marks, which we ought\nchiefly to regard in this controversy, are obliterated, I affirm, that\nthe form of the legitimate Church is not to be found either in any one\nof their congregations, or in the body at large.\n\nFootnote 781:\n\n  Ephes. ii. 20.\n\nFootnote 782:\n\n  1 Tim. iii. 15.\n\nFootnote 783:\n\n  Jer. vii. 4.\n\nFootnote 784:\n\n  Gal. iv.\n\nFootnote 785:\n\n  Rom. ix. 6-8.\n\nFootnote 786:\n\n  Mal. ii. 1-9.\n\nFootnote 787:\n\n  John xviii. 37.\n\nFootnote 788:\n\n  John x. 4, 5, 14, 27.\n\nFootnote 789:\n\n  Ephes. ii. 20.\n\nFootnote 790:\n\n  John viii. 47.\n\nFootnote 791:\n\n  Ephes. iv. 5.\n\nFootnote 792:\n\n  Phil. ii. 2, 5.\n\nFootnote 793:\n\n  John xvi. 2.\n\nFootnote 794:\n\n  Isaiah i. 13, 14.\n\nFootnote 795:\n\n  Matt. xviii. 18.\n\nFootnote 796:\n\n  Ezek. xiv. 20.\n\nFootnote 797:\n\n  Dan. ix. 27. 2 Thess. ii. 3, 4.\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER III.\n  THE TEACHERS AND MINISTERS OF THE CHURCH; THEIR ELECTION AND OFFICE.\n\n\nWe must now treat of the order which it has been the Lord\u2019s will to\nappoint for the government of his Church. For although he alone ought to\nrule and reign in the Church, and to have all pre\u00ebminence in it, and\nthis government ought to be exercised and administered solely by his\nword,\u2014yet, as he dwells not among us by a visible presence, so as to\nmake an audible declaration of his will to us, we have stated, that for\nthis purpose he uses the ministry of men whom he employs as his\ndelegates, not to transfer his right and honour to them, but only that\nhe may himself do his work by their lips; just as an artificer makes use\nof an instrument in the performance of his work. Some observations which\nI have made already, are necessary to be repeated here. It is true that\nhe might do this either by himself, without any means or instruments, or\neven by angels; but there are many reasons why he prefers making use of\nmen. For, in the first place, by this method he declares his kindness\ntowards us, since he chooses from among men those who are to be his\nambassadors to the world, to be the interpreters of his secret will, and\neven to act as his personal representatives. And thus he affords an\nactual proof, that when he so frequently calls us his temples, it is not\nan unmeaning appellation, since he gives answers to men, even from the\nmouths of men, as from a sanctuary. In the second place, this is a most\nexcellent and beneficial method to train us to humility, since he\naccustoms us to obey his word, though it is preached to us by men like\nourselves, and sometimes even of inferior rank. If he were himself to\nspeak from heaven, there would be no wonder if his sacred oracles were\ninstantly received with reverence, by the ears and hearts of all\nmankind. For who would not be awed by his present power? who would not\nfall prostrate at the first view of infinite Majesty? who would not be\nconfounded by that overpowering splendour? But when a contemptible\nmortal, who had just emerged from the dust, addresses us in the name of\nGod, we give the best evidence of our piety and reverence towards God\nhimself, if we readily submit to be instructed by his minister, who\npossesses no personal superiority to ourselves. For this reason, also,\nhe has deposited the treasure of his heavenly wisdom in frail and\nearthen vessels,[798] in order to afford a better proof of the\nestimation in which we hold it. Besides, nothing was more adapted to\npromote brotherly love, than a mutual connection of men by this bond,\nwhile one is constituted the pastor to teach all the rest, and they who\nare commanded to be disciples, receive one common doctrine from the same\nmouth. For if each person were sufficient for himself, and had no need\nof the assistance of another, such is the pride of human nature, every\none would despise others, and would also be despised by them. The Lord,\ntherefore, has connected his Church together, by that which he foresaw\nwould be the strongest bond for the preservation of their union, when he\ncommitted the doctrine of eternal life and salvation to men, that by\ntheir hands it might be communicated to others. Paul had this in view\nwhen he wrote to the Ephesians, \u201cThere is one body, and one Spirit, even\nas ye are called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one\nbaptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all,\nand in you all. But unto every one of us is given grace according to the\nmeasure of the gift of Christ. Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up\non high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men. (Now that he\nascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower\nparts of the earth? He that descended is the same also that ascended up\nfar above all heavens, that he might fill all things.) And he gave some,\napostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors\nand teachers; for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the\nministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ; till we all come in\nthe unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a\nperfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ;\nthat we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried\nabout with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning\ncraftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; but, speaking the truth\nin love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even\nChrist; from whom the whole body fitly joined together, and compacted by\nthat which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in\nthe measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying\nof itself in love.\u201d[799]\n\nII. In this passage he shows that the ministry of men, which God employs\nin his government of the Church, is the principal bond which holds\nbelievers together in one body. He also indicates that the Church cannot\nbe preserved in perfect safety, unless it be supported by these means\nwhich God has been pleased to appoint for its preservation. Christ, he\nsays, \u201cascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all\nthings.\u201d[800] And this is the way in which he does it. By means of his\nministers, to whom he has committed this office, and on whom he has\nbestowed grace to discharge it, he dispenses and distributes his gifts\nto the Church, and even affords some manifestation of his own presence,\nby exerting the power of his Spirit in this his institution, that it may\nnot be vain or ineffectual. Thus is the restoration of the saints\neffected; thus is the body of Christ edified; thus we grow up unto him\nwho is our Head in all things, and are united with each other; thus we\nare all brought to the unity of Christ; if prophecy flourishes among us,\nif we receive the apostles, if we despise not the doctrine which is\ndelivered to us. Whoever, therefore, either aims to abolish or\nundervalue this order, of which we are treating, and this species of\ngovernment, attempts to disorganize the Church, or rather to subvert and\ndestroy it altogether. For neither the light and heat of the sun, nor\nany meat and drink, are so necessary to the nourishment and sustenance\nof the present life, as the apostolical and pastoral office is to the\npreservation of the Church in the world.\n\nIII. Therefore I have already remarked, that God has frequently\ncommended its dignity to us by every possible encomium, in order that we\nmight hold it in the highest estimation and value, as more excellent\nthan every thing else. That he confers a peculiar favour upon men by\nraising up teachers for them, he fully signifies, when he commands the\nprophet to exclaim, \u201cHow beautiful are the feet of him that publisheth\npeace;\u201d[801] and when he calls the apostles \u201cthe light of the world,\u201d\nand \u201cthe salt of the earth.\u201d[802] Nor could that office be more\nsplendidly distinguished than when he said to them, \u201cHe that heareth\nyou, heareth me.\u201d[803] But there is no passage more remarkable than that\nin Paul\u2019s Second Epistle to the Corinthians, where he professedly\ndiscusses this question. He contends, that there is nothing more\nexcellent or glorious than the ministry of the gospel in the Church,\ninasmuch as it is the ministration of the Spirit, and of righteousness,\nand of eternal life.[804] The tendency of these and similar passages, is\nto preserve that mode of governing the Church by its ministers, which\nthe Lord appointed to be of perpetual continuance, from sinking into\ndisesteem, and, at length, falling into disuse through mere contempt.\nAnd how exceedingly necessary it is, he has not only declared in words,\nbut shown by examples. When he was pleased to illuminate Cornelius more\nfully with the light of his truth, he despatched an angel from heaven to\nsend Peter to him. When he designs to call Paul to the knowledge of\nhimself, and to introduce him into the Church, he does not address him\nwith his own voice, but sends him to a man to receive the doctrine of\nsalvation, and the sanctification of baptism. If it was not without\nsufficient reason, that an angel, who is the messenger of God, refrains\nfrom announcing the Divine will himself, and directs a man to be sent\nfor in order to declare it,\u2014and that Christ, the sole Teacher of\nbelievers, committed Paul to the instruction of a man, the same Paul\nwhom he had determined to elevate into the third heaven, and to favour\nwith a miraculous revelation of things unspeakable,\u2014who can now dare to\ndespise that ministry, or to neglect it as unnecessary, the utility and\nnecessity of which God has been pleased to evince by such examples?\n\nIV. Those who preside over the government of the Church, according to\nthe institution of Christ, are named by Paul, first, \u201capostles;\u201d\nsecondly, \u201cprophets;\u201d thirdly, \u201cevangelists;\u201d fourthly, \u201cpastors;\u201d\nlastly, \u201cteachers.\u201d[805] Of these, only the two last sustain an ordinary\noffice in the Church: the others were such as the Lord raised up at the\ncommencement of his kingdom, and such as he still raises up on\nparticular occasions, when required by the necessity of the times. The\nnature of the apostolic office is manifest from this command: \u201cGo preach\nthe gospel to every creature.\u201d[806] No certain limits are prescribed,\nbut the whole world is assigned to them, to be reduced to obedience to\nChrist; that by disseminating the gospel wherever they could, they might\nerect his kingdom in all nations. Therefore Paul, when he wished to\nprove his apostleship, declares, not merely that he had gained some one\ncity for Christ, but that he had propagated the gospel far and wide, and\nthat he had not built upon the foundation of others, but had planted\nChurches where the name of the Lord had never been heard before. The\n\u201capostles,\u201d therefore, were missionaries, who were to reduce the world\nfrom their revolt to true obedience to God, and to establish his kingdom\nuniversally by the preaching of the gospel. Or, if you please, they were\nthe first architects of the Church, appointed to lay its foundations all\nover the world. Paul gives the appellation of \u201cprophets,\u201d not to all\ninterpreters of the Divine will, but only to those who were honoured\nwith some special revelation. Of these, either there are none in our\nday, or they are less conspicuous. By \u201cevangelists,\u201d I understand those\nwho were inferior to the apostles in dignity, but next to them in\noffice, and who performed similar functions. Such were Luke, Timothy,\nTitus, and others of that description; and perhaps also the seventy\ndisciples, whom Christ ordained to occupy the second station from the\napostles.[807] According to this interpretation, which appears to me\nperfectly consistent with the language and meaning of the apostle, those\nthree offices were not instituted to be of perpetual continuance in the\nChurch, but only for that age when Churches were to be raised where none\nhad existed before, or were at least to be conducted from Moses to\nChrist. Though I do not deny, that, even since that period, God has\nsometimes raised up apostles or evangelists in their stead, as he has\ndone in our own time. For there was a necessity for such persons to\nrecover the Church from the defection of Antichrist. Nevertheless, I\ncall this an extraordinary office, because it has no place in\nwell-constituted Churches. Next follow \u201cpastors\u201d and \u201cteachers,\u201d who are\nalways indispensable to the Church. The difference between them I\napprehend to be this\u2014that teachers have no official concern with the\ndiscipline, or the administration of the sacraments, or with admonitions\nand exhortations, but only with the interpretation of the Scripture,\nthat pure and sound doctrine may be retained among believers; whereas\nthe pastoral office includes all these things.\n\nV. We have now ascertained what offices were appointed to continue for a\ntime in the government of the Church, and what were instituted to be of\nperpetual duration. If we connect the evangelists with the apostles, as\nsustaining the same office, we shall then have two offices of each\ndescription, corresponding to each other. For our pastors bear the same\nresemblance to the apostles, as our teachers do to the ancient prophets.\nThe office of the prophets was more excellent, on account of the special\ngift of revelation, by which they were distinguished; but the office of\nteachers is executed in a similar manner, and has precisely the same\nend. So those twelve individuals, whom the Lord chose to promulgate the\nfirst proclamation of his gospel to the world, preceded all others in\norder and dignity. For although, according to the meaning and etymology\nof the word, all the ministers of the Church may be called apostles,\nbecause they are all sent by the Lord, and are his messengers, yet, as\nit was of great importance to have a certain knowledge of the mission of\npersons who were to announce a thing new and unheard before, it was\nnecessary that those twelve, together with Paul, who was afterwards\nadded to their number, should be distinguished beyond all others by a\npeculiar title. Paul himself, indeed, gives this name to \u201cAndronicus and\nJunia, who,\u201d he says, \u201care of note among the apostles;\u201d[808] but when he\nmeans to speak with strict propriety, he never applies that name except\nto those of the first order that we have mentioned. And this is the\ncommon usage of the Scripture. But the province of pastors is the same\nas that of the apostles, except that they preside over particular\nChurches respectively committed to each of them. Of the nature of their\nfunctions let us now proceed to a more distinct statement.\n\nVI. Our Lord, when he sent forth his apostles, commissioned them, as we\nhave just remarked, to preach the gospel, and to baptize all believers\nfor the remission of sins.[809] He had already commanded them to\ndistribute the sacred symbols of his body and blood according to his own\nexample.[810] Behold the sacred, inviolable, and perpetual law imposed\nupon those who call themselves successors of the apostles; it commands\nthem to preach the gospel, and to administer the sacraments. Hence we\nconclude, that those who neglect both these duties have no just\npretensions to the character of apostles. But what shall we say of\npastors? Paul speaks not only of himself, but of all who bear that\noffice, when he says, \u201cLet a man so account of us, as of the ministers\nof Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God.\u201d[811] Again: \u201cA bishop\nmust hold fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be\nable, by sound doctrine, both to exhort and to convince the\ngainsayers.\u201d[812] From these and similar passages, which frequently\noccur, we may infer that the preaching of the gospel, and the\nadministration of the sacraments, constitute the two principal parts of\nthe pastoral office. Now, the business of teaching is not confined to\npublic discourses, but extends also to private admonitions. Thus Paul\ncalls upon the Ephesians to witness the truth of his declaration, \u201cI\nhave kept back nothing that was profitable unto you, but have showed\nyou, and have taught you publicly, and from house to house, testifying\nboth to the Jews, and also to the Greeks, repentance toward God, and\nfaith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.\u201d And a little after: \u201cI ceased not\nto warn every one, night and day, with tears.\u201d[813] But it is no part of\nmy present design, to enumerate all the excellences of a good pastor,\nbut only to show what is implied in the profession of those who call\nthemselves pastors; namely, that they preside over the Church in that\nstation, not that they may enjoy a respectable sinecure, but to instruct\nthe people in true piety by the doctrine of Christ, to administer the\nholy mysteries, to maintain and exercise proper discipline. For the Lord\ndenounces to all those who have been stationed as watchmen in the\nChurch, that if any one perish in ignorance through their negligence, he\nwill require the blood of such a person at their hands.[814] What Paul\nsays of himself, belongs to them all: \u201cWoe is unto me, if I preach not\nthe gospel,\u201d because \u201ca dispensation of the gospel is committed unto\nme.\u201d[815] Lastly, what the apostles did for the whole world, that every\nindividual pastor ought to do for his flock to which he is appointed.\n\nVII. While we assign to them all respectively their distinct Churches,\nyet we do not deny that a pastor, who is connected with one Church, may\nassist others, either when any disputes arise, which may require his\npresence, or when his advice is asked upon any difficult subject. But\nbecause, in order to preserve the peace of the Church, there is a\nnecessity for such a regulation as shall clearly define to every one\nwhat duty he has to do, lest they should all fall into disorder, run\nhither and thither in uncertainty without any call, and all resort to\none place; and lest those who feel more solicitude for their personal\naccommodation than for the edification of the Church, should, without\nany cause but their own caprice, leave the Churches destitute,\u2014this\ndistribution ought as far as possible to be generally observed, that\nevery one may be content with his own limits, and not invade the\nprovince of another. Nor is this an invention of men, but an institution\nof God himself. For we read that Paul and Barnabas \u201cordained elders in\nthe respective Churches of Lystra, Iconium, and Antioch;\u201d[816] and Paul\nhimself directed Titus to \u201cordain elders in every city.\u201d[817] So in\nother passages he mentions \u201cthe bishops at Philippi,\u201d[818] and\nArchippus, the bishop of the Colossians.[819] And a remarkable speech of\nhis is preserved by Luke, addressed to \u201cthe elders of the Church of\nEphesus.\u201d[820] Whoever, therefore, has undertaken the government and\ncharge of one Church, let him know that he is bound to this law of the\nDivine call; not that he is fixed to his station so as never to be\npermitted to leave it in a regular and orderly manner, if the public\nbenefit should require it; but he who has been called to one place,\nought never to think either of departing from his situation, or\nrelinquishing the office altogether, from any motive of personal\nconvenience or advantage. But if it be expedient that he should remove\nto another station, he ought not to attempt this on his own private\nopinion, but to be guided by public authority.\n\nVIII. In calling those who preside over Churches by the appellations of\nbishops, elders, pastors, and ministers, without any distinction, I have\nfollowed the usage of the Scripture, which applies all these terms to\nexpress the same meaning. For to all who discharge the ministry of the\nword, it gives the title of \u201cbishops.\u201d So when Paul enjoins Titus to\n\u201cordain elders in every city,\u201d he immediately adds, \u201cFor a bishop must\nbe blameless.\u201d[821] So in another Epistle he salutes more bishops than\none in one Church.[822] And in the Acts he is declared to have sent for\nthe elders of the Church of Ephesus, whom, in his address to them, he\ncalls \u201cbishops.\u201d[823] Here it must be observed, that we have enumerated\nonly those offices which consist in the ministry of the word; nor does\nPaul mention any other in the fourth chapter of the Epistle to the\nEphesians, which we have quoted. But in the Epistle to the Romans, and\nthe First Epistle to the Corinthians, he enumerates others, as \u201cpowers,\u201d\n\u201cgifts of healing,\u201d \u201cinterpretation of tongues,\u201d \u201cgovernments,\u201d \u201ccare of\nthe poor.\u201d[824] Those functions which were merely temporary, I omit, as\nforeign to our present subject. But there are two which perpetually\nremain\u2014\u201cgovernment,\u201d and \u201cthe care of the poor.\u201d \u201cGovernors\u201d I apprehend\nto have been persons of advanced years, selected from the people, to\nunite with the bishops in giving admonitions and exercising discipline.\nFor no other interpretation can be given of that injunction, \u201cHe that\nruleth, let him do it with diligence.\u201d[825] Therefore, from the\nbeginning, every Church has had its senate or council, composed of\npious, grave, and holy men, who were invested with that jurisdiction in\nthe correction of vices, of which we shall soon treat. Now, that this\nregulation was not of a single age, experience itself demonstrates. This\noffice of government is necessary, therefore, in every age.\n\nIX. The care of the poor was committed to the \u201cdeacons.\u201d The Epistle to\nthe Romans, however, mentions two functions of this kind. \u201cHe that\ngiveth,\u201d says the apostle, \u201clet him do it with simplicity: he that\nshoweth mercy, with cheerfulness.\u201d[826] Now, as it is certain that he\nthere speaks of the public offices of the Church, it follows that there\nwere two distinct orders of deacons. Unless my judgment deceive me, the\nformer clause refers to the deacons who administered the alms; and the\nother to those who devoted themselves to the care of poor and sick\npersons; such as the widows mentioned by Paul to Timothy.[827] For women\ncould execute no other public office, than by devoting themselves to the\nservice of the poor. If we admit this,\u2014and it ought to be fully\nadmitted,\u2014there will be two classes of deacons, of whom one will serve\nthe Church in dispensing the property given to the poor, the other in\ntaking care of the poor themselves.\u2014Though the word itself (\u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03bd\u03b9\u03b1) is\nof more extensive signification, yet the Scripture particularly gives\nthe title of \u201cdeacons\u201d to those whom the Church has appointed to\ndispense the alms and take care of the poor, and constituted stewards,\nas it were, of the common treasury of the poor; and whose origin,\ninstitution, and office, are described in the Acts of the Apostles. For\n\u201cwhen there arose a murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews\nbecause their widows were neglected in the daily ministration,\u201d[828] the\napostles pleaded their inability to discharge both offices, of the\nministry of the word and the service of tables, and said to the\nmultitude, \u201cWherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of\nhonest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint\nover this business.\u201d See what were the characters of the deacons in the\napostolic Church, and what ought to be the characters of ours, in\nconformity to the primitive example.\n\nX. Now, as \u201call things\u201d in the Church are required to \u201cbe done decently\nand in order,\u201d[829] there is nothing in which this ought to be more\ndiligently observed, than the constitution of its government; because\nthere would be more danger from disorder in this case than in any other.\nTherefore, that restless and turbulent persons may not presumptuously\nintrude themselves into the office of teaching or of governing, it is\nexpressly provided, that no one shall assume a public office in the\nChurch without a call. In order, therefore, that any one may be\naccounted a true minister of the Church, it is necessary, in the first\nplace, that he be regularly called to it, and, in the second place, that\nhe answer his call; that is, by undertaking and executing the office\nassigned to him. This may frequently be observed in Paul; who, when he\nwishes to prove his apostleship, almost always alleges his call,\ntogether with his fidelity in the execution of the office. If so eminent\na minister of Christ dare not arrogate to himself an authority to\nrequire his being heard in the Church, but in consequence of his\nappointment to it by a Divine commission, and his faithful discharge of\nthe duty assigned him,\u2014what extreme impudence must it be, if any man,\ndestitute of both these characters, should claim such an honour for\nhimself! But having already spoken of the necessity of discharging the\noffice, let us now confine ourselves to the call.\n\nXI. Now, the discussion of this subject includes four branches: what are\nthe qualifications of ministers; in what manner they are to be chosen;\nby whom they ought to be appointed; and with what rite or ceremony they\nare to be introduced into their office. I speak of the external and\nsolemn call, which belongs to the public order of the Church; passing\nover that secret call, of which every minister is conscious to himself\nbefore God, but which is not known to the Church. This secret call,\nhowever, is the honest testimony of our heart, that we accept the office\noffered to us, not from ambition or avarice, or any other unlawful\nmotive, but from a sincere fear of God, and an ardent zeal for the\nedification of the Church. This, as I have hinted, is indispensable to\nevery one of us, if we would approve our ministry in the sight of God.\nIn the view of the Church, however, he who enters on his office with an\nevil conscience, is nevertheless duly called, provided his iniquity be\nnot discovered. It is even common to speak of private persons as called\nto the ministry, who appear to be adapted and qualified for the\ndischarge of its duties; because learning, connected with piety and\nother endowments of a good pastor, constitutes a kind of preparation for\nit. For those whom the Lord has destined to so important an office, he\nfirst furnishes with those talents which are requisite to its execution,\nthat they may not enter upon it empty and unprepared. Hence Paul, in his\nEpistle to the Corinthians, when he intended to treat of the offices\nthemselves, first enumerated the gifts which ought to be possessed by\nthe persons who sustain those offices.[830] But as this is the first of\nthe four points which I have proposed, let us now proceed to it.\n\nXII. The qualifications of those who ought to be chosen bishops, are\nstated at large by Paul in two passages.[831] The sum of all he says is,\nthat none are to be chosen but men of sound doctrine and a holy life,\nnot chargeable with any fault that may destroy their authority, or\ndisgrace their ministry. The same rule is laid down for the deacons and\ngovernors. Constant care is required, that they be not unequal to the\nburden imposed upon them, or, in other words, that they be endowed with\nthose talents which are necessary to the discharge of their duty. So,\nwhen Christ was about to send forth his apostles, he furnished them with\nsuch means and powers as were indispensable to their success.[832] And\nPaul, after having delineated the character of a good and genuine\nbishop, admonishes Timothy not to contaminate himself by the appointment\nof any one of a different description.[833] The question relating to the\n_manner_ in which they are to be chosen, I refer not to the form of\nelection, but to the religious awe which ought to be observed in it.\nHence the fasting and prayer, which Luke states to have been practised\nby the faithful at the ordination of elders.[834] For knowing themselves\nto be engaged in a business of the highest importance, they dared not\nattempt any thing but with the greatest reverence and solicitude. And\nabove all things, they were earnest in prayers and supplications to God\nfor the spirit of wisdom and discretion.\n\nXIII. The third inquiry we proposed was, by whom ministers are to be\nchosen. Now, for this no certain rule can be gathered from the\nappointment of the apostles, which was a case somewhat different from\nthe common call of other ministers. For as theirs was an extraordinary\noffice, it was necessary, in order to render it conspicuous by some\neminent character, that they who were to sustain it should be called and\nappointed by the mouth of the Lord himself. The apostles, therefore,\nentered upon their work, not in consequence of any human election, but\nempowered by the sole command of God and of Christ. Hence, when they\nwish to substitute another in the place of Judas, they refrain from a\ncertain appointment of any one, but nominate two, that the Lord may\ndeclare by lot which of them he wills to be his successor.[835] In the\nsame sense must be understood the declaration of Paul, that he had been\ncreated \u201can apostle, not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ,\nand God the Father.\u201d[836] The first clause, _not of men_, was applicable\nto him in common with all pious ministers of the word; for no man can\nlawfully exercise this ministry without having been called by God. The\nother clause was special and peculiar to himself. When he glories in\nthis, therefore, he not only claims what belongs to a true and lawful\npastor, but likewise brings forward an evidence of his apostleship. For\nwhereas there were, among the Galatians, some who, from an eagerness to\ndiminish his authority, represented him as a common disciple deputed by\nthe primary apostles,\u2014in order to vindicate the dignity of his\npreaching, against which he knew these artifices were directed, he found\nit necessary to show that he was not inferior to the other apostles in\nany respect. Wherefore he affirms, that he had not been elected by the\njudgment of men, like some ordinary bishop, but by the mouth and clear\nrevelation of the Lord himself.\n\nXIV. But that the election and appointment of bishops by men is\nnecessary to constitute a legitimate call to the office, no sober person\nwill deny, while there are so many testimonies of Scripture to establish\nit. Nor is it contradicted by that declaration of Paul, that he was \u201can\napostle, not of men, nor by man,\u201d[837] since he is not speaking in that\npassage of the ordinary election of ministers, but claiming to himself\nwhat was the special privilege of the apostles. The immediate\ndesignation of Paul, by the Lord himself, to this peculiar privilege,\nwas nevertheless accompanied with the form of an ecclesiastical call,\nfor Luke states, that \u201cAs they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the\nHoly Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I\nhave called them.\u201d[838] What end could be answered by this separation\nand imposition of hands after the Holy Spirit had testified their\nelection, unless it was the preservation of the order of the Church in\ndesignating ministers by men? God could not sanction that order,\ntherefore, by a more illustrious example than when, after having\ndeclared that he had constituted Paul the apostle of the Gentiles, he\nnevertheless directed him to be designated by the Church. The same may\nbe observed in the election of Matthias.[839] For the apostolic office\nbeing of such high importance that they could not venture to fill up\ntheir number by the choice of any one person from their own judgment,\nthey appointed two, one of whom was to be chosen by lot; that so the\nelection might obtain a positive sanction from Heaven, and yet that the\norder of the Church might not be altogether neglected.\n\nXV. Here it is inquired, whether a minister ought to be chosen by the\nwhole Church, or only by the other ministers and the elders who preside\nover the discipline, or whether he may be appointed by the authority of\nan individual. Those who attribute this right to any one man, quote what\nPaul says to Titus: \u201cFor this cause I left thee in Crete, that thou\nshouldst ordain elders in every city;\u201d[840] and to Timothy: \u201cLay hands\nsuddenly on no man.\u201d[841] But they are exceedingly mistaken, if they\nsuppose that either Timothy at Ephesus, or Titus in Crete, exercised a\nsovereign power to regulate every thing according to his own pleasure.\nFor they presided over the people, only to lead them by good and\nsalutary counsels, not to act alone to the exclusion of all others. But\nthat this may not be thought to be an invention of mine, I will prove it\nby a similar example. For Luke relates, that elders were ordained in the\nChurches by Paul and Barnabas, but at the same time he distinctly marks\nthe manner in which this was done,\u2014namely, by the suffrages or votes of\nthe people; for this is the meaning of the term he there\nemploys\u2014\u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b5\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03b5\u03c3\u03b2\u03c5\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1fbd \u1f10\u03ba\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd.[842] Those two\napostles, therefore, ordained them; but the whole multitude, according\nto the custom observed in elections among the Greeks, declared by the\nelevation of their hands who was the object of their choice. So the\nRoman historians frequently speak of the consul, who held the\nassemblies, as _appointing_ the new magistrates, for no other reason but\nbecause he received the suffrages and presided at the election. Surely\nit is not credible that Paul granted to Timothy and Titus more power\nthan he assumed to himself; but we see that he was accustomed to ordain\nbishops according to the suffrages of the people. The above passages,\ntherefore, ought to be understood in the same manner, to guard against\nall infringement of the common right and liberty of the Church. It is a\ngood remark, therefore, of Cyprian, when he contends, \u201cthat it proceeds\nfrom Divine authority, that a priest should be elected publicly in the\npresence of all the people, and that he should be approved as a worthy\nand fit person by the public judgment and testimony.\u201d In the case of the\nLevitical priests, we find it was commanded by the Lord, that they\nshould be brought forward in the view of the people before their\nconsecration. Nor was Matthias added to the number of the apostles, nor\nwere the seven deacons appointed, without the presence and approbation\nof the people.\u2014\u201cThese examples,\u201d says Cyprian, \u201cshow that the ordination\nof a priest ought not to be performed but with the knowledge and\nconcurrence of the people, in order that the election which shall have\nbeen examined by the testimony of all, may be just and legitimate.\u201d We\nfind, therefore, that it is a legitimate ministry according to the word\nof God, when those who appear suitable persons are appointed with the\nconsent and approbation of the people; but that other pastors ought to\npreside over the election, to guard the multitude from falling into any\nimproprieties, through inconstancy, intrigue, or confusion.\n\nXVI. There remains the Form of ordination, which is the last point that\nwe have mentioned relative to the call of ministers. Now, it appears\nthat when the apostles introduced any one into the ministry, they used\nno other ceremony than imposition of hands. This rite, I believe,\ndescended from the custom of the Hebrews, who, when they wished to bless\nand consecrate any thing, presented it to God by imposition of hands.\nThus, when Jacob blessed Ephraim and Manasseh, he laid his hands upon\ntheir heads.[843] This custom was followed by our Lord, when he prayed\nover infants.[844] It was with the same design, I apprehend, that the\nJews were directed in the law to lay their hands upon their sacrifices.\nWherefore the imposition of the hands of the apostles was an indication\nthat they offered to God the person whom they introduced into the\nministry. They used the same ceremony over those on whom they conferred\nthe visible gifts of the Spirit. But, be that as it may, this was the\nsolemn rite invariably practised, whenever any one was called to the\nministry of the Church. Thus they ordained pastors and teachers, and\nthus they ordained deacons. Now, though there is no express precept for\nthe imposition of hands, yet since we find it to have been constantly\nused by the apostles, such a punctual observance of it by them ought to\nhave the force of a precept with us. And certainly this ceremony is\nhighly useful both to recommend to the people the dignity of the\nministry, and to admonish the person ordained that he is no longer his\nown master, but devoted to the service of God and the Church. Besides,\nit will not be an unmeaning sign, if it be restored to its true origin.\nFor if the Spirit of God institutes nothing in the Church in vain, we\nshall perceive that this ceremony, which proceeded from him, is not\nwithout its use, provided it be not perverted by a superstitious abuse.\nFinally, it is to be remarked, that the imposition of hands on the\nministers was not the act of the whole multitude, but was confined to\nthe pastors. It is not certain whether this ceremony was, in all cases,\nperformed by more pastors than one, or whether it was ever the act of a\nsingle pastor. The former appears to have been the fact in the case of\nthe seven deacons, of Paul and Barnabas, and some few others.[845] But\nPaul speaks of himself as having laid hands upon Timothy, without any\nmention of many others having united with him. \u201cI put thee in\nremembrance, that thou stir up the gift of God which is in thee, by the\nputting on of my hands.\u201d[846] His expression, in the other Epistle, of\n\u201cthe laying on of the hands of the presbytery,\u201d[847] I apprehend not to\nsignify a company of elders, but to denote the ordination itself; as if\nhe had said, Take care that the grace which thou receivedst by the\nlaying on of hands, when I ordained thee a presbyter, be not in vain.\n\nFootnote 798:\n\n  2 Cor. iv. 7.\n\nFootnote 799:\n\n  Eph. iv. 4-16.\n\nFootnote 800:\n\n  Eph. iv. 10.\n\nFootnote 801:\n\n  Isaiah lii. 7.\n\nFootnote 802:\n\n  Matt. v. 13, 14.\n\nFootnote 803:\n\n  Luke x. 16.\n\nFootnote 804:\n\n  2 Cor. iii. 6, &c.\n\nFootnote 805:\n\n  Eph. iv. 11.\n\nFootnote 806:\n\n  Mark xvi. 15.\n\nFootnote 807:\n\n  Luke x. 1.\n\nFootnote 808:\n\n  Rom. xvi. 7.\n\nFootnote 809:\n\n  Matt. xxviii. 19.\n\nFootnote 810:\n\n  Luke xxii. 19.\n\nFootnote 811:\n\n  1 Cor. iv. 1.\n\nFootnote 812:\n\n  Titus i. 7, 9.\n\nFootnote 813:\n\n  Acts xx. 20, 21, 31.\n\nFootnote 814:\n\n  Ezek. iii. 17, 18.\n\nFootnote 815:\n\n  1 Cor. ix. 16, 17.\n\nFootnote 816:\n\n  Acts xiv. 21, 23.\n\nFootnote 817:\n\n  Titus i. 5.\n\nFootnote 818:\n\n  Phil. i. 1.\n\nFootnote 819:\n\n  Col. iv. 17.\n\nFootnote 820:\n\n  Acts xx. 17, &c.\n\nFootnote 821:\n\n  Titus i. 5, 7.\n\nFootnote 822:\n\n  Phil. i. 1.\n\nFootnote 823:\n\n  Acts xx. 17, 28, \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2.\n\nFootnote 824:\n\n  1 Cor. xii. 28, \u03b4\u03c5\u03bd\u03b1\u03bc\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2, \u03c7\u03b1\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b9\u03b1\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd, \u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u03b7 \u03b3\u03bb\u03c9\u03c3\u03c3\u03c9\u03bd,\n  \u03ba\u03c5\u03b2\u03b5\u03c1\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2.\n\nFootnote 825:\n\n  Rom. xii. 8.\n\nFootnote 826:\n\n  Rom. xii. 8, \u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1\u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2, \u03b5\u03bd \u1f01\u03c0\u03bb\u03bf\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03b9, \u1f41 \u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03c9\u03bd, \u03b5\u03bd \u1f31\u03bb\u03b1\u03c1\u03bf\u03c4\u03b7\u03c4\u03b9.\n\nFootnote 827:\n\n  1 Tim. v. 9, 10.\n\nFootnote 828:\n\n  Acts vi. 1-3.\n\nFootnote 829:\n\n  1 Cor. xiv. 40.\n\nFootnote 830:\n\n  1 Cor. xii. 7, &c.\n\nFootnote 831:\n\n  1 Tim. iii. 1, &c. Titus i. 7, &c.\n\nFootnote 832:\n\n  Luke xxi. 15; xxiv. 49. Acts i. 8.\n\nFootnote 833:\n\n  1 Tim. v. 22.\n\nFootnote 834:\n\n  Acts xiv. 23.\n\nFootnote 835:\n\n  Acts i. 23.\n\nFootnote 836:\n\n  Gal. i. 1.\n\nFootnote 837:\n\n  Gal. i. 1.\n\nFootnote 838:\n\n  Acts xiii. 2.\n\nFootnote 839:\n\n  Acts i. 23.\n\nFootnote 840:\n\n  Titus i. 5.\n\nFootnote 841:\n\n  1 Tim. v. 22.\n\nFootnote 842:\n\n  Acts xiv. 23.\n\nFootnote 843:\n\n  Gen. xlviii. 14.\n\nFootnote 844:\n\n  Matt. xix. 15.\n\nFootnote 845:\n\n  Acts vi. 6; xiii. 3.\n\nFootnote 846:\n\n  2 Tim. i. 6.\n\nFootnote 847:\n\n  1 Tim. iv. 14.\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER IV.\n THE STATE OF THE ANCIENT CHURCH, AND THE MODE OF GOVERNMENT PRACTISED\n                           BEFORE THE PAPACY.\n\n\nHitherto we have treated of the mode of government in the Church, as it\nhas been delivered to us by the pure word of God, and of the offices in\nit, as they were instituted by Christ. Now, that all these things may be\nmore clearly and familiarly displayed, and more deeply impressed upon\nour minds, it will be useful to examine what was the form of the ancient\nChurch, in these particulars. It will place before our eyes an actual\nexemplification of the Divine institution. For though the bishops of\nthose times published many canons, in which they seemed to express more\nthan had been expressed in the Holy Scriptures, yet they were so\ncautious in framing their whole economy according to the sole standard\nof the word of God, that in this respect scarcely any thing can be\ndetected among them inconsistent with that word. But though there might\nbe something to be regretted in their regulations, yet because they\ndirected their sincere and zealous efforts to preserve the institution\nof God, without deviating from it to any considerable extent, it will be\nhighly useful in this place to give a brief sketch of what their\npractice was. As we have stated that there are three kinds of ministers\nrecommended to us in the Scripture, so the ancient Church divided all\nthe ministers it had into three orders. For from the order of\npresbyters, they chose some for pastors and teachers; the others\npresided over the discipline and corrections. To the deacons was\ncommitted the care of the poor and the distribution of the alms.\n_Readers_ and _Acolytes_ were not names of certain offices, but young\nmen, to whom they also gave the name of _clergy_, whom they accustomed\nfrom their youth to certain exercises in the service of the Church, that\nthey might better understand to what they were destined, and might enter\nupon their office better prepared for it in due time; as I shall soon\nshow more at large. Therefore Jerome, after having mentioned five orders\nof the Church, enumerates bishops, presbyters, deacons, the faithful, or\nbelievers at large, and catechumens, or persons who had not yet been\nbaptized, but had applied for instruction in the Christian faith. Thus\nhe assigns no particular place to the rest of the clergy and the monks.\n\nII. All those to whom the office of teaching was assigned, were\ndenominated presbyters. To guard against dissension, the general\nconsequence of equality, the presbyters in each city chose one of their\nown number, whom they distinguished by the title of _bishop_. The\nbishop, however, was not so superior to the rest in honour and dignity,\nas to have any dominion over his colleagues; but the functions performed\nby a consul in the senate, such as, to propose things for consideration,\nto collect the votes, to preside over the rest in the exercise of\nadvice, admonition, and exhortation, to regulate all the proceedings by\nhis authority, and to carry into execution whatever had been decreed by\nthe general voice;\u2014such were the functions exercised by the bishop in\nthe assembly of the presbyters. And that this arrangement was introduced\nby human agreement, on account of the necessity of the times, is\nacknowledged by the ancient writers themselves. Thus Jerome, on the\nEpistle to Titus, says, \u201cA presbyter is the same as a bishop. And before\ndissensions in religion were produced by the instigation of the devil,\nand one said, I am of Paul, and another, I am of Cephas, the Churches\nwere governed by a common council of presbyters. Afterwards, in order to\ndestroy the seeds of dissensions, the whole charge was committed to one.\nTherefore, as the presbyters know that according to the custom of the\nChurch they are subject to the bishop who presides over them, so let the\nbishops know that their superiority to the presbyters is more from\ncustom than from the appointment of the Lord, and they ought to unite\ntogether in the government of the Church.\u201d In another place, he shows\nthe antiquity of this institution; for he says, that at Alexandria, even\nfrom Mark the Evangelist to Heraclas and Dionysius, the presbyters\nalways chose one of their body to preside over them, whom they called\ntheir bishop. Every city, therefore, had its college of presbyters, who\nwere pastors and teachers. For they all executed the duties of teaching,\nexhorting, and correcting, among the people, as Paul enjoins bishops to\ndo;[848] and in order to leave successors behind them, they laboured in\ntraining young men, who had enlisted themselves in the sacred warfare.\nTo every city was assigned a certain district, which received presbyters\nfrom it, and was reckoned as a part of that Church. Every assembly, as I\nhave stated, for the sole purpose of preserving order and peace, was\nunder the direction of one bishop, who, while he had the precedence of\nall others in dignity, was himself subject to the assembly of the\nbrethren. If the territory placed under his episcopate was too extensive\nto admit of his discharging all the duties of a bishop in every part of\nit, presbyters were appointed in certain stations, to act as his\ndeputies in things of minor importance. These were called\n_chorepiscopi_, or _country bishops_, because in the country they\nrepresented the bishop.\n\nIII. But with respect to the office of which we are now treating, the\nbishops and presbyters were equally required to employ themselves in the\ndispensation of the word and sacraments. For at Alexandria only, because\nArius had disturbed the Church there, it was ordained that no presbyter\nshould preach to the people; as is asserted by Socrates in the ninth\nbook of his Tripartite History, with which Jerome hesitates not to\nexpress his dissatisfaction. It would certainly have been regarded as a\nprodigy, if any man had claimed the character of a bishop, who had not\nshown himself really such in his conduct. Such was the strictness of\nthose times, that all ministers were constrained to discharge the duties\nwhich the Lord requires of them. I refer not to the custom of one age\nonly; for even in the time of Gregory, when the Church was almost\nextinct, or at least had considerably degenerated from its ancient\npurity, it would not have been permitted for any bishop to abstain from\npreaching. Gregory somewhere says, \u201cA priest dies, if his sound be not\nheard;[849] for he provokes the wrath of the invisible Judge against\nhim, if he go without the sound of preaching.\u201d And in another place:\n\u201cWhen Paul declares that he is \u2018pure from the blood of all,\u2019[850] by\nthis declaration, we, who are called priests, are convicted, confounded,\nand declared to be guilty, who to all our own crimes add the deaths of\nothers; for we are chargeable with slaying all those whom we daily\nbehold advancing to death, while we are indifferent and silent.\u201d He\ncalls himself and others silent, because they were less assiduous in\ntheir work than they ought to be. Since he spares not those who\nperformed half of their duty, what is it probable he would have done, if\nany one had neglected it altogether? It was therefore long maintained in\nthe Church, that the principal office of a bishop was to feed the people\nwith the word of God, or to edify the Church both in public and private\nwith sound doctrine.\n\nIV. The establishment of one archbishop over all the bishops of each\nprovince, and the appointment of patriarchs at the Council of Nice, with\nrank and dignity superior to the archbishops, were regulations for the\npreservation of discipline. In this disquisition, however, what was of\nthe least frequent use cannot be wholly omitted. The principal reason,\ntherefore, for the institution of these orders was, that if any thing\nshould take place in any Church which could not be settled by a few\npersons, it might be referred to a provincial synod. If the magnitude or\ndifficulty of the case required a further discussion, the patriarchs\nwere called to unite with the synods; and from them there could be no\nappeal but to a general council. This constitution of government some\ncalled a _hierarchy_\u2014a name, in my opinion, improper, and certainly not\nused in the Scriptures. For it has been the design of the Holy Spirit,\nin every thing relating to the government of the Church, to guard\nagainst any dreams of principality or dominion. But if we look at the\n_thing_, without regarding the _term_, we shall find that the ancient\nbishops had no intention of contriving a form of government for the\nChurch, different from that which God has prescribed in his word.\n\nV. Nor was the situation of deacons at that time at all different from\nwhat it had been under the apostles. For they received the daily\ncontributions of believers and the annual revenues of the Church, to\napply them to their proper uses, that is, to distribute part to the\nministers, and part for the support of the poor; subject, however, to\nthe authority of the bishop, to whom they also rendered an account of\ntheir administration every year. For when the canons invariably\nrepresent the bishop as the dispenser of all the benefactions of the\nChurch, it is not to be understood as if he executed that charge\nhimself, but because it belonged to him to give directions to the\ndeacon, who were to be entirely supported from the funds of the Church,\nto whom the remainder was to be distributed, and in what proportion to\neach person; and because he had the superintendence over the deacon, to\nexamine whether he faithfully discharged his office. Thus the canons,\nascribed to the apostles, contain the following injunction: \u201cWe ordain\nthat the bishop do have the property of the Church in his own power. For\nif the souls of men, which are of superior value, have been intrusted to\nhim, there is far greater propriety in his taking charge of the\npecuniary concerns; so that all things may be distributed to the poor by\nhis authority through the presbyters and deacons, and that they may be\nadministered with reverence, and all concern.\u201d And in the Council of\nAntioch it was decreed, that those bishops should be censured who\nmanaged the pecuniary concerns of the Church without the concurrence of\nthe presbyters and deacons. But it is unnecessary to argue this point\nany further, since it is evident from many epistles of Gregory, that\neven in his time, when the administration of the Church was in other\nrespects become very corrupt, yet this custom was still retained, that\nthe deacons were the stewards for the relief of the poor, under the\nauthority of the bishop. It is probable that subdeacons were at first\nattached to the deacons, to assist them in transacting the business of\nthe poor; but this distinction was soon lost. Archdeacons were first\nerected when the extent of the property required a new and more accurate\nmode of administration; though Jerome states that there were such\noffices even in his time. In their hands was placed the amount of the\nannual revenues, of the possessions, and of the household furniture, and\nthe management of the daily contributions. Whence Gregory denounces to\nthe archdeacon of Thessalonica, that he would be held guilty, if any of\nthe property of the Church should be lost by him, either through\nnegligence or fraud. Their appointment to read the gospel, and to exhort\nthe people to pray, and their admission to the administration of the cup\nin the sacred supper, were intended to dignify their office, that they\nmight discharge it with the more piety, in consequence of being\nadmonished by such ceremonies, that they were not executing some profane\nstewardship, but that their function was spiritual and dedicated to God.\n\nVI. Hence it is easy to judge what use was made of the property of the\nChurch, and in what manner it was dispensed. We often find it stated,\nboth in the decrees of the councils, and by the ancient writers, that\nwhatever the Church possessed, whether in lands or in money, was the\npatrimony of the poor. The bishops and deacons, therefore, are\ncontinually reminded that they are not managing their own treasures, but\nthose destined to supply the necessity of the poor, which if they\nunfaithfully withhold or embezzle, they will be guilty of murder. Hence\nthey are admonished to distribute this property to the parties entitled\nto it, with the greatest caution and reverence, as in the sight of God,\nand without respect of persons. Hence also the solemn protestations of\nChrysostom, Ambrose, Augustine, and other bishops, assuring the people\nof their integrity. Now, since it is perfectly equitable, and sanctioned\nby the law of the Lord, that those who are employed in the service of\nthe Church should be maintained at the public expense of the Church,\u2014and\neven in that age some presbyters consecrated their patrimonies to God,\nand reduced themselves to voluntary poverty,\u2014the distribution was such,\nthat neither were the ministers left without support, nor were the poor\nneglected. Yet, at the same time, care was taken that the ministers\nthemselves, who ought to set an example of frugality to others, should\nnot have enough to be abused to the purposes of splendour or delicacy,\nbut only what would suffice to supply their necessities. \u201cFor,\u201d says\nJerome, \u201cthose of the clergy who are able to maintain themselves from\ntheir own patrimony, if they take what belongs to the poor, are guilty\nof sacrilege, and by such an abuse, they eat and drink judgment to\nthemselves.\u201d\n\nVII. At first the administration was free and voluntary, the bishops and\ndeacons acting with spontaneous fidelity, and integrity of conscience\nand innocence of life supplying the place of laws. Afterwards, when the\ncupidity or corrupt dispositions of some gave birth to evil examples, in\norder to correct these abuses, canons were made, which divided the\nrevenues of the Church into four parts, assigning the first to the\nclergy, the second to the poor, the third to the reparation of Churches\nand other buildings, the fourth to poor strangers. For, though other\ncanons assign this last part to the bishop, this forms no variation from\nthe division which I have mentioned. For the intention was, that it\nshould be appropriated to him, neither for his own exclusive\nconsumption, nor for lavish or arbitrary distribution, but to enable him\nto support the hospitality which Paul requires of persons in that\noffice.[851] And so it is explained by Gelasius and Gregory. For\nGelasius adduces no other reason why the bishop should claim any thing\nfor himself, than to enable him to communicate to captives and\nstrangers. And Gregory is still more explicit. He says, \u201cIt is the\ncustom of the apostolic see, at the ordination of a bishop, to command\nhim that all the revenue received by him be divided into four portions;\nnamely, one for the bishop and his family, for the support of\nhospitality and entertainment; the second for the clergy; the third for\nthe poor; the fourth for the reparation of Churches.\u201d It was unlawful\nfor the bishop, therefore, to take for his own use any thing more than\nwas sufficient for moderate and frugal sustenance and clothing. If any\none began to transgress the due limits, either in luxury, or in\nostentation and pomp, he was immediately admonished by his colleagues;\nand if he would not comply with the admonition, he was deposed from his\noffice.\n\nVIII. The portion which they applied to ornament the sacred edifices, at\nfirst was very small; and even after the Church was become a little more\nwealthy, they did not exceed moderation in this respect: whatever money\nwas so employed, still continued to be held in reserve for the poor, if\nany pressing necessity should occur. Thus, when famine prevailed in the\nprovince of Jerusalem, and there was no other way of relieving their\nwants, Cyril sold the vessels and vestments, and expended the produce in\npurchasing sustenance for the poor. In like manner, when vast numbers of\nthe Persians were almost perishing with hunger, Acatius, bishop of\nAmida, after having convoked his clergy, and made that celebrated\nspeech, \u201cOur God has no need of dishes or cups, because he neither eats\nnor drinks,\u201d melted down the vessels, and converted them into money, to\nredeem the wretched, and buy food for them. Jerome also, while he\ninveighs against the excessive splendour of the temples, makes\nhonourable mention of Exuperius, at that time bishop of Thoulouse, who\nadministered the emblem of our Lord\u2019s body in a wicker basket, and the\nemblem of his blood in a glass, but suffered no poor person to endure\nhunger. The same that I have just said of Acatius, Ambrose relates of\nhimself; for when he was censured by the Arians for having broken up the\nsacred vessels to pay the ransom of some captives, he made the following\nmost excellent defence: \u201cHe who sent forth the apostles without gold,\ngathered Churches together likewise without gold. The Church has gold,\nnot to keep, but to expend, and to furnish relief in necessities. What\nneed is there to keep that which is of no service? Do not we know how\nmuch gold and silver the Assyrians plundered from the temple of the\nLord? Is it not better that it should be melted down by the priest for\nthe sustenance of the poor, if other resources are wanting, than that it\nshould be carried away by a sacrilegious enemy? Will not the Lord say,\nWherefore hast thou suffered so many poor to die with hunger, and at the\nsame time hadst gold, with which thou mightest have supplied them with\nfood? Why have so many been carried away into captivity, and never been\nredeemed? Why have so many been slain by the enemy? It would have been\nbetter to preserve the vessels of living beings, than those of metals.\nTo these questions you could make no answer. For what would you say? I\nwas afraid that the temple of God would be destitute of ornament. God\nwould reply, The sacraments require no gold, nor is gold any\nrecommendation of that which is not purchased with gold. The ornament of\nthe sacraments is the redemption of captives.\u201d In short, we see that it\nwas very true which was observed by the same writer in another place,\n\u201cthat whatever the Church possessed at that time, was appropriated to\nthe relief of the necessitous,\u201d and \u201cthat all that a bishop had,\nbelonged to the poor.\u201d\n\nIX. These, which we have enumerated, were the offices of the ancient\nChurch. Others, which are mentioned by ecclesiastical historians, were\nrather exercises and preparations, than certain offices. For to form a\nseminary, which should provide the Church with future ministers, those\nholy men took under their charge, protection, and discipline, such\nyouths as, with the consent and sanction of their parents, enlisted\nthemselves in the spiritual warfare; and so they educated them from an\nearly age, that they might not enter on the discharge of their office\nignorant and unprepared. All who were trained in this manner, were\ncalled by the general name of _clergy_. I could wish, indeed, that some\nother more appropriate name had been given them; for this appellation\noriginated in error, or at least in some improper views; for Peter calls\nthe whole Church _the clergy_, that is, _the inheritance of the\nLord_.[852] The institution itself, however, was pious and eminently\nbeneficial; that those who wished to consecrate themselves and their\nlabours to the Church, should be educated under the care of the bishop;\nthat no one might minister in the Church but one who had received\nsufficient previous instruction, who from his early youth had imbibed\nsound doctrine, who from a strict discipline had acquired a certain\nhabitual gravity, and more than common sanctity of life, who had been\nabstracted from secular occupations, and accustomed to spiritual cares\nand studies. Now, as young soldiers by counterfeit battles are trained\nto real and serious warfare, so the clergy were prepared by certain\nprobationary exercises, before they were actually promoted to offices.\nAt first they were charged with the care of opening and shutting the\ntemples, and they were called _ostiarii_, or _door-keepers_. Afterwards\nthey were called _acoluthi_, or _followers_, waiting upon the bishop in\ndomestic services, and accompanying him on all occasions, at first in a\nway of honour, and afterwards to prevent all suspicion; moreover, that\nby degrees they might become known to the people, and might acquire some\nconsideration among them, and at the same time that they might learn to\nbear the presence of all, and have courage to speak before them, that\nafter being made presbyters, when they should come to preach, they might\nnot be confounded with shame, therefore they were appointed to read the\nScriptures from the pulpit. In this manner they were promoted by\ndegrees, that they might approve their diligence in the respective\nexercises, till they were made subdeacons. I only contend, that these\nwere rather preparations for pupils, than functions reckoned among the\nreal offices of the Church.\n\nX. We have said, that the first point in the election of ministers\nrelated to the qualifications of the persons to be chosen, and the\nsecond to the religious reverence with which the business ought to be\nconducted. In both these points, the ancient Church followed the\ndirection of Paul and the examples of the apostles. For it was their\ncustom to assemble for the election of pastors with the greatest\nreverence and solemn invocation of the name of God. They had likewise a\nform of examination, in which they tried the life and doctrine of the\ncandidates by that standard of Paul. Only they ran into the error of\nimmoderate severity, from a wish to require in a bishop more than Paul\nrequires, and especially, in process of time, by enjoining celibacy. In\nother things their practice was in conformity with the description of\nPaul.[853] In the third point which we have mentioned, namely, by whom\nministers ought to be chosen, they did not always observe the same\norder. In the primitive times there was no one admitted among the number\nof the clergy, without the consent of all the people; so that Cyprian\nmakes a laboured defence of his having appointed one Aurelius a reader,\nwithout consulting the Church, because he departed in this instance from\nthe general custom, though not without reason. He begins in the\nfollowing manner: \u201cIn appointing the clergy, my very dear brethren, we\nare accustomed first to consult you, and to weigh the morals and merits\nof every one of them in the general assembly.\u201d But as there was not much\ndanger in these inferior exercises, because they were admitted to a long\nprobation, and not to a high office, the consent of the people ceased to\nbe asked. Afterwards, in the other offices also, except the episcopate,\nthe people generally left the judgment and choice to the bishop and\npresbyters, so that they determined who were capable and deserving;\nexcept when new presbyters were appointed to the parishes, for then it\nwas necessary to have the express consent of the body of the people at\neach place. Nor is it any wonder that the people were not very\nsolicitous for the preservation of their right in this case. For no one\nwas made a subdeacon, who had not been tried for a considerable time as\none of the _clergy_, under the severe discipline which was then\npractised. After he had been tried in that station, he was constituted a\ndeacon; in which if he conducted himself with fidelity, he obtained the\nrank of a presbyter. Thus no one was promoted who had not really\nundergone an examination for many years, under the eyes of the people.\nAnd there were many canons for the punishment of their faults; so that\nthe Church could not be troubled with wicked presbyters or deacons,\nunless it neglected the remedies within its reach. The election of\npresbyters, however, always required the consent of the inhabitants of\nthe place; which is testified by the first canon, which is attributed to\nAnacletus. And all ordinations took place at stated times of the year,\nthat no one might be introduced clandestinely, without the consent of\nthe faithful, or be promoted with too much facility, without any\nattestation to his character.\n\nXI. The right of voting in the election of bishops was retained by the\npeople for a long time, that no one might be obtruded who was not\nacceptable to all. The Council of Antioch therefore decreed, that no\nbishop should be appointed without the consent of the people, which Leo\nthe First expressly confirms. Hence the following injunctions: \u201cLet him\nbe chosen who shall be called for by the clergy and people, or at least\nby the majority of them.\u201d Again: \u201cLet him who is to preside over all, be\nchosen by all.\u201d For he who is appointed without having been previously\nknown and examined, must of necessity be intruded by force. Again: \u201cLet\nhim be elected who shall have been chosen by the clergy and desired by\nthe people; and let him be consecrated by the bishops of that province,\nwith the authority of the metropolitan.\u201d So careful were the holy fathers\nthat this liberty of the people should not by any means be infringed,\nthat when the general council, assembled at Constantinople, appointed\nNectarius, they would not do it without the approbation of all the\nclergy and people; as is evident from their epistle to the Council of\nRome. Wherefore, when any bishop appointed his successor, the\nappointment was not confirmed but by the suffrages of all the people. Of\nsuch a circumstance we have not only an example, but the particular form\nin Augustine\u2019s nomination of Eradius. And Theodoret, when he states that\nPeter was nominated by Athanasius as his successor, immediately adds,\nthat this was confirmed by the clergy, and ratified by the acclamations\nof the magistracy, the nobility, and all the people.\n\nXII. I confess that there was the greatest propriety in the decree of\nthe Council of Laodicea, that the election should not be left to the\npopulace. For it scarcely ever happens that so many heads concur in one\nopinion for the settlement of any business; and almost every case\nverifies the observation, that the uncertain vulgar are divided by\ncontrary inclinations. But to this danger was applied an excellent\nremedy. For in the first place, the clergy alone made their choice, and\npresented the person they had chosen to the magistracy, or to the senate\nand governors. They deliberated on the election, and if it appeared to\nthem a proper one, confirmed it, or otherwise chose another person whom\nthey preferred. Then the business was referred to the multitude, who,\nthough they were not bound to concur in these previous opinions, yet\nwere less likely to be thrown into disorder. Or if the business\ncommenced with the multitude, this method was adopted in order to\ndiscover who was the principal object of their wishes; and after hearing\nthe wishes of the people, the clergy proceeded to the election. Thus the\nclergy were neither at liberty to elect whom they pleased, nor under a\nnecessity of complying with the foolish desires of the people. This\norder is stated by Leo in another place, when he says, \u201cIt is requisite\nto have the votes of the citizens, the testimonies of the people, the\nauthority of the governors, and the election of the clergy.\u201d Again: \u201cLet\nthere be the testimony of the governors, the subscription of the clergy,\nthe consent of the senate and people. Reason permits it not to be done\nin any other way.\u201d Nor is there any other meaning in that decree of the\nCouncil of Laodicea, than that the clergy and governors should not\nsuffer themselves to be carried away by the inconsiderate multitude, but\nby their prudence and gravity should check, on every necessary occasion,\nthe folly and violence of popular desires.\n\nXIII. This mode of election was still practised in the time of Gregory,\nand it is probable that it continued long after. There are many of his\nepistles which furnish sufficient evidence of this fact. For in every\ncase relating to the creation of a new bishop in any place, he was\naccustomed to write to the clergy, the senate, and the people; and\nsometimes to the duke, according to the constitution of the government\nin the place to which he was writing. And if, on account of disturbances\nor dissensions in any Church, he confides the superintendence of the\nelection to some neighbouring bishop, yet he invariably requires a\nsolemn decree confirmed by the subscriptions of all. Even when one\nConstantius was created bishop of Milan, and on account of the\nincursions of the barbarians, many of the Milanese had retired to Genoa,\nhe thought the election would not be legitimate, unless they also were\ncalled together, and gave their united consent. And what is more, it was\nwithin the last five hundred years that Pope Nicholas made this decree\nrespecting the election of the Roman pontiff; that the cardinals should\ntake the lead, that in the next place they should unite with them the\nrest of the clergy, and lastly that the election should be confirmed by\nthe consent of the people. And at the conclusion he recites that decree\nof Leo, which I have just quoted, and commands it to be observed in\nfuture. If the cabals of the wicked should go to such a length as to\nconstrain the clergy to quit the city in order to make a proper\nelection, still he ordains that some of the people should be present at\nthe same time. The consent of the emperor, as far as I can discover, was\nrequired only in two Churches, at Rome and at Constantinople, because\nthey were the two capitals of the empire. For when Ambrose was sent to\nMilan with authority from Valentinian to preside at the election of a\nnew bishop, that was an extraordinary measure, in consequence of the\ngrievous factions which raged among the citizens. At Rome the authority\nof the emperor had anciently so much influence in the creation of a\nbishop, that Gregory speaks of himself as having been appointed to the\ngovernment of the Church by the sole command of the emperor,\nnotwithstanding he had been formally chosen by the people. But the\ncustom was, that when any one had been chosen by the senate, clergy, and\npeople, it was immediately reported to the emperor, that he might either\nratify the election by his approbation, or rescind it by his negative.\nNor is there any thing repugnant to this custom in the decrees collected\nby Gratian; which only say, that it is by no means to be suffered that a\nking should supersede all canonical election by appointing a bishop at\nhis own pleasure, and that the metropolitans ought not to consecrate any\none who shall thus have been promoted by the violence of power. For it\nis one thing to spoil the Church of its right, by transferring the whole\nto the caprice of an individual, and another to give a king or an\nemperor the honour of confirming a legitimate election by his authority.\n\nXIV. It remains for us to state, by what ceremony the ministers of the\nancient Church, after their election, were initiated into their office.\nThis the Latins have called _ordination_ or _consecration_. The Greeks\nhave called it \u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd\u03b9\u03b1, _extension_ or _elevation of hands_, and\nsometimes \u03c7\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03bf\u03b8\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03b1, _imposition of hands_; though the former word\nproperly signifies that kind of election in which the suffrages are\ndeclared by the lifting up of the hands. There is a decree of the\nCouncil of Nice, that the metropolitan should meet with all the bishops\nof the province, to ordain him who shall have been elected; but that if\nany of them be prevented by the length of the journey, by sickness, or\nby any other necessary cause, at least three should meet, and those who\nare absent should testify their consent by letters. And when this canon\nfrom disuse had grown obsolete, it was renewed in various councils. Now,\nthe reason why all, or at least as many as had no sufficient excuse,\nwere commanded to be present, was that there might be a more solemn\nexamination into the learning and morals of the person to be ordained;\nfor the business was not completed without examination. And it appears\nfrom the epistles of Cyprian, that in the beginning the bishops were not\ninvited after the election, but used to be present at the election, and\nthat for the purpose of acting as moderators, that nothing turbulent\nmight take place among the multitude. For after having said that the\npeople have the power either to choose the worthy for priests, or to\nreject the unworthy, he adds, \u201cWherefore it is to be carefully held and\nobserved as a Divine and apostolical tradition, (which is observed among\nus, and in almost all the provinces,) that for the due performance of\nordinations, all the neighbouring bishops of the same province should\nmeet with the people over whom a bishop is to be ordained, and that the\nbishop should be chosen in the presence of the people.\u201d But because such\nan assembly was sometimes very slowly collected, and there was danger\nthat such a delay might be abused by some for the purposes of intrigue,\nit was deemed sufficient, if they assembled after the election was made,\nand upon due examination consecrated the person who had been chosen.\n\nXV. This was the universal practice, without any exception. By degrees a\ndifferent custom was introduced, and the persons elected went to the\nmetropolitan city to seek ordination. This change arose from ambition\nand a corruption of the ancient institution, rather than from any good\nreason. And not long after, when the authority of the see of Rome had\nincreased, another custom obtained, which was still worse; almost all\nthe bishops of Italy went to Rome to be consecrated. This may be seen by\nthe epistles of Gregory. Only a few cities, which did not so easily\nyield, preserved their ancient right; of which there is an example\nrecorded by him in the case of Milan. Perhaps the metropolitan cities\nwere the only ones that retained their privilege. For almost all the\nprovincial bishops used to assemble in the metropolitan city to\nconsecrate their archbishop. The ceremony was imposition of hands. For I\nread of no other ceremony practised, except that in the public assembly\nthe bishops had some dress to distinguish them from the rest of the\npresbyters. Presbyters and deacons also were ordained solely by\nimposition of hands. But every bishop ordained his own presbyters, in\nconjunction with the assembly of the other presbyters of his diocese.\nNow, though they all united in the same act, yet because the bishop took\nthe lead, and the ceremony was performed under his direction, therefore\nit was called his ordination. Wherefore it is often remarked by the\nancient writers, that a presbyter differs from a bishop in no other\nrespect, than that he does not possess the power of ordination.\n\nFootnote 848:\n\n  Titus i. 9.\n\nFootnote 849:\n\n  Exod. xxxviii. 35.\n\nFootnote 850:\n\n  Acts xx. 26.\n\nFootnote 851:\n\n  1 Tim. iii. 2, 3.\n\nFootnote 852:\n\n  1 Peter v. 3.\n\nFootnote 853:\n\n  1 Tim. iii. 2-7.\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAPTER V.\nTHE ANCIENT FORM OF GOVERNMENT ENTIRELY SUBVERTED BY THE PAPAL TYRANNY.\n\n\nNow, it is proper to exhibit the system of ecclesiastical government at\npresent maintained by the see of Rome, and all its dependencies, with a\nfull view of that hierarchy which is perpetually in their mouths, and to\ncompare it with the description we have given of the primitive and\nancient Church. This comparison will show what kind of a Church there is\namong those who fiercely arrogate this exclusive title, in order to\noppress, or rather to overwhelm us. Now, it is best to begin with the\nvocation, that we may see who and what kind of men are called to the\nministry, and how they are introduced to it. We shall then consider how\nfaithfully they discharge their duty. We shall give the first place to\nthe bishops; and I wish it might be to their honour to hold the first\nrank in this disquisition. But the subject itself will not permit me to\ntouch on this argument ever so slightly, without involving their deepest\ndisgrace. I shall remember, however, the nature of the work in which I\nam now engaged, and shall not suffer my discourse, which ought to be\nconfined to simple doctrine, to exceed its proper bounds. But let some\none of those who have not lost all shame, answer me; What kind of\nbishops are now generally chosen? To examine into their learning, is too\nobsolete; and if any regard be paid to it, they choose some lawyer, who\nunderstands pleading in a court, better than preaching in a Church. It\nis evident, that for a hundred years, scarcely one in a hundred that has\nbeen chosen, had any knowledge of the Holy Scripture. I say nothing of\nthe preceding ages; not that they were much better, but because our\nbusiness is only with the present Church. If we inquire into their\nmorals, we shall find that there have been few or none who would not\nhave been judged unworthy by the ancient canons. He who has not been a\ndrunkard, has been a fornicator; and he who has been free from both\nthese vices, has been either a gambler or a hunter, or dissolute in some\npart of his life. For the old canons exclude a man from the episcopal\noffice for smaller vices than these. But the greatest absurdity of all\nis, that even boys, scarcely ten years of age, have by the permission of\nthe pope been made bishops. And to such lengths of impudence and\nstupidity have they proceeded, as not to be afraid of that extreme and\nmonstrous enormity, which is altogether repugnant to the common sense of\nnature. Hence it appears how solemn and conscientious must have been\ntheir elections, which were marked with such extreme negligence.\n\nII. All the right of the people to choose has been entirely taken away.\nTheir suffrages, assent, subscriptions, and every thing of this kind,\nhave disappeared. All the power is transferred to the canons. They\nconfer the bishopric on whom they please, and then produce him before\nthe people, but to be adored, not to be examined. Leo, on the contrary,\nexclaims that no reason permits this, and pronounces it to be a violent\nimposition. When Cyprian declares it to be of Divine right, that an\nelection should not be made without the consent of the people, he shows\nthat a different method is repugnant to the word of God. The decrees of\nvarious councils most severely prohibit it to be done in any other way,\nand if it be done, command it to be void. If these things be true, there\nis now no canonical election remaining in all the Papacy, either\naccording to Divine or ecclesiastical right. Now, though there were no\nother evil, how will they be able to excuse themselves for having thus\ndeprived the Church of her right? But they say, the corruption of the\ntimes required, that as the people and magistrates, in the choice of\nbishops, were rather carried away by antipathies and partialities than\ngoverned by an honest and correct judgment, the decision of this\nbusiness should be intrusted to a few. Let it be admitted that this was\nan extreme remedy for a disease under desperate circumstances. Yet as\nthe medicine has been found more injurious than the disease itself, why\nis there no remedy provided against this new malady? They reply, The\ncanons themselves have been particularly directed what course they ought\nto pursue in an election. But do we doubt, that the people formerly\nunderstood themselves to be bound by the most sacred laws, when they saw\nthe word of God proposed as their rule, whenever they assembled for the\nelection of a bishop? For that one declaration of God, in which he\ndescribes the true character of a bishop, ought to have more weight than\nmillions of canons. Yet, corrupted by a most sinful disposition, they\npaid no regard to law or equity. So in the present day, though there are\nthe best written laws, yet they remain buried in paper. At the same\ntime, it has been the general practice, and, as if it were founded in\nreason, has obtained the general approbation, that drunkards,\nfornicators, and gamblers, have been promoted to this honour. I do not\nsay enough. Bishoprics are the rewards of adulterers and panders. For\nwhen they are given to hunters and fowlers, the business must be\nconsidered as well managed. To attempt any excuse of such flagitious\nproceedings is abominable. The people, I say, had a most excellent\ncanon, in the direction of the word of God, that \u201ca bishop must be\nblameless, apt to teach, no striker,\u201d &c.[854] Why, then, was the right\nof election transferred from the people to the canons? They reply,\nBecause the word of God was not attended to, amidst the tumults and\nfactions of the people. And why should it not now be again transferred\nfrom them, who not only violate all laws, but, casting off all shame,\nmingle and confound heaven and earth together, by their lust, avarice,\nand ambition?\n\nIII. But it is a false pretence when they say, that the present practice\nwas introduced as a remedy. We read that in the early times, cities were\nfrequently thrown into confusion at the election of their bishops; yet\nno one ever dared to think of depriving the citizens of their right. For\nthey had other ways, either of guarding against these evils, or of\ncorrecting them when they occurred. But I will state the real truth of\nthe case. When the people began to be negligent about choosing, and,\nconsidering this care as less suitable to themselves, left it to the\npresbyters, the latter abused this occasion to usurp a tyrannical power,\nwhich they afterwards confirmed to themselves by new canons. Their form\nof ordination is no other than a mere mockery. For the appearance of\nexamination which they display in it, is so frivolous and jejune, that\nit is even destitute of all plausibility. The power of nominating\nbishops, therefore, which some princes have obtained by stipulation with\nthe Roman pontiff, has caused no new injury to the Church, because the\nelection has only been taken from the canons, who had seized, or rather\nstolen, it without any just claim. It is certainly a most disgraceful\nexample, that courtiers are made bishops, and sent from the court to\nseize upon the Churches; and it ought to be the concern of all pious\nprinces to refrain from such an abuse. For it is an impious robbery of\nthe Church, whenever a bishop is imposed upon any people, who have not\ndesired, or at least freely approved of him. But the disorderly custom\nwhich has long prevailed in the Churches, has given occasion to princes\nto assume the presentation of bishops to themselves. For they would\nrather have this at their own disposal, than in the hands of those who\nhad no more right to it, and by whom it was not less abused.\n\nIV. This is the goodly calling, in consequence of which bishops boast of\nbeing successors of the apostles. The power of creating presbyters, they\nsay, belongs exclusively to them. But this is a gross corruption of the\nancient institution; for by their ordination they create, not presbyters\nto rule and feed the people, but priests to offer sacrifice. So when\nthey consecrate deacons, they have nothing to do with their true and\nproper office, but only ordain them to certain ceremonies about the\nchalice and patine. In the Council of Chalcedon, on the contrary, it was\ndecreed, that there should be no absolute ordinations, that is, without\nsome place being at the same time assigned to the persons ordained,\nwhere they were to exercise their office. This decree was highly useful,\nfor two reasons\u2014first, that the Churches might not be burdened with an\nunnecessary charge, and the money which ought to be distributed to the\npoor consumed upon idle men; secondly, that the persons ordained might\nconsider themselves not as promoted to an honour, but as intrusted with\nan office to the discharge of which they were bound by a solemn\nengagement. But the Romish doctors, who think their belly ought to be\nall their care, even in matters of religion, first explain the requisite\ntitle to consist in an income sufficient for their support, whether\narising from their own patrimony or from a benefice. Therefore, when\nthey ordain a deacon or a presbyter, without giving themselves any\nconcern where he is to officiate, they readily admit him, if he be only\nrich enough to maintain himself. But who can admit this, that the title\nwhich the decree of the council requires is a competent annual income?\nAnd because the more recent canons condemned the bishops to maintain\nthose whom they had ordained without a sufficient title, in order to\nprevent their too great facility in the admission of candidates, they\nhave even contrived a way to evade this penalty. For the person ordained\nmentions any title whatever, and promises that he will be content with\nit. By this engagement he is debarred from an action for maintenance. I\nsay nothing of a thousand frauds practised in this business; as when\nsome falsely exhibit empty titles of benefices, from which they could\nnot derive five pence a year; others, under a secret stipulation, borrow\nbenefices which they promise to return immediately, but which, in many\ninstances, are never returned; and other similar mysteries.\n\nV. But even though these grosser abuses were removed, is it not always\nabsurd to ordain a presbyter without assigning him any station? For they\nordain no one, but to offer sacrifice. Now, the legitimate ordination of\na presbyter consists in a call to the government of the Church, and that\nof a deacon to the collection of the alms. They adorn their procedure,\nindeed, with many pompous ceremonies, that its appearance may gain the\nveneration of the simple; but with judicious persons, what can be gained\nby those appearances unaccompanied by any solidity or truth? For they\nuse ceremonies either derived from Judaism, or invented among\nthemselves, from which it would be better to refrain. But as to any real\nexamination, the consent of the people, and other necessary things, they\nare not mentioned. The shadow they retain of these things, I consider\nnot worthy of notice. By shadow, I mean those ridiculous gesticulations,\nused as a dull and foolish imitation of antiquity. The bishops have\ntheir vicars, to inquire before an ordination, into the learning of the\ncandidates. But in what manner? They interrogate them, whether they can\nread their masses; whether they know how to decline some common noun\nthat may occur in reading, or to conjugate a verb, or to tell the\nmeaning of a word; for it is not necessary for them to know how to give\nthe sense of a verse. And yet none are rejected from the priesthood, who\nare deficient even in these puerile elements, provided they bring some\npresent or recommendation to favour. In the same spirit it is, that when\nthe persons to be ordained present themselves at the altar, some one\ninquires three times, in a language not understood, whether they are\nworthy of that honour. One (who never saw them before, but, that no part\nof the process might be wanting, acts his part in the farce) answers,\nThey are worthy. What accusation is there against these venerable\nfathers, but that by sporting with such manifest sacrileges they are\nguilty of unblushing mockery of God and men? But because they have been\nlong in possession of it, they suppose it is now become right. For\nwhoever ventures to open his mouth against these glaring and atrocious\nenormities, they hurry him away to execution, as if he had committed a\ncapital crime. Would they do this if they believed that there was any\nGod?\n\nVI. Now, how much better do they conduct themselves in the collation of\nbenefices?\u2014a thing formerly connected with ordination, but now entirely\nseparated from it. The ways in which this business is managed, are\nvarious. For the bishops are not the only persons who confer benefices,\nand in those the collation of which is ascribed to them, they do not\nalways possess the full power, but while they retain the name of the\ncollation for the sake of honour, the presentation belongs to others.\nBesides these, there are nominations from the colleges, resignations\neither absolute or made for the sake of exchange, commendatory\nrescripts, preventions, and the like. But they all conduct themselves in\nsuch a manner, that no one can reproach another for any thing. I\nmaintain that scarcely one benefice in a hundred, in all the Papacy, is\nat present conferred without simony, according to the definition which\nthe ancients gave of that crime. I do not say that they all purchase\nwith ready money; but show me one in twenty who obtains a benefice\nwithout any indirect recommendation. Some are promoted by relationship,\nothers by alliance, others by the influence of parents, others gain\nfavour by their services. In short, the end for which sacerdotal offices\nare conferred, is not to provide for the Churches, but for the persons\nto whom they are given. And therefore they call them _benefices_, a name\nby which they sufficiently declare that they view them in no other light\nthan as donatives of princes, by which they either conciliate the favour\nof their soldiers, or reward their services. I forbear to remark that\nthese rewards are conferred upon barbers, cooks, muleteers, and other\ndregs of the people. And, in the present day, scarcely any litigations\nmake more noise in the courts of justice than those respecting\nbenefices; so that they may be considered as a mere prey thrown out for\ndogs to hunt after. Is it tolerable even to hear the name of _pastors_\ngiven to men who have forced themselves into the possession of a Church,\nas into an enemy\u2019s farm; who have obtained it by a legal process; who\nhave purchased it with money; who have gained it by dishonourable\nservices; who, while infants just beginning to lisp, succeeded to it as\nan inheritance transmitted by their uncles and cousins, and sometimes\neven by fathers to their illegitimate children?\n\nVII. Would the licentiousness of the people, however corrupt and\nlawless, ever have proceeded to such a length? But it is still more\nmonstrous that one man\u2014I say nothing of his qualifications, only a man\nnot capable of governing himself\u2014should preside over the government of\nfive or six Churches. We may now see, in the courts of princes, young\nmen who hold one archbishopric, two bishoprics, and three abbeys. It is\na common thing for canons to be loaded with five, six, or seven\nbenefices, of which they take not the least care, except in receiving\nthe revenues. I will not object that this is every where condemned by\nthe word of God, which has long ceased to have the least weight with\nthem. I will not object that various councils have made many very severe\ndecrees against such disorder; for these also, whenever they please,\nthey fearlessly treat with contempt. But I maintain, that both these\nthings are execrable enormities, utterly repugnant to God, to nature,\nand to the government of the Church\u2014that one robber should engross\nseveral Churches at once, and that the name of _pastor_ should be given\nto one who could not be present with his flock, even if he would; and\nyet, such is their impudence, they cover these abominable impurities\nwith the name of the Church, in order to exempt them from all censure.\nAnd, moreover, that inviolable succession, to the merit of which they\nboast that the Church owes its perpetual preservation, is included in\nthese iniquities.\n\nVIII. Now, let us see how faithfully they exercise their office, which\nis the second mark by which we are to judge of a legitimate pastor. Of\nthe priests whom they create, some are _monks_, others are called\n_seculars_. The former of these classes was unknown to the ancient\nChurch, and to hold such a place in the Church was so incompatible with\nthe monastic profession, that anciently, when any one was chosen from a\nmonastery to be one of the clergy, he ceased to be a monk. And even\nGregory, in whose time there was much corruption, yet suffered not this\nconfusion to take place. For he enjoined, that they who became abbots\nshould be divested of their clerical character; for that no one could be\na monk and a clergyman at the same time, because the one would be an\nimpediment to the other. Now, if I inquire how that man can duly\ndischarge his office, whom the canons declare to be unfit for it, what\nanswer will they make? I suppose they will cite those abortive decrees\nof Innocent and Boniface, by which monks are admitted to the honour and\nauthority of the priesthood, so that they may still remain in their\nmonasteries. But what reason is there, that any illiterate ass, as soon\nas he has once occupied the see of Rome, should by one diminutive word\noverturn all the usages of antiquity? But of this we shall say more\nhereafter. Suffice it at present to remark, that during the purer times\nof the Church, it was deemed a great absurdity for a monk to hold the\noffice of a priest. For Jerome denies that he performed the office of a\npriest while he lived among the monks; but represents himself as one of\nthe people who ought to be governed by the priests. But if we grant them\nthis point, how do they execute their office? There are some of the\nmendicants, and a few of the others, who preach. All the rest of the\nmonks either chant or mutter over masses in their cloisters, as if it\nwere the design of Jesus Christ that presbyters should be appointed for\nthis purpose, or as if the nature of their office admitted of it. While\nthe Scripture clearly testifies that it is the duty of a presbyter to\ngovern his own Church,[855] is it not an impious profanation to transfer\nto another object, or rather to make a total change in, God\u2019s sacred\ninstitution? For when they are ordained monks, they are expressly\nforbidden to do things which the Lord enjoins upon all presbyters. This\ndirection is given to them: Let a monk be content in his cloister, and\nnot presume to administer the sacraments, or to execute any other branch\nof public duty. Let them deny, if they can, that it is a glaring mockery\nof God, to create a presbyter in order that he may refrain from\ndischarging his true and genuine office, and to give a man the name, who\ncannot possess the thing.\n\nIX. I proceed to the seculars; of whom some are called _beneficiaries_,\nthat is, they have benefices by which they are maintained; others hire\nthemselves to labour by the day, in saying mass or singing, and live on\nthe wages which they gain from these employments. Benefices are either\nattended with cure of souls, as bishoprics and parishes; or they are the\nstipends of delicate men, who gain a livelihood by chanting, as\nprebends, canonries, dignities, chaplainships, and the like. But in the\nconfusion which has been introduced, abbeys and priories are conferred\nnot only on secular priests, but also on boys, by privilege, that is, by\ncommon and ordinary custom. As to the mercenaries, who seek their daily\nsustenance, how could they act otherwise than they do, that is, to offer\nthemselves to hire in a mean and shameful manner; especially among such\na vast multitude as now swarms in the world? Therefore, when they are\nashamed of open begging, or think they should gain but little by that\npractice, they run about like hungry dogs, and by their importunity, as\nby barking, extort from reluctant hands some morsels to put into their\nmouths. Here if I should endeavour to describe what a great disgrace it\nis to the Church, that the office and dignity of the presbytery has been\nso degraded, there would be no end. My readers, therefore, have no\nreason to expect from me a long discourse, corresponding to such a\nflagitious enormity. I only assert, in few words, that if it be the duty\nof a presbyter, as the word of God prescribes, and the ancient canons\nrequire, to feed the Church and administer the spiritual kingdom of\nChrist,[856] all those priests who have no work or wages, except in\nmaking merchandise of masses, not only fail of executing their office,\nbut have no legitimate office to execute. For there is no place assigned\nto them to teach; they have no people to govern. In short, nothing\nremains to them but the altar upon which to offer up Christ in\nsacrifice; and this is not sacrificing to God, but to demons, as we\nshall see in another place.\n\nX. Here I touch not on the external vices, but only on the intestine\nevil which is deeply rooted in their institution, and cannot be\nseparated from it. I shall add a remark, which will sound harshly in\ntheir ears, but because it is true, it must be expressed\u2014that canons,\ndeans, chaplains, provosts, and all who are supported by sinecures, are\nto be considered in the same light. For what service can they perform\nfor the Church? They have discarded the preaching of the word, the\nsuperintendence of discipline, and the administration of the sacraments,\nas employments attended with too much labour and trouble. What have they\nremaining, then, to boast of as true presbyters? They have chanting and\nthe pomp of ceremonies. But what is all this to the purpose? If they\nplead custom, usage, prescription of long continuance, I will confront\nthem with the decision of Christ, where he has given us a description of\ntrue presbyters, and what qualifications ought to be possessed by those\nwho wish to be considered as such. If they cannot bear so hard a law as\nto submit themselves to the rule of Christ, let them at least allow this\ncause to be decided by the authority of the primitive Church. But their\ncondition will not be at all better, if we judge of their state by the\nancient canons. Those who have degenerated into canons, ought to be\npresbyters, as they were in former times, to govern the Church in common\nwith the bishop, and to be his colleagues in the pastoral office. These\n_chapter dignities_, as they call them, have nothing to do with the\ngovernment of the Church; much less have the chaplainships, and the\nother dregs of similar offices. In what estimation, then, shall we hold\nthem all? It is certain that the word of Christ and the practice of the\nancient Church agree in excluding them from the honour of the\npresbytery. They contend, however, that they are presbyters; but the\nmask must be torn off. Then we shall find, that their whole profession\nis most foreign and remote from the office of presbyters, which is\ndescribed to us by the apostles, and which was required in the primitive\nChurch. All such orders, therefore, by whatever titles they may be\ndistinguished, since they are of modern invention, or at least are not\nsupported by the institution of God, or the ancient usage of the Church,\nought to have no place in a description of the spiritual government,\nwhich the Church has received, consecrated by the mouth of the Lord\nhimself. Or, if they wish me to use plainer language, since chaplains,\ncanons, deans, provosts, and other idlers of this description, do not\neven with their little fingers touch a particle of that duty which is\nnecessarily required in presbyters, it is not to be endured that they\nshould falsely usurp the honour, and thus violate the sacred institution\nof Jesus Christ.\n\nXI. There remain the bishops and the rectors of parishes, who would\nafford me great pleasure if they exerted themselves to support their\noffice. For we would readily admit to them, that they have a pious and\nhonourable office, provided they discharged it. But when they wish to be\nconsidered as pastors, notwithstanding they desert the churches\ncommitted to them, and transfer the care of them to others, they act\njust as if the office of a pastor consisted in doing nothing. If a\nusurer, who never stirred his foot out of the city, should profess\nhimself a ploughman or vinedresser,\u2014if a soldier, who had spent all his\ntime in the camp and in the field of battle, and had never seen a court\nof justice or books, should offer himself as a lawyer,\u2014who could endure\nsuch gross absurdities? But these men act in a manner still more absurd,\nwho wish to be accounted and called legitimate pastors of the Church,\nand yet are not willing to be so in reality. For how few of them are\nthere, who execute the government of their Churches even in appearance!\nMany of them all their lifetime devour the revenues of Churches, which\nthey never approach even to look at them. Others either go themselves,\nor send an agent once every year, that nothing may be lost by farming\nthem out. When this abuse first intruded itself, they who wished to\nenjoy this kind of vacation from duty, exempted themselves by special\nprivileges. Now, it is a rare case for any one to reside in his own\nChurch; for they consider their Churches as no other than farms, over\nwhich they place their vicars, as bailiffs or stewards. But it is\nrepugnant to common sense, that a man should be pastor of a flock, who\nnever saw one of the sheep.\n\nXII. It appears that some seeds of this evil had sprung up in the time\nof Gregory, and that the rectors of Churches began to be negligent in\npreaching and teaching; for he heavily complains of it in the following\npassages: \u201cThe world is full of priests; but yet there are few labourers\nfound in the harvest; because we undertake the sacerdotal office, but\nperform not the work of the office.\u201d Again: \u201cBecause they have no bowels\nof charity, they wish to be considered as lords; they do not acknowledge\nthemselves to be fathers. They change the place of humility into an\naggrandizement of dominion.\u201d Again: \u201cBut, O ye pastors, what are we\ndoing, who receive the wages and are not labourers? We have fallen into\nextraneous employments; we undertake one thing, and perform another. We\nrelinquish the office of preaching; and it is our misfortune, I\nconceive, that we are called bishops, since we hold a title of honour,\nbut not of virtue.\u201d Since he uses such severity of language against\nthose who were only chargeable with a want of sufficient assiduity, or\ndiligence, in their office, what would he have said, if he had seen\nscarcely any, or very few of the bishops, and among the rest hardly one\nin a hundred, ascend a pulpit once in their lives? For things are come\nto such a pitch of frenzy, that it is generally esteemed beneath the\ndignity of a bishop to deliver a sermon to a congregation. In the time\nof Bernard there had been some declension; but we see how sharply he\nreproves and inveighs against the whole body of the clergy, who, it is\nprobable, however, were far less corrupt in that age than they are in\nthe present.\n\nXIII. Now, if any one will closely observe and strictly examine this\nwhole form of ecclesiastical government, which exists at the present day\nunder the Papacy, he will find it a nest of the most lawless and\nferocious banditti in the world. Every thing in it is clearly so\ndissimilar and repugnant to the institution of Christ, so degenerated\nfrom the ancient regulations and usages of the Church, so at variance\nwith nature and reason, that no greater injury can be done to Christ,\nthan by pleading his name in defence of such a disorderly government. We\n(they say) are the pillars of the Church, the prelates of religion, the\nvicars of Christ, the heads of the faithful, because we have succeeded\nto the power and authority of the apostles. They are perpetually\nvaunting of these fooleries, as if they were talking to blocks of wood;\nbut whenever they repeat these boasts, I will ask them in return, what\nthey have in common with the apostles. For the question is not\nrespecting any hereditary honour, which may be given to men while they\nare asleep, but of the office of preaching, which they so carefully\navoid. So, when we assert that their kingdom is the tyranny of\nAntichrist, they immediately reply, that it is that venerable hierarchy,\nwhich has been so often commended by great and holy men. As though the\nholy fathers, when they praised the ecclesiastical hierarchy, or\nspiritual government, as it had been delivered to them by the hands of\nthe apostles, ever dreamed of this chaos of deformity and desolation,\nwhere the bishops for the most part are illiterate asses, unacquainted\nwith the first and plainest rudiments of the faith, or, in some\ninstances, are children just out of leading-strings; and if any be more\nlearned,\u2014which, however, is a rare case,\u2014they consider a bishopric to be\nnothing but a title of splendour and magnificence; where the rectors of\nChurches think no more of feeding the flock, than a shoemaker does of\nploughing; where all things are confounded with a dispersion worse than\nthat of Babel, so that there can no longer be seen any clear vestige of\nthe administration practised in the time of the fathers.\n\nXIV. What if we proceed to inquire into their manners? \u201cWhere is that\nlight of the world,\u201d which Christ requires? where that \u201csalt of the\nearth?\u201d[857] where that sanctity, which might serve as a perpetual\nexample to others? There is no class of men in the present day more\ninfamous for profusion, delicacy, luxury, and profligacy of every kind;\nno class of men contains more apt or expert masters of every species of\nimposture, fraud, treachery, and perfidy; nowhere can be found equal\ncunning or audacity in the commission of crime. I say nothing of their\npride, haughtiness, rapacity, and cruelty; I say nothing of the\nabandoned licentiousness of every part of their lives;\u2014enormities which\nthe world is so wearied with bearing, that there is no room for the\nleast apprehension lest I should be charged with excessive exaggeration.\nOne thing I assert, which it is not in their power to deny\u2014that there is\nscarcely one of the bishops, and not one in a hundred of the parochial\nclergy, who, if sentence were to be passed upon his conduct according to\nthe ancient canons, would not be excommunicated, or, at the very least,\ndeposed from his office. That ancient discipline, which required a more\naccurate investigation to be made into the conduct of the clergy, has so\nlong been obsolete, that I may be considered as making an incredible\nassertion; but such is the fact. Now, let all, who fight under the\nstandards and auspices of the Roman see, go and boast of their\nsacerdotal order. It is evident that the order which they have is not\nderived from Christ, from his apostles, from the fathers, or from the\nancient Church.\n\nXV. Now, let the deacons come forward, with that most sacred\ndistribution which they have of the property of the Church. They do not\nat present, however, create their deacons for any such purpose; for they\nenjoin them nothing but to serve at the altar, to say or chant the\ngospel, and do I know not what trifles. Nothing of the alms, nothing of\nthe care of the poor, nothing of the whole function which they executed\nin primitive times. I speak of the institution itself. For if we advert\nto the fact, it is now become no office at all, but only a step towards\nthe priesthood. In one circumstance, those who act the part of a deacon\nat the mass, exhibit a useless and frivolous resemblance of antiquity,\nin receiving the offerings before the consecration. Now, it was the\nancient custom, that before the communion of the supper, the faithful\nkissed each other, and then offered their alms at the altar; thus they\nexpressed their charity, first by a sign, and then by active\nbeneficence. The deacon, who was steward for the poor, received what was\ngiven, in order to distribute it. Of the alms given at present, no more\nreaches the poor than if they were thrown into the sea. This false\nappearance of deaconship, therefore, is a mockery of the Church. It\ncontains nothing resembling the apostolic institution, or the ancient\nusage. Even the distribution of the property they have turned into\nanother channel; and have ordered it in such a way, that it is\nimpossible to imagine any thing more disorderly. For as robbers, after\nhaving murdered some ill-fated travellers, divide the plunder among\nthemselves, so these men, after having extinguished the light of God\u2019s\nword, and, as it were, cut the throat of the Church, have concluded that\nwhatever had been dedicated to sacred uses, was abandoned to plunder and\nrapine. They have therefore made a division of it, and every one has\nseized as large a share as he could.\n\nXVI. Here, all the ancient usages which we have described, have not only\nbeen disturbed, but entirely expunged and abolished The principal part\nof this plunder was seized by the bishops and the presbyters of cities,\nwho, being enriched by it, were converted into canons. That the\npartition was made in confusion is evident from the contentions which\nprevail among them, even to this day, about their respective limits.\nBut, however it may be managed, they have taken care that not a penny of\nall the property of the Church should reach the poor, who were at least\nentitled to half of it. For the canons expressly allot them one fourth\npart, and assign another fourth part to the bishops, to be laid out in\nhospitality and other offices of charity. I say nothing of what the\nclergy ought to do with their portion, and to what use they ought to\napply it. The residue, which is appropriated to the reparation of\ntemples, edifices, and other expenses, it has been sufficiently shown,\nought to be at the service of the poor in time of necessity. If they had\na single spark of the fear of God in their hearts, could they bear this\nreflection of conscience, that every thing they eat, and drink, and\nwear, is the fruit of robbery, and even of sacrilege? But though they\nare little affected with the judgment of God, they should at least\nconsider that those, whom they wish to persuade into a belief of their\npossession of such an excellent and well regulated system in their\nChurch as they are accustomed to boast, are men endued with sense and\nreason. Let them answer me, in a word, whether deaconship be a license\nfor theft and robbery? If they deny this, they will also be obliged to\nconfess, that they have no such office left; seeing that among them the\nwhole administration of the revenues of the Church has been openly\nperverted into a system of sacrilegious depredation.\n\nXVII. But here they advance a most plausible plea. They allege that the\ndignity of the Church is becomingly sustained by this magnificence. And\nsuch is the impudence of some of their faction, that they dare to boast\nin express terms, that this princely state of the priesthood constitutes\nthe only fulfilment of those predictions in which the ancient prophets\ndescribe the splendour of the kingdom of Christ. It is not in vain, they\nsay, that God has made the following promises to his Church: \u201cThe kings\nof Tarshish and of the isles shall bring presents; the kings of Sheba\nand Seba shall offer gifts. Yea, all kings shall fall down before\nhim.\u201d[858] \u201cAwake, awake; put on thy strength, O Zion; put on thy\nbeautiful garments, O Jerusalem.\u201d[859] \u201cAll they from Sheba shall come;\nthey shall bring gold and incense; and they shall show forth the praises\nof the Lord. All the flocks of Kedar shall be gathered together unto\nthee.\u201d[860] If I should dwell long on a refutation of this presumption,\nI fear I should expose myself to the charge of folly. Therefore I am not\ninclined to spend my words in vain. But I ask, if any Jew were to abuse\nthese passages in the same manner, what reply would they make to him?\nThere is no doubt but they would reprove his stupidity, in transferring\nto the flesh and the world things which are spiritually spoken of the\nspiritual kingdom of the Messiah. For we know that, under the image of\nearthly things, the prophets have represented to us the heavenly glory\nof God, which ought to shine in the Church. For of those external\nblessings which their words express, the Church never had less abundance\nthan in the days of the apostles; and yet it is acknowledged by all that\nthe kingdom of Christ, then flourished in its greatest vigour. What,\nthen, it will be asked, is the meaning of these passages? I reply, that\nevery thing precious, high, and excellent, ought to be in subjection to\nthe Lord. In regard to the express declaration, that kings shall submit\ntheir sceptres to Christ, cast their crowns at his feet, and consecrate\ntheir wealth to the Church, when (they will say) was it more truly and\nfully exemplified, than when Theodosius, casting off the purple robes,\nand relinquishing the ensigns of imperial majesty, submitted himself,\nlike one of the common people, to do solemn penance before God and the\nChurch? than when he and other such pious princes devoted their cares\nand exertions to the preservation of pure doctrine in the Church, and to\nthe support and protection of sound teachers? But how far the priests of\nthat age were from rioting in superfluous riches, a single expression of\nthe Council of Aquileia, at which Ambrose presided, sufficiently\ndeclares. \u201cPoverty is honourable in the priests of the Lord.\u201d It is true\nthat the bishops at that time had some wealth, which they might have\nemployed to display the honour of the Church, if they had considered\nthem as the Church\u2019s real ornaments. But knowing that there was nothing\nmore inconsistent with the office of pastors, than to display and to\npride themselves on the luxury of their tables, the splendour of their\napparel, a large retinue, and magnificent palaces, they followed and\nmaintained the humility and modesty, and even the poverty which Christ\nhas consecrated in all his ministers.\n\nXVIII. But not to dwell too long on this point, let us again collect\ninto a brief summary, how very much the present dispensation, or rather\ndissipation, of the property of the Church, differs from that true\noffice of deacons, which the word of God commends to us, and which the\nancient Church observed. That portion which is employed in the ornaments\nof temples, I assert, is grossly misapplied, if it be not regulated by\nthat moderation which the nature of sacred things requires, and which\nthe apostles and holy fathers have prescribed both by precept and by\nexamples. But what is there seen like this, in the temples at the\npresent day? Whatever is conformable, I do not say to that primitive\nfrugality, but to any honourable mediocrity, is rejected. Nothing\npleases, but what savours of the profusion and corruption of the present\ntimes. At the same time they are so far from feeling any just concern\nfor the living temples, that they would suffer thousands of the poor to\nperish with hunger, rather than convert the smallest chalice or silver\npitcher into money, to relieve their wants. And, not of myself to\npronounce any thing more severe, I would only request my pious readers\nto indulge this one reflection. If it could happen that Exuperius,\u2014that\nbishop of Toulouse whom we have mentioned,\u2014if Acacius, if Ambrose, or\nany other such,\u2014should be raised from the dead, what would they say? In\nsuch extreme necessity of the poor, they surely would not approve of the\nriches of the Church being applied to another use, and that an\nunnecessary one. I forbear to remark, that these purposes for which they\nare employed, even if there were no poor, are in many respects\ninjurious, but of no utility whatever. But I will not appeal to the\nauthority of men. The property has been dedicated to Christ, and\ntherefore ought to be dispensed according to his will. It will be\nuseless for them to allege, that this portion has been employed for\nChrist, which they have squandered in a manner inconsistent with his\ncommand. To confess the truth, however, there is not much of the\nordinary revenue of the Church lost in these expenses. For there are no\nbishoprics so opulent, no abbeys so rich, in short, no benefices so\nnumerous or ample, as to satisfy the voraciousness of the priests.\nWishing to spare themselves, therefore, they induce the people, from\nsuperstitious motives, to take what ought to be bestowed upon the poor,\nand apply it to the building of temples, the erection of statues, the\npurchase of chalices and shrines for relics, and the provision of costly\nvestments. This is the gulf which swallows up all the daily alms.\n\nXIX. Of the revenue which they derive from lands and possessions, what\ncan I say more than I have already said, and which is evident to the\nobservation of all men? We see with what fidelity the principal portion\nis disposed of by those who are called bishops and abbots. What folly is\nit to seek here for any ecclesiastical order! Was it reasonable that\nthey, whose life ought to be an eminent example of frugality, modesty,\ntemperance, and humility, should emulate the pomp of princes, in the\nnumber of their attendants, the splendour of their palaces, the elegance\nof their apparel, and the luxury of their tables? And how very\ninconsistent it was with the office of those whom the eternal and\ninviolable decree of God forbids to be greedy of filthy lucre,[861] and\ncommands to be content with simple fare, not only to lay their hands\nupon towns and castles, but to seize on the largest provinces, and even\nto assume the reins of empire! If they despise the word of God, what\nreply will they make to those ancient decrees of councils, by which it\nis ordained that a bishop shall have a small house near the Church, a\nfrugal table, and humble furniture? What will they say to that sentence\nof the Council of Aquileia, which declares poverty to be honourable in\nthe priests of the Lord? For the direction given by Jerome to Nepotian,\nthat poor persons and strangers, and Christ among them, should be\nfamiliar guests at his table, they will perhaps reject as too austere.\nBut they will be ashamed to contradict what he immediately\nsubjoins\u2014\u201cthat it is the glory of a bishop to provide for the poor, and\nthe disgrace of all priests to seek to enrich themselves.\u201d Yet they\ncannot receive this, but they must all condemn themselves to ignominy.\nBut it is not necessary to pursue them with any further severity at\npresent, as it was only my intention to show, that the legitimate office\nof deacon has long been entirely abolished among them, to prevent their\ncontinuing to pride themselves on this title, for the purpose of\nrecommending their Church. And this design, I think, I have fully\naccomplished.\n\nFootnote 854:\n\n  1 Tim. iii. 2-7.\n\nFootnote 855:\n\n  Acts xx. 28.\n\nFootnote 856:\n\n  1 Cor. iv. 1.\n\nFootnote 857:\n\n  Matt. v. 13, 14.\n\nFootnote 858:\n\n  Psalm lxxii. 10, 11.\n\nFootnote 859:\n\n  Isaiah iii. 1.\n\nFootnote 860:\n\n  Isaiah lx. 6, 7.\n\nFootnote 861:\n\n  Titus i. 7.\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER VI.\n                     THE PRIMACY OF THE ROMAN SEE.\n\n\nHitherto we have treated of those ecclesiastical orders which existed in\nthe government of the ancient Church, but which afterwards, in process\nof time, being corrupted and gradually more and more perverted, now in\nthe Papal Church merely retain their names, while in reality they are\nnothing but masks. And this we have done, that by the comparison the\npious reader might judge what sort of a Church the Romanists have, for\nthe sake of which they represent us as guilty of schism, because we have\nseparated from it. But the head and summit of the whole establishment,\nthat is, the primacy of the Roman see, by which they endeavour to prove\nthat the Catholic Church is exclusively theirs, we have not yet touched\non; because it originated neither in the institution of Christ nor in\nthe usage of the ancient Church, as did the other offices, which we have\nshown were handed down from antiquity, but since, through the corruption\nof the times, have degenerated, and even assumed altogether a new form.\nAnd yet they endeavour to persuade the world, that the principal and\nalmost only bond of the unity of the Church is adherence to the see of\nRome, and perseverance in obedience to it. This is the foundation on\nwhich they principally rest, when they wish to deny us all claim to the\nChurch, and to arrogate it to themselves; that they retain the head, on\nwhich the unity of the Church depends, and without which it must be torn\nasunder and crumble to pieces. For their notion is, that the Church is\nlike a mutilated and headless body, unless it be subject to the Roman\nsee as its head. Therefore, when they dispute respecting their\nhierarchy, they always commence with this axiom, that the Roman pontiff,\nas the vicar of Christ, who is Head of the Church, presides over the\nuniversal Church in his stead, and that the Church cannot be well\nconstituted, unless that see holds the primacy above all others.\nWherefore it is necessary to discuss this subject also, that nothing\nbelonging to the good government of the Church may be omitted.\n\nII. Let the question, therefore, be stated thus: Whether it be necessary\nto the true system of what they call the hierarchy or government of the\nChurch, that one see should have the pre\u00ebminence above all the rest in\ndignity and power, so as to be the head of the whole body. Now, we\nsubject the Church to very unreasonable laws, if we impose this\nnecessity upon it without the word of God. Therefore, if our adversaries\nwish to gain their cause, it is necessary for them, in the first place,\nto show that this economy was instituted by Christ. For this purpose\nthey allege the high-priesthood ordained in the law, and the supreme\njurisdiction of the high-priest which God appointed at Jerusalem. But it\nis easy to give an answer to this, or, indeed, various answers, if they\nwould not be satisfied with one. In the first place, there is no reason\nfor extending to the whole world what was useful in a single nation; on\nthe contrary, the case of a single nation and that of the whole world\nare widely different. Because the Jews were surrounded on all sides with\nidolaters, God, in order to prevent their being distracted by a variety\nof religions, fixed the seat of his worship in the centre of the\ncountry, and there he set over them one principal priest, to whom they\nwere all to be subject, for the better preservation of unity among them.\nNow, when the true religion has been diffused over the whole world, who\ndoes not perceive it to be utterly absurd to assign the government of\nthe east and west to one man? It is just as if it were contended, that\nthe whole world ought to be governed by one magistrate, because there is\nonly one in a small district. But there is another reason why this ought\nnot to be made a precedent for imitation. Every one knows that the\nJewish high-priest was a type of Christ: now that the priesthood has\nbeen transferred, that right must also be transferred. To whom, then, is\nit transferred? Certainly not to the pope, as he impudently presumes to\nboast, when he assumes this title to himself; but to Christ, who\nexercises that office alone without vicar or successor, and resigns the\nhonour to no other. For this priesthood, which was prefigured in the\nlaw, consists not only in preaching or doctrine, but in the propitiation\nof God, which Christ effected in his death, and in that intercession\nwhich he is now making with the Father.\n\nIII. There is no reason, therefore, why they should confine us to this\nexample, as if it were a law perpetually binding, whereas we see it was\nonly of temporary duration. From the New Testament they have nothing to\nadduce in support of their opinion, but that it was said to one, \u201cThou\nart Peter; and upon this rock I will build my Church.\u201d[862] Again:\n\u201cPeter, lovest thou me? Feed my sheep.\u201d[863] But to render these proofs\nsubstantial, it is necessary for them first to show that he who is\ncommanded to feed the flock of Christ, is invested with authority over\nall Churches, and that binding and loosing are no other than governing\nthe whole world. But as Peter had received the command from the Lord to\nfeed the Church, so he exhorts all other presbyters to do the same.[864]\nHence it is easy to infer, that this charge of Christ conferred nothing\npeculiar upon Peter beyond others, or that Peter communicated equally to\nothers the right which he had received. But, not to dispute to no\npurpose, we have in another place, from the mouth of Christ himself, a\nclear explanation of what he intends by _binding_ and _loosing_, namely,\n\u201cremitting and retaining sins.\u201d[865] The manner of _binding_ and\n_loosing_ is shown by the whole tenor of Scripture, and particularly by\nPaul, when he says that the ministers of the gospel have received a\ncommission to reconcile men to God,[866] and that they have authority to\ninflict punishment on those who shall reject this favour.[867]\n\nIV. How grossly they pervert those passages which make mention of\nbinding and loosing, I have hinted before, and shall hereafter have to\nstate more at large. At present it is worth while to see what they can\nextract from that celebrated answer of Christ to Peter. He promised him\n\u201cthe keys of the kingdom of heaven.\u201d He said, \u201cWhatsoever thou shalt\nbind on earth, shall be bound in heaven.\u201d[868] If we can agree\nrespecting the word _keys_, and the manner of _binding_, all dispute\nwill immediately cease. For the pope himself will readily relinquish the\ncharge committed to the apostles, which, being full of labour and\ntrouble, would deprive him of his pleasures without yielding him any\nprofit. Since it is the doctrine of the gospel that opens heaven to us,\nit is beautifully expressed by the metaphorical appellation of\n_keys_.\u2014There is no other way in which men are _bound_ and _loosed_,\nthan when some are reconciled to God by faith, and others are more\nfirmly bound by their unbelief. If the pope assumed nothing but this to\nhimself, I am persuaded there is no man who would either envy him or\ncontend with him.\u2014But this succession being laborious, and by no means\nlucrative, and, therefore, not at all satisfactory to the pope, hence\narises a controversy on the meaning of Christ\u2019s promise to Peter.\nTherefore I infer from the subject itself, that it only denotes the\ndignity of the apostolic office, which cannot be separated from the\nburden of it. For if the definition which I have given be admitted,\u2014and\nit cannot without the greatest effrontery be rejected,\u2014then here is\nnothing given to Peter that was not also common to his colleagues;\nbecause otherwise there would not only be a personal injury done to\nthem, but the majesty of the doctrine would be diminished. This our\nadversaries strenuously oppose. But what does it avail them to strike\nupon this rock? For they can never prove, but that as the preaching of\nthe same gospel was enjoined upon all the apostles, so they were all\nequally armed with the power of binding and loosing. They allege that\nChrist, when he promised to give the keys to Peter, constituted him head\nof the universal Church. But what he there promised to one, he in\nanother passage confers upon all the rest together, and delivers it, as\nit were, into their hands.[869] If the same power, which had been\npromised to one, was granted to all, in what respect is he superior to\nhis colleagues? His pre\u00ebminence, they say, consists in this\u2014that he\nreceives separately by himself, as well as in common with them, that\nwhich is only given to the others in common. What if I reply, with\nCyprian and Augustine, that Christ did this, not to prefer one man\nbefore others, but to display the unity of the Church? For this is the\nlanguage of Cyprian: \u201cThat in the person of one man God gave the keys to\nthem all, to signify the unity of them all; that, therefore, the rest\nwere, the same as Peter, endued with an equal participation both of\nhonour and of power; but that Christ commences with one, to show that\nthe Church is one.\u201d Augustine says, \u201cIf there had not been in Peter a\nmysterious representation of the Church, the Lord would not have said to\nhim, I will give thee the keys; for if this was said to Peter alone, the\nChurch possesses them not; but if the Church has the keys, Peter, when\nhe received them, must have represented the whole Church.\u201d And in\nanother place: \u201cWhen a question was put to them all, Peter alone\nanswers, Thou art the Christ; and to him Christ says, I will give thee\nthe keys, as if the power of binding and loosing had been conferred upon\nhim alone; whereas he made that answer on behalf of all, and received\nthis power in common with all, as sustaining the character of unity. He\nis mentioned, therefore, one for all, because there is unity in all.\u201d\n\nV. But this declaration, \u201cThou art Peter, and upon this rock I will\nbuild my Church,\u201d[870] they say, is no where to be found addressed to\nany other. As if in this passage Christ affirmed any thing respecting\nPeter, different from what Paul, and even Peter himself, asserts,\nrespecting all Christians. For Paul makes \u201cChrist the chief\ncorner-stone,\u201d upon which they are built who \u201cgrow unto a holy temple in\nthe Lord.\u201d[871] And Peter enjoins us to be \u201cas lively stones,\u201d who,\nbeing founded on that \u201ccorner-stone, elect and precious,\u201d[872] are by\nthis connection at once united to our God and to each other. This\nbelongs to Peter, they say, above the rest, because it is expressly\nattributed to him in particular. I readily allow Peter the honour of\nbeing placed among the first in the structure of the Church, or, if they\ninsist upon it, the very first of all the faithful; but I will not\npermit them to infer from this that he possessed a primacy over the\nrest. For what kind of reasoning is this: he excels the rest in ardour\nof zeal, in doctrine, in magnanimity; therefore he possesses authority\nover them? As though we might not with greater plausibility conclude\nthat Andrew was superior to Peter, because he preceded him in time, and\nintroduced him to Christ;[873] but this I pass over. I am willing that\nPeter should have the precedence, but there is a great difference\nbetween the honour of preceding others, and authority over them. We see\nthat the apostles generally paid this deference to Peter, that he used\nto speak first in their assembly, and took the lead in proposing,\nexhorting, and admonishing; but we read not a word of his power.\n\nVI. We are not yet, however, come to that question; I only mean at\npresent to show, that they have no solid argument, when they wish to\nerect an empire over the universal church upon no other foundation than\nthe name of Peter. For those antiquated fooleries with which they\nendeavoured at first to impose on the world, are not worthy of a\nrelation, much less of a refutation\u2014that the Church was founded on\nPeter, because it is said, \u201cUpon this rock I will build my Church.\u201d[874]\nThey allege in their defence, that it has been so explained by some of\nthe fathers. But when this is contradicted by the whole tenor of\nScripture, what avails it to set up their authority in opposition to\nGod? And why do we dispute about the meaning of those words, as though\nthey were ambiguous or obscure? whereas nothing can be expressed with\ngreater clearness or precision. Peter, in his own name and that of his\nbrethren, had confessed that Christ was \u201cthe Son of God.\u201d[875] Upon this\nrock Christ builds his Church, because it is the only foundation, as\nPaul says, \u201cother\u201d than which \u201ccan no man lay.\u201d[876] Nor do I reject the\nauthority of the fathers in this case, from a want of testimonies in\ntheir writings to support what I maintain, if I were inclined to adduce\nthem. But as I have observed, I am unwilling to be unnecessarily tedious\nto my readers in arguing so clear a subject; especially as it has been\nlong ago discussed with sufficient copiousness and care by other writers\non our side of the question.\n\nVII. Yet, in fact, we can obtain no better decision of this point than\nfrom the Scripture itself, if we compare all the places where it shows\nwhat office and power Peter held among the apostles, how he conducted\nhimself, and in what manner he was received by them. On an examination\nof the whole, we shall only find that he was one of the twelve, equal to\nthe rest, their companion, not their master. He proposes to the assembly\nindeed, if there be any thing to be done, and delivers his opinion on\nwhat is necessary to be done; but he hears the observations of others,\nand not only gives them the opportunity of speaking their sentiments,\nbut leaves them to decide, and when they have determined, he follows and\nobeys.[877] When he writes to pastors, he does not command them with\nauthority like a superior; but makes them his colleagues, and exhorts\nthem with a courteousness which is usual among equals.[878] When he is\naccused for having associated with the Gentiles, though this is an\nunjust accusation, yet he answers it, and vindicates himself.[879]\nCommanded by his colleagues to go with John to Samaria, he refuses\nnot.[880] The apostles, by sending him, declared that they did not\nconsider him as their superior. By his compliance and undertaking the\ncommission intrusted to him, he confessed that he was a colleague with\nthem, but had no authority over them. If none of these facts had\nremained upon record, yet the Epistle to the Galatians might alone\neasily remove every doubt; where Paul devotes nearly two whole chapters\nto the sole purpose of showing that he was equal to Peter in the dignity\nof the apostleship. Hence he relates that he went to Peter, not to\nprofess subjection to him, but to testify to all the harmony of their\ndoctrine; and that Peter required no such thing as submission, but gave\nhim the right hand of fellowship, that they might labour together in the\nvineyard of the Lord; that no less grace had been conferred upon him\namong the Gentiles, than upon Peter among the Jews; and lastly, that\nwhen Peter acted with some degree of unfaithfulness, he was reproved by\nhim, and stood corrected by the reproof.[881] All these things fully\nprove, either that there was an equality between Paul and Peter, or at\nleast that Peter had no more power over the rest than they had over him.\nAnd this, as I have already observed, is the professed object of Paul\u2014to\nprevent his being considered as inferior in his apostolic character to\nPeter or John, who were his colleagues, not his masters.\n\nVIII. But though I grant them what they require respecting Peter, by\nadmitting that he was the chief of the apostles, and superior in dignity\nto all the others, yet there is no reason why they should convert a\nparticular instance into a universal rule, and make what was done but\nonce a perpetual precedent; for the cases are widely different. There\nwas one chief among the apostles; doubtless because they were few in\nnumber. If there be one president over twelve men, will it therefore\nfollow that there ought to be but one president over a hundred thousand\nmen? That twelve should have one among them to preside over the rest, is\nno wonder. For this is consistent with nature, and the common sense of\nmankind requires, that in every assembly, even though they are all equal\nin power, yet there should be one to act as moderator, by whom the\nothers should be regulated. There is no court, council, parliament, or\nassembly of any description, which has not its president or chairman. So\nthere would be no absurdity, if we acknowledged that the apostles gave\nthis pre\u00ebminence to Peter. But that which obtains among a small company\nis not immediately to be applied to the whole world, to the government\nof which no one man is sufficient. But the whole economy of nature, they\nsay, teaches us, that there ought to be one supreme head over all. And\nin proof of this they adduce the example of cranes and bees, which\nalways choose for themselves one leader, and no more. I admit the\nexamples which they produce; but do bees collect together from all parts\nof the world to choose one king? Each king is content with his own hive.\nSo, among cranes, every flock has its own leader. What will they prove\nfrom this, but that every Church ought to have its own bishop? Next they\ncall us to consider examples from civil governments. They quote an\nobservation from Homer, that it is not good to have many governors, with\nsimilar passages of other profane writers in commendation of monarchy.\nThe answer is easy; for monarchy is not praised by Ulysses in Homer, or\nby any others, from an opinion that one king ought to govern the whole\nworld. Their meaning is, that one kingdom does not admit of two kings,\nand that no prince can bear a partner in his throne.\n\nIX. But supposing it to be, as they contend, good and useful that the\nwhole world should be comprehended in one monarchy, which, however, is a\nmonstrous absurdity; but if this were admitted, I should not, therefore,\ngrant the same system to be applicable to the government of the Church.\nFor the Church has Christ for its sole Head, under whose sovereignty we\nare all united together, according to that order and form of government\nwhich he himself has prescribed. They offer a gross insult to Christ,\ntherefore, when they assign the pre\u00ebminence over the universal Church to\none man, under the pretence that it may not be destitute of a head. For\n\u201cChrist is the head; from whom the whole body, fitly joined together,\nand compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the\neffectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the\nbody.\u201d[882] We see how he places all men, without exception, in the\n_body_, reserving to Christ alone the honour and name of _head_. We see\nhow he assigns to all the members respectively a certain measure, and a\ndeterminate and limited function; so that the perfection of grace, as\nwell as the supreme power of government, resides in Christ alone. I am\naware of their usual cavil in evasion of this argument\u2014that Christ is\nproperly styled the sole Head, because he alone governs by his own\nauthority and in his own name, but that this is no reason why there may\nnot be under him another _ministerial head_, as their phrase is, to act\nas his vicegerent on earth. But they gain nothing by this cavil, except\nthey first prove that this ministry was ordained by Christ. For the\napostle teaches, that all the subordinate ministration is distributed\namong the members, but that the power proceeds from that one heavenly\nHead.[883] Or, if they wish me to speak in plainer terms, since the\nScripture declares Christ to be the Head, and ascribes this honour to\nhim alone, it ought not to be transferred to any other, except to one\nwhom Christ himself has appointed his representative. But such an\nappointment is not only nowhere to be found, but may be abundantly\nrefuted by various passages.\n\nX. Paul gives us a lively description of the church on various\noccasions, but without making any mention of its having one head upon\nearth. On the contrary, from the description which he gives, we may\nrather infer that such a notion is foreign from the institution of\nChrist. Christ, at his ascension, withdrew from us his visible presence;\nnevertheless \u201che ascended that he might fill all things.\u201d[884] He is\nstill, therefore, present, and will always continue present with the\nChurch. With a view to show us the manner in which he manifests himself,\nPaul calls our attention to the offices which he employs. There is \u201cone\nLord,\u201d he says, \u201cin you all. But unto every one of us is given grace\naccording to the measure of the gift of Christ. And he gave some,\napostles; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers.\u201d[885]\nWhy does he not say, that he has appointed one to preside over all as\nhis vicegerent? For his subject absolutely required it, and it ought by\nno means to have been omitted, if it had been true. \u201cChrist,\u201d he says,\n\u201cis present with us.\u201d How? \u201cBy the ministry of men whom he has appointed\nto the government of the Church.\u201d Why not rather, \u201cBy the ministerial\nhead, to whom he has delegated his authority?\u201d He mentions a unity; but\nit is in God, and in the faith of Christ. He attributes nothing to men\nbut a common ministry, and to every individual his particular share. In\nthat commendation of unity, after having said, \u201cThere is one body, one\nSpirit, one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one\nbaptism,\u201d[886] why has he not likewise immediately added, \u201cone supreme\npontiff to preserve the Church in unity?\u201d For if it had been true,\nnothing could have been more proper. Let that passage be duly\nconsidered. There is no doubt that he intends there a representation of\nthe sacred and spiritual government of the Church, which has since\nreceived the name of _hierarchy_. Monarchy among ministers, or the\ngovernment of one over all the rest, he not only does not mention, but\nindicates that there is no such thing. There is no doubt also that he\nmeant to express the nature of the union, by which the faithful are\nconnected with Christ their Head. Now, he not only makes no mention of\nany ministerial head, but attributes to every one of the members a\nparticular operation, according to the measure of grace distributed to\neach. Nor is there any foundation for their far-fetched argument from a\ncomparison of the heavenly and earthly hierarchy; for, in judging of the\nformer, it is not safe to go beyond the discoveries of the Scripture,\nand in constituting the latter, it is not right to follow any other\nmodel than that which the Lord himself has delineated in his word.\n\nXI. Now, though I should make them another concession, which they will\nnever obtain from judicious persons, that the primacy of the Church was\nestablished in Peter, and to be continued by a perpetual succession, how\nwill they prove that its seat was fixed at Rome, so that whoever is\nbishop of that city must preside over the whole world? By what right do\nthey restrict to one place this dignity, which was conferred without the\nmention of any place? Peter, they say, lived and died at Rome. What\nshall we say of Christ himself? Was it not at Jerusalem that he\nexercised the office of a bishop while he lived, and fulfilled the\npriestly office by his death? The Prince of pastors, the supreme Bishop,\nthe Head of the Church, could not obtain this honour for the place where\nhe lived and died; how then could Peter, who was far inferior to him?\nAre not these follies worse than puerile? Christ gave the honour of\nprimacy to Peter; Peter settled at Rome; therefore he fixed the seat of\nthe primacy in that city. For the same reason the ancient Israelites\nought to have fixed the seat of their primacy in the desert, because it\nwas there that Moses, their chief teacher, and the prince of their\nprophets, exercised his ministry, and died.\n\nXII. Let us see how wretchedly they reason. Peter, they say, had the\npre\u00ebminence among the apostles. Therefore, the Church in which he\nsettled ought to have this privilege. But where was he first stationed?\nThey reply, at Antioch. Then I infer that the Church of Antioch is\njustly entitled to the primacy. They confess that it was originally the\nfirst, but allege that Peter, on his removal from it, transferred the\nhonour which was attached to him to Rome. For there is an epistle of\nPope Marcellus to the presbyters of Antioch, in which he says, \u201cThe see\nof Peter was at first among you, but at the command of the Lord was\nafterwards removed to this city.\u201d So the Church of Antioch, which was\noriginally the first, has given place to the see of Rome. But I ask, By\nwhat oracle did that wise pope know that the Lord had commanded this?\nFor if this cause is to be decided on the footing of right, it is\nnecessary for them to answer, whether this privilege be personal, or\nreal, or mixed. It must be one of these. If they affirm it to be\npersonal, then it has nothing to do with the place. If they allege it to\nbe real, then when it has once been given to a place, it cannot be taken\naway from it by the death or removal of the person. It remains,\ntherefore, for them to declare it to be mixed; and then it will not be\nsufficiently simple to consider the place, unless there be an agreement\nalso with respect to the person. Let them choose which they will, I\nshall immediately conclude, and will easily prove, that the assumption\nof the primacy by the see of Rome is without any foundation.\n\nXIII. Let us suppose the case, however, that the primacy was, as they\npretend, transferred from Antioch to Rome. Why did not Antioch retain\nthe second place? For, if Rome has the pre\u00ebminence of all other sees,\nbecause Peter presided there till the close of his life, to what city\nshall the second place be assigned, but to that which was his first see?\nHow came Alexandria, then, to have the precedence of Antioch? Is it\nreasonable that the Church of a mere disciple should be superior to the\nsee of Peter? If honour be due to every Church according to the dignity\nof its founder, what shall we say of the other Churches? Paul mentions\nthree apostles, \u201cwho seemed to be pillars, James, Peter, and John.\u201d[887]\nIf the first place be given to the see of Rome, in honour of Peter, are\nnot the second and third places due to Ephesus and Jerusalem, the sees\nof John and James? But among the patriarchates, Jerusalem had the last\nplace; Ephesus could not be allowed even the farthest corner. Other\nChurches also, as well those which were founded by Paul, as those over\nwhich the other apostles presided, were left without any distinction.\nThe see of Mark, who was only one of the disciples, obtained the honour.\nEither let them confess that this was a preposterous arrangement, or let\nthem concede to us, that it is not a perpetual rule, that every Church\nshould be entitled to the degree of honour which was enjoyed by its\nfounder.\n\nXIV. All that they say of the settlement of Peter in the Church of Rome\nappears to me of very questionable authority. The statement of Eusebius,\nthat he presided there twenty-five years, may be refuted without any\ndifficulty. For it appears, from the first and second chapter to the\nGalatians, that about twenty years after the death of Christ, he was at\nJerusalem, and that from thence he went to Antioch, where he remained\nfor some time, but it is not certain how long. Gregory says seven years,\nand Eusebius twenty-five. But from the death of Christ to the end of the\nreign of Nero, under whom they affirm Peter to have been slain, there\nwere only thirty-seven years. For our Lord suffered in the eighteenth\nyear of the reign of Tiberius. If we deduct twenty years, during which,\naccording to the testimony of Paul, Peter dwelt at Jerusalem, there will\nremain only seventeen years, which must now be divided between those two\nbishoprics. If he continued long at Antioch, he could not have resided\nat Rome, except for a very short time. This point is susceptible of\nstill clearer proof. Paul wrote his Epistle to the Romans on a journey\nwhen he was going to Jerusalem,[888] where he was seized, and from\nwhence he was sent to Rome. It is probable, therefore, that this Epistle\nwas written four years before his arrival at Rome. Yet it contains no\nmention of Peter; which ought on no account to have been omitted, if he\nhad presided over that Church. And in the conclusion, where he recites a\nlong catalogue of pious persons to whom he sends his salutations, where,\nin short, he enumerates all that were known to him, he still says not a\nword of Peter.[889] It is unnecessary to use any long or laboured\narguments with persons of sound judgment; for the case itself, and the\nwhole argument of the Epistle proclaims, that if Peter had been at Rome,\nhe ought not to have been omitted.\n\nXV. Paul was afterwards brought as a prisoner to Rome. Luke says that he\nwas received by the brethren, but says nothing of Peter.[890] From that\ncity Paul wrote to several Churches. In some of these epistles he\nintroduces salutations, in the names of certain brethren who were with\nhim; but they contain not a single word implying that Peter was there at\nthat time. Who will think it credible that, if he had been there, Paul\ncould have passed him over in total silence? Moreover, in his Epistle to\nthe Philippians, after having said that he had no one who discovered\nsuch sincere concern respecting the work of the Lord as Timothy, he\ncomplains that \u201call seek their own.\u201d[891] And to Timothy himself he\nmakes yet a heavier complaint: \u201cAt my first answer no man stood with me,\nbut all men forsook me.\u201d[892] Where was Peter then? For if they say that\nhe was at Rome, how deep is the ignominy which Paul fixes upon him, that\nhe was a deserter of the gospel? For he is speaking of the faithful,\nbecause he adds his prayer, \u201cthat it may not be laid to their charge.\u201d\nHow long, then, and at what time, did Peter hold that see? It will be\nsaid, it is the uniform opinion of ancient writers, that he governed\nthat Church till his death. But those writers themselves are not agreed\nwho was his successor. Some say it was Linus; and others, Clement. They\nlikewise relate many absurd and fabulous stories respecting the\ndisputation held between him and Simon Magus. And Augustine, when\ntreating of superstitions, acknowledges that the custom, which obtained\nat Rome, of not fasting on the day on which Peter gained the victory\nover Simon Magus, arose from an opinion entertained without any\nsufficient authority. In the last place, the transactions of that age\nare so perplexed by a variety of representations, that we must not give\nimplicit credit to every thing that is recorded. Yet, in consequence of\nthis agreement of the ancient writers, I will not dispute his having\ndied at Rome; but that he was bishop there, and especially for any\nconsiderable time, is what I cannot be persuaded to believe. Nor am I\nanxious respecting this point, because Paul testifies that the\napostleship of Peter particularly belonged to the Jews, and that his own\nwas directed to us. To add our confirmation, therefore, to the compact\nwhich they established between themselves, or rather to admit the\nvalidity of the ordinance of the Holy Spirit, it becomes us rather to\nlook up to the apostleship of Paul than to that of Peter. For their\ndifferent provinces were allotted to them by the Holy Spirit, who sent\nPeter to the Jews, and Paul to us. The Romanists, therefore, may seek\nfor their primacy elsewhere, but not in the word of God, which affords\nnot the least foundation for it.\n\nXVI. Let us now proceed to show, that our adversaries have no more\nreason for boasting of the authority of the ancient Church than of the\ntestimony of the word of God. For when they bring forward this\nprinciple, that the unity of the Church cannot be preserved, unless it\nhave one supreme head upon earth, to whom all the members should be\nsubject, and that, therefore, the Lord gave the primacy to Peter, and\nafterwards by right of succession, to the see of Rome, that it might\nremain there to the end of time,\u2014they also assert that this has been the\nusage from the beginning. Now, as they grossly pervert various\ntestimonies, I would first make this preliminary remark. I do not deny\nthat the ancient writers uniformly give great honour to the Roman\nChurch, and speak of it in respectful terms. This I consider as arising\nprincipally from three causes. In the first place, that opinion which, I\nknow not how, had been received, that it had been founded and settled by\nthe ministry of Peter, operated very powerfully to gain it credit and\nauthority, and, therefore, among the Western churches it was called _the\nApostolic See_. In the second place, because it was the capital of the\nempire; and on this account it is probable that it contained men\nsuperior in learning and prudence, skill and experience, to those of any\nother place; due regard was paid to this circumstance, that the glory of\nthe city and other far more excellent gifts of God might not appear to\nbe undervalued. In the third place, while the Eastern and Greek\nChurches, and even those in Africa, were agitated by numerous\ndissensions of opinion among themselves, the Church of Rome was more\npeaceable and less disturbed. Hence it happened, that pious and holy\nbishops, on being expelled from their sees, frequently resorted thither,\nas to an asylum or port of safety. For as the people of Europe have less\nsubtlety and activity of mind than the inhabitants of Asia and Africa,\nso they are not so volatile or desirous of novelty. It considerably\nincreased the authority of the Church of Rome, therefore, that in those\nuncertain times it was not so much agitated as the other Churches, and\nwas more tenacious of the doctrine which it had once received than all\nthe rest, as we shall presently show more at large. On account of these\nthree causes, I say, it was held in more than common respect, and\nreceived many honourable testimonies from ancient writers.\n\nXVII. But when our adversaries wish to make this a reason for ascribing\nto that Church the primacy and sovereign power over other Churches, they\nrun, as I have already observed, into a gross error. To make this the\nmore evident, I will first briefly show what the ancient writers thought\nrespecting this unity, on which our opponents so urgently insist.\nJerome, writing to Nepotian, after having enumerated many examples of\nunity, at length descends to the hierarchy of the Church. \u201cEvery\nChurch,\u201d he says, \u201chas its distinct bishop, archpresbyter, and\narchdeacon, and all the order of the Church depends upon its governors.\u201d\nThis is the language of a Roman priest, recommending unity in the order\nof the Church. Why does he not mention that all Churches are connected\ntogether under one head, as by a common bond? Nothing would have been\nmore in favour of his argument; nor can it be pretended that he omitted\nit for want of recollection; he would most readily have mentioned it, if\nthe fact had permitted him. It is beyond all doubt, therefore, that he\nsaw this to be the true kind of unity, which is most excellently\ndescribed by Cyprian in the following passage: \u201cThere is only one\nbishopric, of which every bishop holds an integral part; and there is\nbut one Church, which is widely extended into a multitude by the\noffspring of its fertility. As the sun has many rays, but only one\nlight; as a tree has many branches, but only one trunk, fixed on a firm\nroot; and as many rivers issue from one spring, and notwithstanding the\nnumber of the streams in which its overflowing abundance is diffused,\nyet the unity of the source remains the same;\u2014so also the Church,\nilluminated with the light of the Lord, extends its rays over the whole\nearth, yet it is one and the same light which is universally diffused,\nnor is the unity of the body destroyed. It stretches its branches, it\npours out its ample streams, all over the world; yet there is but one\nroot, and one source.\u201d Again: \u201cThe spouse of Christ cannot be corrupted;\nshe acknowledges one Master, and preserves her fidelity to him\ninviolate.\u201d We see how he attributes the universal bishopric, which\ncomprehends the whole Church, to Christ alone, and says that integral\nportions of it are confided to all those who discharge the episcopal\noffice under this head. Where is the primacy of the see of Rome, if the\nuniversal bishopric be vested in Christ alone, and every bishop hold an\nintegral portion of it? My object, in these quotations, has been, to\nconvince the reader, by the way, that this principle, which the\nRomanists assume as an admitted and indubitable maxim, namely, that the\nunity of the Church requires the supremacy of some earthly head, was\naltogether unknown to the ancients.\n\nFootnote 862:\n\n  Matt. xvi. 18.\n\nFootnote 863:\n\n  John xxi. 16.\n\nFootnote 864:\n\n  1 Peter v. 2.\n\nFootnote 865:\n\n  John xx. 23.\n\nFootnote 866:\n\n  2 Cor. v. 18.\n\nFootnote 867:\n\n  2 Cor. x. 6.\n\nFootnote 868:\n\n  Matt. xvi. 19.\n\nFootnote 869:\n\n  Matt. xviii. 18. John xx. 23.\n\nFootnote 870:\n\n  Matt. xvi. 18.\n\nFootnote 871:\n\n  Eph. ii. 21, 22.\n\nFootnote 872:\n\n  1 Peter ii. 4, 5.\n\nFootnote 873:\n\n  John i. 40-42.\n\nFootnote 874:\n\n  Matt. xvi. 18.\n\nFootnote 875:\n\n  Matt. xvi. 16.\n\nFootnote 876:\n\n  1 Cor. iii. 11.\n\nFootnote 877:\n\n  Acts xv. 6-29.\n\nFootnote 878:\n\n  1 Peter v. 1.\n\nFootnote 879:\n\n  Acts xi. 2, &c.\n\nFootnote 880:\n\n  Acts viii. 14, 15.\n\nFootnote 881:\n\n  Gal. i. 2.\n\nFootnote 882:\n\n  Eph. iv. 15, 16.\n\nFootnote 883:\n\n  Eph. i. 22; iv. 15; v. 23. Col. i. 18; ii. 10.\n\nFootnote 884:\n\n  Eph. iv. 10.\n\nFootnote 885:\n\n  Eph. iv. 5-7, 11.\n\nFootnote 886:\n\n  Eph. iv. 4, 5.\n\nFootnote 887:\n\n  Gal. ii. 9.\n\nFootnote 888:\n\n  Rom. xv. 25.\n\nFootnote 889:\n\n  Rom. xvi.\n\nFootnote 890:\n\n  Acts xxviii. 15.\n\nFootnote 891:\n\n  Phil. ii. 20, 21.\n\nFootnote 892:\n\n  2 Tim. iv. 16.\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER VII.\n   THE RISE AND PROGRESS OF THE PAPAL POWER TO ITS PRESENT EMINENCE,\n  ATTENDED WITH THE LOSS OF LIBERTY TO THE CHURCH, AND THE RUIN OF ALL\n                              MODERATION.\n\n\nIn support of the antiquity of the primacy of the see of Rome, there is\nnothing to be found anterior to the decree of the Council of Nice, by\nwhich the bishop of Rome is allotted the first place among the\npatriarchs, and is directed to superintend the neighbouring Churches.\nWhen the council makes a distinction between him and the other\npatriarchs, so as to assign to all their respective limits, it clearly\ndoes not constitute him the head of them all, but only makes him one of\nthe principal. Vitus and Vincentius attended the council on the behalf\nof Julius, who at that time presided over the Church of Rome. They were\nseated in the fourth place. If Julius had been acknowledged as the head\nof the Church, would his representatives have been degraded to the\nfourth seat? Would Athanasius have presided in a general council, where\nthe form of the hierarchical system ought most particularly to have been\nobserved? In the council of Ephesus, it appears that Celestine, who was\nthen bishop of Rome, made use of a disingenuous artifice to secure the\ndignity of his see. For when he sent his legates thither, he requested\nCyril, patriarch of Alexandria, who was otherwise to preside, to act on\nhis behalf. For what purpose could this request be made, but that his\nname might, at any rate, occupy the first place? For his legates sat in\na lower station, were asked their sentiments among others, and\nsubscribed in their order; at the same time the patriarch of Alexandria\nunited Celestine\u2019s name with his own. What shall I say of the second\nCouncil of Ephesus, where, though the legates of Leo were present, yet\nDioscorus, patriarch of Alexandria, presided as in his own right? They\nwill object, that this was not an orthodox council, because it condemned\nFlavianus, a holy man, bishop of Constantinople, and acquitted Eutyches,\nand sanctioned his heresy. But when the council was assembled, and the\nbishops took their respective seats, it is certain that the legates of\nthe Roman Church were present among the others, as in a holy and\nlegitimate council. Yet they contended not for the first place, but\nyielded it to another, which they would not have done if they had\nconsidered it as belonging to them. For the bishops of Rome have never\nbeen ashamed of raising the greatest contentions for their dignity, and\nthey have not hesitated, on this account alone, to harass and agitate\nthe Church with various and pernicious controversies. But because Leo\nsaw that it would be too presumptuous a demand to require the first\nplace for his legates, therefore he waived it.\n\nII. Next follows the Council of Chalcedon, in which, by the permission\nof the emperor, the legates of the Roman Church occupied the first\nplace. But Leo himself confessed that this was an extraordinary\nprivilege. For when he requested it from Marcian the emperor, and\nPulcheria the empress, he did not pretend it to be his right, but only\nalleged, in support of his claim, that the Eastern bishops who presided\nin the Council of Ephesus had thrown every thing into confusion, and\nabused their power. Since it was necessary, therefore, to have a\ndiscreet moderator, and it was improbable that those who had once been\nso unsteady and disorderly would be fit for the office, he requested\nthat, on account of the misconduct and incompetence of the others, the\ntask of presiding should be transferred to him. That which is sought as\na special privilege and an exception to a common custom, certainly does\nnot arise from a general rule. Where the only pretext is, that it was\nnecessary to have a new president, because the former ones had violated\ntheir duty, it is evident that this had not been the case before, and it\nought not to be perpetual, but was merely done in the contemplation of\npresent danger. The bishop of Rome, therefore, had the first place in\nthe Council of Chalcedon, not because it was the right of his see, but\nbecause the council was in want of a discreet and suitable president, in\nconsequence of those to whom that honour belonged having excluded\nthemselves from it by their own intemperance and violence. And what I\nsay was proved, in fact, by Leo\u2019s successor. For when he sent his\nlegates to the fifth Council of Constantinople, which was held a\nconsiderable time after, he contended not for the first seat, but\nwithout any difficulty suffered it to be taken by Menna, patriarch of\nConstantinople. So in the Council of Carthage, at which Augustine was\npresent, the place of president was filled by Aurelius, archbishop of\nthat city, and not by the legates of the Roman see, though the express\nobject of their attendance was to support the authority of the Roman\npontiff. And, moreover, there was a general council held in Italy, at\nwhich the bishop of Rome was not present. This was the Council of\nAquileia, at which Ambrose presided, who was then in high credit with\nthe emperor. There was no mention made of the bishop of Rome. We see,\ntherefore, that the dignity of Ambrose caused the see of Milan at that\ntime to have the precedence above that of Rome.\n\nIII. With respect to the title of primacy, and other titles of pride, of\nwhich the pope now strangely boasts, it is not difficult to judge when\nand in what manner they were introduced. Cyprian, bishop of Carthage,\nmakes frequent mention of Cornelius, who was bishop of Rome. He\ndistinguishes him by no other appellation than that of _brother_, or\n_fellow bishop_, or _colleague_. But when he writes to Stephen, the\nsuccessor of Cornelius, he not only treats him as equal to himself and\nothers, but even addresses him with considerable severity, charging him\nat one time with arrogance, and at another with ignorance. Since the\ntime of Cyprian, we know what was the decision of the whole African\nChurch on this subject. For the Council of Carthage prohibited that any\none should be called \u201cthe prince of priests,\u201d or \u201cthe first bishop,\u201d but\nonly \u201cthe bishop of the first see.\u201d But any one who examines the more\nancient records, will find that at that time the bishop of Rome was\ncontent with the common appellation of _brother_. It is certain that as\nlong as the Church retained its true and uncorrupted form, all those\nnames of pride, which in succeeding times have been insolently usurped\nby the Roman see, were altogether unknown: nothing was heard of a\nsupreme pontiff or a sole head of the Church upon earth. And if the\nbishop of Rome had been presumptuous enough to make any such assumption,\nthere were judicious men who would immediately have repressed his folly.\nJerome, being a Roman presbyter, was not reluctant to assert the dignity\nof his Church as far as matter of fact and the state of the times\nadmitted; yet we see how he also reduces it to an equality with others.\n\u201cIf it be a question of authority,\u201d he says, \u201cthe world is greater than\na city. Why do you allege to me the custom of a single city? Why do you\nset up a few instances, which have given rise to pride, against the laws\nof the Church? Wherever there is a bishop, whether at Rome, at Eugubium,\nat Constantinople, or at Rhegium, he is of the same dignity and of the\nsame priesthood. The power of riches, or the abasement of poverty, makes\nno bishop superior or inferior to another.\u201d\n\nIV. Respecting the title of _universal bishop_, the first contention\narose in the time of Gregory, and was occasioned by the ambition of\nJohn, bishop of Constantinople. For he wanted to make himself universal\nbishop\u2014an attempt which had never been made by any one before. In that\ncontroversy Gregory does not plead against this as the assumption of a\nright which belonged to himself, but resolutely protests against it\naltogether, as a profane and sacrilegious application, and even as the\nforerunner of Antichrist. He says, \u201cIf he who is called _universal_\nfalls, the foundation of the whole Church sinks at once.\u201d In another\nplace: \u201cIt is a most melancholy thing to hear with any patience, that\nour brother and companion in the episcopal office should look down with\ncontempt on all others, and be called _sole bishop_. But what does this\npride of his indicate, but that the times of Antichrist are already at\nhand? For indeed he imitates him, who, despising the society of angels,\nendeavoured to usurp supreme power to himself.\u201d In another place,\nwriting to Eulogius, bishop of Alexandria, and Anastasius, bishop of\nAntioch, he says, \u201cNone of my predecessors would ever use this profane\nword. For if one patriarch be called _universal_, the name of patriarch\nis taken away from all the rest. But far be it from any Christian heart\nto wish to arrogate to himself any thing that would in the least degree\ndiminish the honour of his brethren. To consent to that execrable term\nis no other than to destroy the faith. Our obligation to preserve the\nunity of the faith is one thing, and to repress the haughtiness of pride\nis another. But I confidently assert, that whoever calls himself\n_universal bishop_, or desires to be so called, in such aggrandizement\nis the precursor of Antichrist, because he proudly sets up himself above\nall others.\u201d Again, to Anastasius, bishop of Antioch: \u201cI have said that\nthe bishop of Constantinople can have no peace with us, unless he would\ncorrect the haughtiness of that superstitious and proud title which has\nbeen invented by the first apostate; and to say nothing of the injury\ndone to your dignity, if one bishop be called _universal_, when he\nfalls, the whole Church sinks at once.\u201d But his assertion that this\nhonour was offered to Leo in the Council of Chalcedon has not the least\nappearance of truth. For there is not a word of this in the acts of that\ncouncil. And Leo himself, who in many of his epistles censures the\ndecree passed there in favour of the see of Constantinople, would\ncertainly not have passed over this argument, which would have been the\nmost plausible of all, if that honour had really been offered to him,\nand he had refused it; and, having otherwise an immoderate thirst for\nhonour, he would not readily have omitted a circumstance so much to his\npraise. Gregory was mistaken, therefore, in supposing that title to have\nbeen given to the see of Rome by the Council of Chalcedon. I forbear to\nremark how ridiculous it is for him to assert that the holy council\nconferred such a title, which he at the same time declares was profane,\nexecrable, abominable, proud, and sacrilegious, and even invented by the\ndevil, and published by the herald of Antichrist. And yet he adds that\nhis predecessor refused it, lest, by the dignity given to one\nindividual, all other bishops should be deprived of the honour due to\nthem. In another place he says, \u201cNo one has ever wished to be called by\nsuch a name; no one has arrogated to himself this presumptuous title;\nlest, by assuming to himself the exclusive dignity of supreme bishop, he\nmight seem to deny the episcopal honour to all his brethren.\u201d\n\nV. I come now to the jurisdiction which the Roman pontiff asserts that\nhe indisputably holds over all churches. I know what violent contentions\nthere were in ancient times on this subject. For there has never been a\nperiod when the Roman see did not aspire to some authority over other\nChurches. And it will not be unsuitable to the present occasion to\ninvestigate the means by which it gradually rose to some power. I am not\nyet speaking of that unbounded empire which it has more recently\nusurped; that I shall defer to its proper place. But here it will be\nnecessary to point out in a few words in what manner and by what methods\nit formerly exalted itself, so as to assume any jurisdiction over other\nChurches. When the Eastern Churches were disturbed and divided by the\nfactions of the Arians, in the reign of Constantius and Constans, sons\nof Constantine the Great, and Athanasius, the principal defender of the\northodox faith, was driven from his see, that calamity constrained him\nto go to Rome, in order that, by the authority of the Roman see, he\nmight in some degree repress the rage of his enemies, and confirm the\nfaithful, who were in extreme distress. He was honourably received by\nJulius, then bishop of Rome, and prevailed on the bishops of the West to\nundertake the defence of his cause. Thus the pious in the Eastern\nChurches, finding themselves in great want of foreign aid, and seeing\nthat their principal succour was to be obtained from the Church of Rome,\nreadily ascribed to it all the authority that they possibly could. But\nall this amounted to nothing more than that communion with it was held\nin high estimation, and it was accounted ignominious to be\nexcommunicated from it. This dignity was afterwards considerably\naugmented by men of wicked and abandoned lives; for to escape the\npunishments which they deserved, they resorted thither as to a common\nasylum. Therefore, if a priest was condemned by his bishop, or a bishop\nby the synod of his province, they immediately appealed to Rome. And the\nbishops of Rome received such appeals with culpable eagerness,\nconsidering it as a kind of extraordinary power to interfere in the\nconcerns of distant Churches. Thus when Eutyches was condemned by\nFlavianus, patriarch of Constantinople, he complained to Leo that he had\nbeen treated with injustice. Leo, without any delay, but with equal\ntemerity and expedition, undertook the patronage of a bad cause, issued\nbitter invectives against Flavianus, as if he had condemned an innocent\nman without hearing his defence, and by this ambitious conduct he for\nsome time afforded considerable support to the impiety of Eutyches. It\nappears that similar circumstances frequently happened in Africa. For as\nsoon as any wicked man was convicted before the ordinary tribunal, he\nflew to Rome, and brought various false accusations against his\nsuperiors; and the see of Rome was always ready to interpose. This\npresumption constrained the African bishops to pass a decree that no one\nshould appeal beyond the sea on pain of excommunication.\n\nVI. But however this might be, let us examine what jurisdiction or power\nthe Roman see then possessed. Now, ecclesiastical power consists in\nthese four things\u2014the ordination of bishops, the calling of councils,\nthe hearing of appeals, or jurisdiction, and corrective admonitions, or\ncensures. All the ancient councils command bishops to be ordained by\ntheir own metropolitans; and they never direct the bishop of Rome to be\ncalled to this office except in his own province. By degrees, however, a\ncustom was introduced for all the bishops of Italy to go to Rome to be\nconsecrated, except the metropolitans, who did not suffer themselves to\nbe subjected to this bondage. But when any metropolitan was to be\nordained, the bishop of Rome sent one of his priests to assist at the\nceremony, but not to preside. There is an example of this in an epistle\nof Gregory, respecting the consecration of Constantius, archbishop of\nMilan, after the death of Laurentius. I do not suppose, however, that\nthis was a very ancient practice. It is probable that at first they sent\nlegates to each other, from a principle of respect and affection, to\nwitness the ordination, and testify their mutual communion; and that\nwhat was originally voluntary, was afterwards considered as necessary.\nHowever this may be, it is evident that in ancient times the bishop of\nRome did not possess the power of consecrating bishops, except in his\nown province, that is, in the Churches dependent upon his see; as is\ndeclared by one of the canons of the Council of Nice. Consecration was\nfollowed by the sending of a synodical epistle; and in this the bishop\nof Rome had no superiority over others. It was the custom of the\npatriarchs, immediately after their consecration, to make a solemn\ndeclaration of their faith in a written communication to their brethren,\nprofessing their adherence to the doctrine of the holy and orthodox\ncouncils. Thus, by making a confession of their faith, they mutually\napproved themselves to each other. If the bishop of Rome had received\nsuch a confession from others, and not given it to other bishops in his\nturn, this would have been an instance of acknowledged superiority; but,\nas he was under the same obligation to give it as to require it, and was\nsubject to the common law, it was certainly a token of equality, and not\nof dominion. We have examples of this in the epistles of Gregory to\nAnastasius and Cyriacus of Constantinople, and to all the patriarchs\ntogether.\n\nVII. Next follow admonitions or censures, which, as the bishops of Rome\nformerly employed them towards others, they also received from others in\ntheir turn. Iren\u00e6us, bishop of Lyons, sharply reproved Victor, bishop of\nRome, for having raised a pernicious dissension in the Church on\nsubjects of no importance. Victor submitted to the reproof without any\nopposition. It was a liberty at that time commonly used by the holy\nbishops to exercise the privilege of brethren towards the bishop of\nRome, by admonishing and reproving him whenever he committed any fault.\nHe, in like manner, when occasion required, admonished others of their\nduty, and reproved them for their faults. For Cyprian, when he exhorts\nStephen, bishop of Rome, to admonish the bishops of France, argues not\nfrom any superior authority, but from the common rights which priests\nenjoy among each other. If Stephen had then possessed any authority over\nFrance, would not Cyprian have said, You should chastise them, because\nthey are subject to you? But he expresses himself in a very different\nmanner. \u201cThis fraternal union,\u201d says he, \u201cby which we are connected\ntogether, requires us to administer to each other mutual admonition.\u201d\nAnd we see with what severity of language, though otherwise a man of a\nmild disposition, he censures even Stephen himself, when he considered\nhim assuming too much consequence. In this respect, also, there is yet\nno appearance of the bishop of Rome having been invested with any\njurisdiction over those who were not of his province.\n\nVIII. With respect to the calling of councils, it was the duty of every\nmetropolitan, at stated seasons, to summon a provincial synod. There the\nbishop of Rome had no authority. But a universal council could only be\ncalled by the emperor. For if any one of the bishops had attempted this,\nnot only he would not have been obeyed by those who were out of his\nprovince, but such an attempt would have led to immediate confusion.\nTherefore the emperor sent a summons to attend to all of them alike.\nSocrates, indeed, in his Ecclesiastical History, states that Julius,\nbishop of Rome, expostulated with the Eastern bishops, for not having\ninvited him to the Council of Antioch; whereas the canons had forbidden\nthat any thing should be decreed without the knowledge of the bishop of\nRome. But who does not see that this is to be understood of those\ndecrees which bind the universal Church? Now, it is no wonder if there\nwas so much respect paid to the antiquity and eminence of the city, and\nto the dignity of the see, as to determine that no general decree\nrespecting religion should be passed in the absence of the bishop of\nRome, unless he refused to be present. But what is this towards dominion\nover the whole Church? For we do not deny that the bishop of Rome was\none of the principal, but we will not admit, what the Romanists now\ncontend, that he had the authority over all.\n\nIX. There remains the fourth kind of ecclesiastical power, which\nconsists in appeals. It is evident that he possesses supreme authority,\nto whose tribunal appeals are made. Many often appealed to the bishop of\nRome; and he also attempted to assume the cognizance of causes; but he\nalways became an object of derision whenever he exceeded his proper\nlimits. I shall say nothing of the East, or of Greece; but it appears\nthat the bishops of France strenuously resisted him, when he discovered\nan inclination to usurp authority over them. In Africa, this subject\noccasioned a long controversy. For when the Council of Milevum, at which\nAugustine was present, had denounced excommunication against all who\nshould appeal beyond the sea, the bishop of Rome endeavoured to get this\ndecree rescinded. He sent legates to state that this privilege had been\ngiven to him by the Council of Nice. The legates produced certain acts\nwhich they alleged to be the acts of the Council of Nice, and which they\nhad brought from the archives of their Church. They were resisted by the\nAfricans, who denied that the bishop of Rome ought to be credited in his\nown cause. They therefore determined to send to Constantinople, and\nother cities of Greece, to obtain copies liable to less suspicion. It\nwas found that these copies contained no such passages as the Roman\nlegates had pretended. So the decree was confirmed, which had taken the\nsupreme cognizance of appeals from the bishop of Rome. This transaction\ndiscovered the scandalous impudence of the Roman pontiff. For when he\nhad fraudulently substituted the council of Sardis for that of Nice, he\nwas disgracefully detected in a manifest falsehood. But still greater\nwickedness and effrontery were betrayed by those who added to the acts\nof the council a forged epistle, in which a bishop of Carthage condemns\nthe arrogance of his predecessor, Aurelius, for having dared to withdraw\nhimself from obedience to the apostolic see, presents the submission of\nhimself and his Church, and humbly supplicates for pardon. These are the\nglorious monuments of antiquity upon which the majesty of the Roman see\nis founded; while, under the pretext of antiquity, they advance such\npuerile falsehoods, as require not the least penetration to detect.\n\u201cAurelius,\u201d says this famous epistle, \u201celated with diabolical audacity\nand obstinacy, was a rebel against Christ and St. Peter, and therefore\ndeserved to be anathematized.\u201d But what said Augustine? What said all\nthe fathers who were present at the Council of Milevum? But what\nnecessity is there for spending many words to refute that stupid\nfabrication, which even the Romanists themselves, if they have any\nmodesty left, cannot look at without being exceedingly ashamed? So\nGratian, the compiler of the decretal,\u2014whether from wickedness or\nignorance I know not,\u2014after having recited that canon, that those who\nappealed beyond the sea should be excommunicated, adds this exception,\nunless they appeal to the see of Rome. What can be done with such men,\nwho are so destitute of common sense as to make that one case an\nexception to a law, to guard against which every one sees that the law\nwas made? For the council, in condemning appeals beyond the sea, only\nprohibited any one from appealing to Rome; and this admirable expositor\nexcepts Rome from the general prohibition!\n\nX. But to put an end at once to this question, a single transaction,\nrelated by Augustine, will be sufficient to show what kind of\njurisdiction was anciently possessed by the bishop of Rome. Donatus,\nbishop of Cas\u00e6 Nigr\u00e6, had accused C\u00e6cilianus, bishop of Carthage. The\naccused was condemned without a hearing; for, knowing that the bishops\nhad conspired against him, he would not appear. The matter was then\nbrought before the Emperor Constantine. With a view to have the cause\ndecided by an ecclesiastical judgment, he referred the cognizance of it\nto Melchiades, bishop of Rome, with whom he associated some other\nbishops from Italy, France, and Spain. If it was part of the ordinary\njurisdiction of the see of Rome to hear an appeal in an ecclesiastical\ncause, why did Melchiades suffer any colleagues to be appointed with him\nat the pleasure of the Emperor? and, moreover, why did he himself\nundertake the business rather at the command of the Emperor than from\nhis own authority? But let us hear what took place afterwards.\nC\u00e6cilianus was victorious. Donatus of Cas\u00e6 Nigr\u00e6 was convicted of\ncalumny. He appealed. Constantine referred the appeal to the bishop of\nArles. He sat in judgment on the decision of the bishop of Rome. If the\nRoman see possessed the supreme jurisdiction, subject to no appeal, how\ndid Melchiades submit to such an insult, as for the bishop of Arles to\nbe preferred before him? And who was the Emperor that did this? It was\nConstantine the Great, of whom they boast that he not only devoted all\nhis attention, but employed almost all the power of his empire, to exalt\nthe dignity of their see. We see, then, how very far the bishop of Rome\nwas at that time from that supreme dominion which he pretends to have\nbeen given him by Christ over all Churches, and which he falsely boasts\nof having exercised in all ages with the consent of the whole world.\n\nXI. I know what numerous epistles, and rescripts, and edicts, there are,\nin which the pontiffs have confidently advanced the most extravagant\nclaims respecting this power. But it is also known to every person,\npossessed of the least sense or learning, that most things contained in\nthem are so extremely absurd, that it is easy to discover at the first\nglance from what source they have proceeded. For what man of sound\njudgment, and in his sober senses, can suppose that Anacletus was the\nauthor of that curious interpretation, which Gratian quotes under his\nname\u2014that Cephas means a head? There are many such fooleries collected\ntogether by Gratian without any judgment, which the Romanists in the\npresent day employ against us in defence of their see; and such phantoms\nwith which they used to delude the ignorant in the darkest times, they\nstill persist in bringing forward amidst all the light of the present\nage. But I have no intention to devote much labour to the refutation of\nsuch things, which manifestly refute themselves by their extreme\nabsurdity. I confess that there are also genuine epistles of the ancient\npontiffs, in which they extol the majesty of their see by the most\nmagnificent titles. Such are some epistles of Leo; who, though he was a\nman of learning and eloquence, had likewise an immoderate thirst for\nglory and dominion; but whether the Churches at that time gave credit to\nhis testimony when he thus exalted himself, is a subject of inquiry.\nNow, it appears that many were offended at his ambition, and resisted\nhis claims. In one epistle he deputes the bishop of Thessalonica to act\nas his representative in Greece and other adjacent countries; in another\nhe delegates the bishop of Arles, or some other bishop, to be his vicar\nin France. So he appoints Hormisdas, bishop of Seville, his vicar in\nSpain. But in all cases he mentions, by way of exception, that he makes\nsuch appointments on condition that they shall in no respect infringe\nthe ancient privileges of the metropolitans. But Leo himself declares\nthis to be one of their privileges, that if any difficulty should arise,\nthe metropolitan was to be consulted in the first place. These\ndelegations, therefore, were accompanied with this condition\u2014that there\nwas to be no interference with any bishop in his ordinary jurisdiction,\nwith any metropolitan in hearing appeals, or with any provincial synod\nin the regulation of the Churches. Now, what was this but to abstain\nfrom all jurisdiction, and only to interpose for the settlement of\ndisputes, as far as was consistent with the law and nature of\necclesiastical communion?\n\nXII. In the time of Gregory, this ancient custom had already undergone a\nconsiderable change. For when the empire was convulsed and torn asunder,\nwhen France and Spain were afflicted with repeated and numerous wars and\ndistresses, Illyricum laid waste, Italy harassed, and Africa almost\nruined with incessant calamities,\u2014in order to preserve the unity of the\nfaith amidst such a violent convulsion of civil affairs, or at least to\nprevent its total destruction, all the bishops round about connected\nthemselves more closely with the bishop of Rome. The consequence was,\nthat the power as well as the dignity of that see was greatly increased.\nI am not much concerned, however, respecting the methods by which this\nwas effected. It is at least evident, that it was greater at that period\nthan in the preceding ages. And even then it was very far from an\nunlimited dominion, for one man to govern all others according to his\nown pleasure. But the see of Rome was held in such reverence, that its\nauthority would repress and correct the refractory and obstinate, who\ncould not be confined to their duty by the other bishops. For Gregory\nembraces every opportunity of protesting, that he as faithfully\nmaintained the rights of others, as he required them to maintain his.\n\u201cNor under the influence of ambition,\u201d says he, \u201cdo I withhold from any\none that which is his right; but I desire to honour my brethren in all\nthings.\u201d\u2014There is not a sentence in his writings which contains a\nprouder boast of the majesty of his primacy than the following: \u201cI know\nno bishop who is not subject to the apostolic see, when he is found in\nfault.\u201d But he immediately adds, \u201cWhere there is no fault to require\nsubjection, all are equal by right of humility.\u201d He attributes to\nhimself the authority to correct those who have transgressed; if all do\ntheir duty, he places himself on an equality with them. But he assumed\nthis authority to himself, and they who were willing consented to it,\nwhile others, who disapproved of it, were at liberty to oppose it with\nimpunity; and this, it is notorious, was the conduct of the majority.\nBesides, it is to be remarked, that he is there speaking of the primate\nof Constantinople, who had been condemned by a provincial synod, and had\ndisregarded the united judgment of the assembly. His colleagues\ncomplained to the emperor of his obstinacy. The emperor appointed\nGregory to decide the cause. We see, then, that he made no attempt to\ninterfere with the ordinary jurisdiction; and that the very thing which\nhe does for the assistance of others, he does only at the command of the\nemperor.\n\nXIII. This, therefore, was all the power which was then possessed by the\nbishop of Rome,\u2014to oppose rebellious and refractory persons, in cases\nwhich required some extraordinary remedy, and that in order to assist,\nnot to hinder, other bishops. Therefore he assumes to himself no more\npower over others than he grants to all others over himself, when he\nprofesses that he is ready to be reproved by all, and to be corrected by\nall. So in another epistle he commands the bishop of Aquileia to come to\nRome to plead his cause in a controversy which had arisen between him\nand his neighbours, respecting an article of faith; nevertheless he\ngives this command, not from his own authority, but in consequence of\nthe mandate of the emperor. Nor does he announce himself as the sole\njudge, but promises to assemble a synod to judge of the whole affair.\nBut though there was still such moderation, that the power of the Roman\nsee had its certain limits, which it was not permitted to exceed, and\nthe bishop of Rome himself no more presided over others than he was\nsubject to them, yet it appears how very displeasing this situation was\nto Gregory. For he frequently complains, that under the name of being a\nbishop, he was forced back to the world, and that he was more involved\nin secular cares than ever he had been while he was a layman; so that in\nthat honour he was oppressed with the tumult of worldly business. In\nanother passage he says, \u201cSuch a vast burden of occupations presses me\ndown, that my mind is incapacitated for any elevation towards things\nabove. I am tossed about with numerous causes, like so many waves; and\nafter my former seasons of retirement and tranquillity, I am disquieted\nwith the tempests of a tumultuous life; so that I may truly say, I am\ncome into the depth of the sea, and the tempest has drowned me.\u201d Judge,\nthen, what he would have said, if he had fallen upon these times. If he\ndid not fulfil the office of a pastor, yet he was employed in it. He\nrefrained from all interference in the civil government, and\nacknowledged himself to be subject to the emperor in common with others.\nHe never intruded into the care of other Churches, except when he was\nconstrained by necessity. And yet he considered himself to be in a\nlabyrinth, because he could not wholly devote himself to the exclusive\nduties of a bishop.\n\nXIV. The bishop of Constantinople, as we have already stated, was at\nthat time engaged in a contest with the bishop of Rome, respecting the\nprimacy. For after the seat of the empire was fixed at Constantinople,\nthe majesty of the government seemed to require that Church to be the\nnext in dignity to the Church of Rome. And indeed at the beginning\nnothing contributed more to establish the primacy in the Church of Rome\nthan the circumstance of that city being then the capital of the empire.\nGratian recites a rescript under the name of Pope Lucinus, in which he\nsays that the distinction of cities appointed to be the residence of\nmetropolitans and primates, was regulated by no other rule than the\nnature of the civil government previously established in them. There is\nanother similar rescript, also, under the name of Pope Clement, in which\nhe says, that patriarchs had been appointed in those cities which had\nanciently been the stations of arch-flamens. This statement, though\nerroneous, approaches to the truth. For it is certain, that in order to\nmake as little change as possible, the provinces were divided according\nto the existing state of things, and that primates and metropolitans\nwere placed in those cities which had precedence of the rest in dignity\nand power. Therefore, in the Council of Turin, it was decreed, that\nthose which were the chief cities of the respective provinces in the\ncivil government, should be the principal sees of bishops; and that if\nthe honour of the civil government should happen to be transferred from\none city to another, the seat of the metropolitan should be removed to\nthe same place. But Innocent, the Roman pontiff, seeing the ancient\ndignity of his city beginning to decline, after the translation of the\nseat of the empire to Constantinople, and trembling for the honour of\nhis see, enacted a contrary law; in which he denies the necessity of a\nchange of the ecclesiastical capitals, in consequence of a change of the\nimperial capitals. But the authority of a council ought to be preferred\nto the sentence of an individual, and we may justly suspect Innocent\nhimself in his own cause. He proves by his decree, however, that the\noriginal regulation had been for the seats of metropolitans to be\ndisposed according to the civil rank of the respective cities.\n\nXV. According to this ancient ordinance, it was decreed in the first\nCouncil of Constantinople, that the bishop of that city should have the\nnext rank and dignity to the bishop of Rome, because that was a new\nRome. But when a similar decree was passed long after in the Council of\nChalcedon, Leo strenuously opposed it. And he not only took the liberty\nof pouring contempt on what had been decided by upwards of six hundred\nbishops, but likewise heavily reproached them with having taken from\nother sees the honour which they had ventured to confer on the Church of\nConstantinople. Now, what could incite him to disturb the world for so\ninsignificant a cause, but mere ambition? He says, that what had once\nbeen determined by the Council of Nice, ought to have been maintained\ninviolable. As if the Christian faith were endangered by the preference\nof one Church to another, or as if the patriarchates had been\ndistributed by the Council of Nice with any other view than the\npreservation of external order. Now, we know that external order admits,\nand even requires, various changes, according to the various\ncircumstances of different periods. It is a futile pretence, therefore,\nof Leo, that the honour, which the authority of the Nicene council had\ngiven to the see of Alexandria, ought not to be conferred on that of\nConstantinople. For common sense dictates, that this was such a decree\nas might be abolished according to the state of the times. And besides,\nthe repeal met with no opposition from the bishops of the East, who were\nmost interested in the matter. Proterius, who had been appointed bishop\nof Alexandria instead of Dioscorus, was present; as were other\npatriarchs, whose dignity was lessened by this measure. It was for them\nto oppose it, and not Leo, who retained his original station unaltered.\nWhen they all suffered it to pass without any objection, and even\nassented to it, and the bishop of Rome was the only one who resisted it,\nit is easy to judge by what motive he was influenced. He foresaw, what\nactually came to pass not long after, that as the glory of Rome was\ndeclining, Constantinople would not be content with the second place,\nbut would contend for the primacy. Yet all his clamour was unavailing;\nthe decree of the council was confirmed. Therefore his successors,\nseeing themselves vanquished, peaceably refrained from such obstinacy;\nfor they decreed that he should be accounted the second patriarch.\n\nXVI. But a little while after, John, who presided over the Church of\nConstantinople while Gregory was bishop of Rome, had the arrogance to\nassume the title of universal patriarch. Gregory, not afraid of\ndefending his see in a good cause, resolutely opposed this assumption.\nAnd certainly it betrayed intolerable pride and folly in John to wish to\nmake the limits of his bishopric the same with those of the empire. Now,\nGregory did not claim to himself what he denied to another; but\nexecrated the title, by whomsoever it might be usurped, as wicked and\nimpious. In one of his epistles he expresses his displeasure with\nEulogius, bishop of Alexandria, for having complimented him with such a\ntitle. \u201cBehold,\u201d says he, \u201cin the preface of the epistle which you have\ndirected to myself, who have forbidden it, you have taken care to\nintroduce that appellation of pride, by calling me universal pope. Which\nI entreat that your holiness will not do any more; because all that you\ngive to another beyond what is reasonable, is deducted from yourself. I\nconsider nothing an honour to me, by which I see the honour of my\nbrethren diminished. For my honour is the honour of the universal\nChurch, and the perfect vigour of my brethren. If your holiness calls me\nuniversal pope, this is denying that you have any share in that which is\nwholly attributed to me.\u201d Gregory\u2019s was a good and honourable cause; but\nJohn, being supported by the favour of Mauritius the emperor, could not\nbe diverted from his purpose; and Cyriacus, his successor, was equally\ninflexible.\n\nXVII. At length Phocas, who ascended the throne after the murder of\nMauritius, being more favourable to the Romans,\u2014for what reason I know\nnot, unless because he had been crowned at Rome without any\ndifficulty,\u2014granted to Boniface the Third what Gregory had never\ndemanded,\u2014that Rome should be the head of all Churches. Thus the\ncontroversy was decided. Yet this grant of the emperor could not have\nbeen so much to the advantage of the see of Rome, if it had not been\nfollowed by other things. For Greece and all Asia soon after separated\nfrom its communion. France reverenced it only so far as not to carry its\nobedience beyond its inclinations; nor was it reduced to entire\nsubjection, till Pepin had usurped the crown. For after Zachary, the\nRoman pontiff, had assisted Pepin in the commission of treason and\nrobbery, in deposing his lawful sovereign, and taking possession of the\nthrone, he was rewarded by having the see of Rome invested with\njurisdiction over the Gallican Churches. As robbers are accustomed to\ndivide their common booty, so those worthy persons concerted together,\nthat Pepin should have the temporal and civil sovereignty after the\ndeposition of the rightful monarch, and that Zachary should be made the\nhead over all bishops, and enjoy the spiritual power. At first this was\nfeeble, as is generally the case with new establishments; but it was\nafterwards confirmed by the authority of Charlemagne, and almost from a\nsimilar cause; for he also was indebted to the Roman pontiff, for his\nexertions in raising him to the dignity of emperor. Now, though it is\nprobable that the Churches, before that time, had in general been\ngreatly disfigured, it is evident that in France and Germany the ancient\nform of the Church was then entirely obliterated. The archives of the\nparliament of Paris still contain brief registers of those times, which,\nin relating ecclesiastical events, make frequent mention of the treaties\nboth of Pepin and Charlemagne with the Roman pontiff; from which it may\nbe concluded that an alteration was then made in the ancient state of\nthe Church.\n\nXVIII. From that time, as things daily became worse and worse, the\ntyranny of the Roman see was gradually established and increased, and\nthat partly through the ignorance, and partly through the indolence, of\nthe bishops. For while the Roman pontiff was usurping every thing to\nhimself, and proceeding from one assumption to another, without any\nlimits, in defiance of law and justice, the bishops did not exert\nthemselves with the zeal which became them to repress his cupidity, and\nwhere there was no want of inclination, they were destitute of real\nlearning and knowledge, so that they were not at all equal to such an\nimportant undertaking. We see, therefore, what a horrible profanation of\nevery thing sacred, and what a total disorganization of the Church there\nwas at Rome in the days of Bernard. He complains that the ambitious, the\navaricious, the simoniacal, the sacrilegious, the adulterous, the\nincestuous, and all who were chargeable with the most atrocious crimes,\nfrom every part of the world, resorted to Rome, in order to procure or\nto retain ecclesiastical honours by the apostolical authority; and that\nfraud, circumvention, and violence, were generally practised. He says,\nthat the judicial process which was then pursued was execrable, and not\nonly unbecoming of the Church, but disgraceful to any civil court. He\nexclaims, that the Church is full of ambitious men, and that there is\nnot one who is any more afraid of perpetrating the most flagitious\ncrimes, than robbers in their den when they are distributing the plunder\nwhich they have seized on the highway. \u201cFew,\u201d he says, \u201cregard the mouth\nof the legislator; they all look at his hands, and that not without\ncause, for those hands transact all that is done by the pope. What a\nbusiness it is, that they are bought with the spoils of the Church, who\nsay to you, Well done, well done! The life of the poor is sown in the\nstreets of the rich; silver glitters in the mire; people run to it from\nall parts; it is borne away, not by the poorest, but by the strongest,\nor perhaps by him who runs fastest. This custom, or rather this mortal\ncorruption, commenced not with you; I wish it may end with you. In these\ncircumstances you, a pastor, are proceeding, covered with abundant and\ncostly attire. If I might dare to use the expression, these are rather\nthe pastors of devils than of sheep. Did Peter act in this manner? Was\nPaul guilty of such trifling? Your court has been accustomed to receive\nmen good, more than to make them so. For the wicked are not improved in\nit, but the good are corrupted.\u201d The abuses of appeals which he relates,\nno pious person can read without the greatest horror. At length,\nrespecting the insatiable cupidity of the see of Rome in the usurpation\nof jurisdiction, he concludes in the following manner: \u201cI speak the\nmurmur and common complaint of the Churches. They exclaim that they are\ndivided and dismembered. There are few or none of them who do not either\nbewail or dread this plague. Do you inquire what plague? Abbots are torn\naway from their bishops, bishops from their archbishops. It is wonderful\nif this can be excused. By such conduct you prove that you have a\nplenitude of power, but not of justice. You act thus because you can,\nbut the question is whether you ought. You are appointed to preserve to\nall their respective honour and rank, and not to envy them.\u201d These few\npassages I have thought proper to recite, out of a great many, partly\nthat the readers may see how sadly the Church had then declined, and\npartly that they may know into what sorrow and lamentation all good men\nwere plunged by this calamity.\n\nXIX. But though we should grant to the Roman pontiff in the present day\nthe same eminence and extent of jurisdiction which this see possessed in\nthe middle ages, as in the times of Leo and Gregory, what is that to the\nPapacy in its present state? I am not yet referring to the temporal and\nsecular power, which we shall afterwards examine in its proper place;\nbut the spiritual government itself of which they boast, what\nresemblance has it to the condition of those times? For the Romanists\ndesignate the pope no otherwise than as the supreme head of the Church\non earth, and universal bishop of the whole world. And the pontiffs\nthemselves, when they speak of their authority, pronounce with great\nsuperciliousness, that they have the power to command, and that to\nothers is only left the necessity to obey; that all their decrees are to\nbe received as if they were confirmed by the voice of St. Peter; that\nfor want of their presence, provincial synods have no authority; that\nthey have the power to ordain priests and deacons for all the Churches,\nand to summon to their see those who have been elsewhere ordained. In\nthe Decretal of Gratian there are innumerable pretensions of this kind,\nwhich I forbear to recite, lest I should be too tedious to my readers.\nBut the sum of them all comes to this; that the Roman pontiff alone has\nthe supreme cognizance of all ecclesiastical causes, whether in judging\nand determining doctrines, in enacting laws, in regulating discipline,\nor in exercising jurisdiction. It would also be tedious and superfluous\nto enumerate the privileges which they assume to themselves in\nreservations, as they call them. But what is the most intolerable of\nall, they leave no judgment on earth to curb or restrain their cupidity,\nif they abuse such unlimited power. \u201cIt cannot be lawful,\u201d they say,\n\u201cfor any one to reject the judgment of this see, on account of the\nprimacy of the Roman Church.\u201d Again: \u201cThe judge shall not be judged,\neither by the emperor or by kings, or by all the clergy, or by the\npeople.\u201d This is arrogance beyond all bounds, for one man to constitute\nhimself judge of all, and to refuse to submit to the judgment of any.\nBut what if he exercise tyranny over the people of God, if he divide and\ndesolate the kingdom of Christ, if he disturb and overturn the whole\nChurch, if he pervert the pastoral office into a system of robbery? Even\nthough he should go to the greatest extremes of profligacy and mischief,\nhe denies that he is at all accountable for his conduct. For these are\nthe very words of the pontiffs: \u201cGod has been pleased to decide the\ncauses of other men by the judgment of men, but the prelate of this see\nhe has, without all question, reserved to his own judgment.\u201d Again, \u201cThe\nactions of our subjects are judged by us; but ours by God alone.\u201d\n\nXX. And that such edicts might have the more weight, they have falsely\nsubstituted the names of ancient pontiffs, as if things had been so\nregulated from the beginning; whereas it is very certain, that every\nthing, which attributes to the Roman pontiff more than we have stated to\nhave been given him by the ancient councils, is a novel and recent\nfabrication. They have even gone to such a pitch of impudence as to\npublish a rescript, under the name of Anastasius, patriarch of\nConstantinople, which declares that it had been ordained by the ancient\ncanons, that nothing should be done even in the remotest provinces,\nwithout being first reported to the Roman see. Beside the notorious\nfalsehood of this, what man will think it credible, that such a eulogium\nof the Roman see proceeded from the adversary and rival of its honour\nand dignity? But it was necessary that these Antichrists should be\ncarried to such an extreme of madness and blindness, that their iniquity\nmay be evident to all men of sound understanding, who only choose to\nopen their eyes. But the Decretal Epistles, complied by Gregory the\nNinth, as well as the Constitutions of Clement the Fifth, and the\nDecrees of Martin, still more openly and expressly betray, in every\npage, the inhuman ferocity and tyranny of barbarous kings. But these are\nthe oracles from which the Romanists wish their Papacy to be\nappreciated. Hence proceeded those famous axioms, which at the present\nday are universally received by them as oracles: That the pope cannot\nerr; that the pope is superior to all councils; that the pope is the\nuniversal bishop of all Churches, and supreme head of the Church upon\nearth. I pass over the far greater absurdities, which foolish canonists\nmaintain in their schools; which, however, the Roman theologians not\nonly assent to, but even applaud, in order to flatter their idol.\n\nXXI. I shall not treat them with all the severity which they deserve. To\nthis consummate insolence, another person would oppose the declaration\nof Cyprian among the bishops at the Council of Carthage, of which he was\npresident: \u201cNo one of us calls himself bishop of bishops, or, by\ntyrannical fear, constrains his colleagues to the necessity of obeying\nhim.\u201d He would object what was decreed at Carthage some time after,\n\u201cThat no one should be called _prince of priests, or first bishop_.\u201d He\nwould collect many testimonies from histories, many canons of councils,\nand various passages from the writings of the fathers, by which the\nRoman pontiff would be reduced to the rank of other bishops. I pass over\nthese things, however, that I may not appear to lay too much stress upon\nthem. But let the most able advocates of the Roman see answer me, with\nwhat face they can dare to defend the title of _universal bishop_, which\nthey find to have been so often anathematized by Gregory. If the\ntestimony of Gregory be entitled to any credit, they cannot make their\npontiff universal bishop without thereby declaring him to be Antichrist.\nNor was the title of _head_ any more in use at that time; for in one of\nhis epistles he says, \u201cPeter is the principal member in the body; John,\nAndrew, and James, were heads of particular people. Yet they are all\nmembers of the Church under one head. Even the saints before the law,\nthe saints under the law, the saints under grace, are all placed among\nthe members, and no one ever wished himself to be called _universal_.\u201d\nThe arrogant pretensions of the pontiff to the power of commanding are\nvery inconsistent with an observation made by Gregory in another\npassage. For when Eulogius, bishop of Alexandria, had represented\nhimself as commanded by him, he replies in the following manner:\u2014\u201cI\nbeseech you, let me not hear the word _command_ mentioned again; for I\nknow what I am, and what you are. In station, you are my brethren; in\nholiness, you are my fathers. Therefore I gave no command, but intended\nto suggest to you such things as appeared to be useful.\u201d By extending\nhis jurisdiction, as he does, without any limits, the pope does a\ngrievous and atrocious injury, not only to other bishops, but to all\nother Churches, which he distracts and divides by such conduct, in order\nto establish his own see upon their ruins. But when he exempts himself\nfrom all the judgments of others, and determines to reign in such a\ntyrannical manner as to have no law but his own pleasure, this is\ncertainly so unbecoming, and foreign from the order of the Church, that\nit is altogether intolerable, and incapable of any defence. For it is\nutterly repugnant, not only to every sentiment of piety, but even of\nhumanity.\n\nXXII. But that I may not be obliged to pursue and discuss every\nparticular point, I again appeal to those of my contemporaries, who\nwould be considered as the most able and faithful advocates of the Roman\nsee, whether they are not ashamed to defend the present state of the\nPapacy, which is evidently a hundred times more corrupt than it was in\nthe times of Gregory and Bernard, but which even then so exceedingly\ndispleased those holy men. Gregory every where complains, that he was\nexcessively distracted with occupations unsuitable to his office; that\nunder the name of being a bishop, he was carried back to the world; that\nhe was involved in secular cares, to a greater extent than he could\nremember to have been while he was a layman; that he was oppressed with\nthe tumult of worldly business, so that his mind was incapacitated for\nany elevation towards things above; that he was tossed about with\nnumerous causes like so many waves, and disquieted with the tempests of\na tumultuous life, so that he might justly say, \u201cI am come into the\ndepth of the sea.\u201d Amidst these worldly avocations, however, he could\nstill instruct the people by public preaching, give private admonition\nand reproof to those who required it, regulate his Church, give advice\nto his colleagues, and exhort them to their duty; beside these things,\nhe had some time left for writing; yet he deplores his calamity, in\nbeing plunged into the depth of the sea. If the administration of that\nage was a sea, what must be said of the Papacy in its present state? For\nwhat resemblance is there between them? Here we find no sermons\npreached, no attention to discipline, no concern for the Churches, no\nspiritual function performed; in a word, nothing but the world. Yet this\nlabyrinth is praised, as though nothing could be found better\nconstituted, or better administered. What complaints are poured out by\nBernard, what lamentations does he utter, when he beholds the vices of\nhis times? What would he say, then, if he could behold this our iron,\nor, if possible, worse than iron age? What impudence is it, not only\npertinaciously to defend as sacred and Divine what all the holy fathers\nhave reprobated with one voice, but also to abuse their testimony in\nvindication of the Papacy, which it is evident was utterly unknown to\nthem! In the time of Bernard, however, I confess the corruption was so\ngreat that there was no great difference between that age and the\npresent; but those who adduce any plea for the existing state of things\nfrom the time of Leo, Gregory, and others in that middle period, must be\ndestitute of all shame. This conduct resembles that of any one, who, to\nvindicate the monarchy of the Roman emperors, should commend the ancient\nstate of the Roman government; which would be no other than borrowing\nthe praises of liberty to adorn a system of tyranny.\n\nXXIII. Lastly, though all these things were conceded to them, they would\nbe called to a new controversy, when we deny that there exists at Rome a\nChurch in which such privileges can reside, or a bishop capable of\nexercising these dignified prerogatives. Supposing, therefore, all these\nthings to be true, which, however, we have already refuted,\u2014that, by the\nvoice of Christ, Peter had been constituted head of the universal\nChurch; that the honour vested in him he had committed to the Roman see;\nthat this had been established by the authority of the ancient Church,\nand confirmed by long usage; that all men, with one consent, had\ninvariably acknowledged the supreme power of the Roman pontiff; that he\nhad been the judge in all causes and of all men, and had been subject to\nthe judgment of none;\u2014though they should have all these concessions, and\nany more that they wished, yet I reply in one word, that none of them\nwould be of any avail, unless there be at Rome a Church and a bishop.\nThey must of necessity allow, that Rome cannot be the mother of\nChurches, unless it be itself a Church, and that he cannot be the prince\nof bishops, who is not a bishop himself. Do they wish, then, to make\nRome the apostolic see? Let them show me a true and legitimate\napostleship. Do they wish to have the supreme pontiff? Let them show me\na bishop. But where will they show us any form or appearance of a\nChurch? They mention it, indeed, and have it frequently in their mouths.\nBut the Church is known by certain marks, and a bishopric is a name of\noffice. I am not now speaking of the people, but of the government\nitself, which ought always to appear in the Church. Where is the\nministry, such as Christ\u2019s institution requires? Let us remember what\nhas already been said of the office of presbyters and bishops. If we\nbring the office of cardinals to that rule, we shall confess that they\nhave no resemblance to presbyters. And I should wish to know what\nresemblance the pontiff himself bears to a bishop. The first duty of the\nepiscopal office is to instruct the people from the word of God; the\nsecond duty, closely connected with the first, is to administer the\nsacraments; the third is to admonish, exhort, and reprove those who\noffend, and to regulate the people by holy discipline. Which of these\nduties does he perform? Which of them does he even pretend to perform?\nLet them tell me, then, upon what principle they require him to be\nconsidered as a bishop, who never, even in appearance, with his little\nfinger touches the least portion of the duty.\n\nXXIV. The case of a bishop is different from that of a king, who still\nretains the honour and title of a king, though he execute none of the\nroyal functions. But in judging of a bishop, regard is to be paid to the\ncommission of Christ, which ought always to continue in force in the\nChurch. Let the Romanists, therefore, furnish me with a solution of this\ndifficulty. I deny that their pontiff is the chief of bishops, because\nhe is not a bishop himself. Now, they must prove this second member of\nmy position to be false, if they will obtain the victory in the first.\nBut what must be the conclusion, if he not only has no characteristic of\na bishop, but every thing contrary to it? But here where shall I begin?\nwith his doctrine, or his conduct? What shall I say? What shall I omit?\nWhere shall I stop? I will make this assertion\u2014that as the world is at\npresent filled with so many corrupt and impious doctrines, loaded with\nsuch various kinds of superstitions, blinded with such numerous errors,\nand immerged in such profound idolatry,\u2014there is not one of these evils\nwhich has not originated from the see of Rome, or at least been\nconfirmed by it. Nor is there any other cause for the violent rage of\nthe pontiffs against the revived doctrine of the gospel, and for their\nexertion of all their power to crush it, and their instigation of all\nkings and princes to persecute it, but that they see that their whole\nkingdom will decline and fall to the ground, where the primitive gospel\nof Christ shall be received. Leo was cruel; Clement was sanguinary; Paul\nis ferocious. But it is not so much that nature has impelled them to\nimpugn the truth, as that this was the only way to defend their power.\nAs they cannot be safe, therefore, without ruining Christ, they labour\nin this cause as if it were in the defence of their religion, their\nhabitations, their lives. What, then, shall we consider that as the\napostolic see, where we behold nothing but a horrible apostasy? Shall he\nbe regarded as the vicar of Christ, who, by his furious exertions in\npersecuting the gospel, unequivocally declares himself to be Antichrist?\nShall he be deemed Peter\u2019s successor, who rages with fire and sword to\ndemolish all that Peter built? Shall we acknowledge him to be head of\nthe Church, who, after severing the Church from Christ, its only true\nHead, divides and tears it in pieces? Though it be admitted that Rome\nwas once the mother of all Churches, yet from the time when it began to\nbe the seat of Antichrist, it has ceased to be what it was before.\n\nXXV. Some persons think us too severe and censorious, when we call the\nRoman pontiff Antichrist. But those who are of this opinion do not\nconsider that they bring the same charge of presumption against Paul\nhimself, after whom we speak, and whose language we adopt. And lest any\none should object, that we improperly pervert to the Roman pontiff those\nwords of Paul, which belong to a different subject, I shall briefly show\nthat they are not capable of any other interpretation than that which\napplies them to the Papacy. Paul says, that Antichrist \u201csitteth in the\ntemple of God.\u201d[893] In another place, also, the Holy Spirit, describing\nhis image in the person of Antiochus, declares that his kingdom will\nconsist in \u201cspeaking great words,\u201d or blasphemies, \u201cagainst the Most\nHigh.\u201d[894] Hence we conclude, that it is rather a tyranny over the\nsouls of men, than over their bodies, which is erected in opposition to\nthe spiritual kingdom of Christ. And in the next place, that this\ntyranny is one which does not abolish the name of Christ or of his\nChurch, but rather abuses the authority of Christ, and conceals itself\nunder the character of the Church, as under a mask. Now, though all the\nheresies and schisms which have existed from the beginning belong to the\nkingdom of Antichrist, yet when Paul predicts an approaching apostasy,\nhe signifies by this description that that seat of abomination shall\nthen be erected, when a universal defection shall have seized the\nChurch, notwithstanding many members, dispersed in different places,\npersevere in the unity of the faith. But when he adds, that even in his\ndays \u201cthe mystery of iniquity\u201d did \u201calready work\u201d[895] in secret what it\nwas afterwards to effect in a more public manner, he gives us to\nunderstand that this calamity was neither to be introduced by one man,\nnor to terminate with one man. Now, when he designates Antichrist by\nthis character,\u2014that he would rob God of his honour in order to assume\nit to himself,\u2014this is the principal indication which we ought to follow\nin our inquiries after Antichrist, especially where such pride proceeds\nto a public desolation of the Church. As it is evident therefore that\nthe Roman pontiff has impudently transferred to himself some of the\npeculiar and exclusive prerogatives of God and Christ, it cannot be\ndoubted that he is the captain and leader of this impious and abominable\nkingdom.\n\nXXVI. Now, let the Romanists go and object antiquity against us; as if,\nin such a subversion of every thing, the honour of the see could remain,\nwhere no see exists. Eusebius relates that God, in order to make way for\nhis vengeance, removed the Church from Jerusalem to Pella. What we are\ninformed did happen once, may have happened oftener. Therefore to attach\nthe honour of the primacy to any particular place, so that he who is in\nfact the most inveterate enemy of Christ, the greatest adversary of the\ngospel, the desolater and destroyer of the Church, the most cruel\nmurderer and butcher of all the saints, must nevertheless be accounted\nthe vicar of Christ, the successor of Peter, the chief prelate of the\nChurch, merely because he occupies what was anciently the first see, is\na thing extremely ridiculous and absurd. I forbear to remark the immense\ndifference between the pope\u2019s chancery, and a well regulated\nadministration of the Church; though this one thing is sufficient to\nremove every difficulty on this subject. For no man in his sound senses\nwill include the episcopal office in lead and in bulls, much less in\nthat school of frauds and chicaneries, in which the pope\u2019s spiritual\ngovernment consists. It has justly been remarked, therefore, that the\nRoman Church which is boasted of, has long ago been converted into a\nsecular court, which is all that is now to be seen at Rome. Nor am I\nhere accusing the vices of individuals, but proving that the Papacy\nitself is diametrically opposite to the legitimate order of the Church.\n\nXXVII. But if we proceed to persons, it is well known what kind of men\nwe shall find sustaining the character of vicars of Christ. Julius, and\nLeo, and Clement, and Paul, will be pillars of the Christian faith, and\nthe principal oracles of religion, who never knew any thing of Christ,\nexcept what they had learned in the school of Lucian. But why do I\nenumerate three or four pontiffs, as though it were doubtful what kind\nof religion the pontiffs and the whole college of cardinals have\nprofessed long ago, and profess in the present day? For of the secret\ntheology which prevails among them, the first article is, that there is\nno God; the second, that all that is written and preached concerning\nJesus Christ is falsehood and imposture; the third, that the doctrine of\na future life, and that of the final resurrection, are mere fables. This\nopinion, I confess, is not entertained by all, and is expressed by few\nof them; yet it long ago began to be the ordinary religion of the\npontiffs. Though this is notorious to all who are acquainted with Rome,\nyet the Roman theologians persist in boasting that the possibility of\nerror in the pope has been prevented by the privilege of Christ, because\nhe said to Peter, \u201cI have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail\nnot.\u201d[896] What can they gain by such impudent mockery, except it be to\nconvince the whole world of their having arrived at such an extreme of\npresumption, that they neither fear God nor regard men?\n\nXXVIII. But let us suppose the impiety of those pontiffs, whom I have\nmentioned, to be concealed, because they have not published it by\nsermons or by writings, but only betrayed it in their chambers and at\ntheir tables, or at least within the walls of their palaces. But if they\nwish to establish this privilege to which they pretend, they must\nexpunge from the number of the pontiffs John the Twenty-second, who\npublicly maintained that souls are mortal, and that they perish together\nwith the bodies till the day of resurrection. And to show that the whole\nsee, with its principal pillars, was then entirely overturned, not one\nof the cardinals resisted this capital error; but the university of\nParis urged the king of France to compel the pope to a retraction. The\nking interdicted his subjects from all communion with him, unless he\nshould speedily repent; and he caused this to be proclaimed, in the\nusual manner, by a herald. Compelled by necessity, the pontiff abjured\nhis error. This example renders it unnecessary for me to dispute any\nlonger against the assertion of our adversaries, that the see of Rome\nand its pontiffs cannot err respecting the faith, because Christ said to\nPeter, \u201cI have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not.\u201d John certainly\nfell from the true faith in so disgraceful a manner, that he might\nfurnish to posterity a signal proof, that those who succeed Peter in his\nbishopric are not all Peters. The argument itself, however, is too\npuerile to need any answer. For if they are determined to apply to\nPeter\u2019s successors every thing that was said to Peter, it will follow\nthat they are all Satans, because the Lord also said to Peter, \u201cGet thee\nbehind me, Satan; thou art an offence unto me.\u201d[897] It will be as easy\nfor us to retort this passage against them, as it is for them to object\nthe other against us.\n\nXXIX. But it affords me no pleasure to contend with them in such\nfooleries, and therefore I return from the digression. To confine\nChrist, and the Holy Spirit, and the Church, to one particular place, so\nthat whoever presides there, even though he be a devil, must,\nnevertheless, be deemed the vicar of Christ, and the head of the Church,\nbecause that place was formerly the see of Peter, I maintain to be not\nonly impious and dishonourable to Christ, but altogether absurd and\nrepugnant to common sense. The Roman pontiffs for a long time have\neither been totally indifferent to religion, or have shown themselves\nits greatest enemies. They are no more made the vicars of Christ,\ntherefore, by the see which they occupy, than an idol is to be taken for\nGod, because it is placed in his temple. Now, if a judgment is to be\nformed on their conduct, let the pontiffs answer for themselves in what\npart of it they can at all be recognized as bishops. In the first place,\nthe mode of life generally pursued at Rome, not only without any\nopposition from them, but with their connivance, and even tacit\napprobation, is altogether disgraceful to bishops, whose duty it is to\nrestrain the licentiousness of the people by a rigid discipline. I will\nnot, however, be so severe against them as to charge them with the\nfaults of other persons. But while both themselves and their families,\nwith almost the whole college of cardinals, and the whole host of their\nclergy, are so abandoned to all kinds of debauchery, impurity, and\nobscenity, and to every species of enormity and crime, that they\nresemble monsters rather than men, they prove themselves to have no just\nclaim to the character of bishops. They need not be afraid, however,\nthat I shall proceed to a further disclosure of their turpitude. For it\nis unpleasant to meddle with such abominable pollution, and it is\nnecessary to spare chaste ears. Besides, I conceive, I have more than\nsufficiently proved what I intended, that even if Rome had anciently\nbeen the head of all Churches, yet at the present day she is not worthy\nof being accounted one of the smallest toes of the Church\u2019s feet.\n\nXXX. With respect to the cardinals, as they are called, I know not how\nit has come to pass that they have so suddenly risen to such high\ndignity. In the time of Gregory, this title was exclusively applied to\nbishops; for whenever he mentions cardinals, he speaks of them not only\nas belonging to the Church of Rome, but to any other Churches; so that,\nin short, a cardinal priest is no other than a bishop. I find no such\ntitle at all in the writers of any preceding age; and at that time, I\nobserve, they were far inferior to bishops, to whom they are now so far\nsuperior. This passage of Augustine is well known: \u201cThough, according to\nthe titles of honour which have long been used in the Church, a bishop\nis superior to a presbyter, yet Augustine is in many things inferior to\nJerome.\u201d He clearly makes not the least distinction between a presbyter\nof the Roman Church and those of other Churches, but places them all\nalike below the bishops. And this order was so long observed, that in\nthe Council of Carthage, when two legates attended from the Roman see,\none a bishop, the other a presbyter, the presbyter was obliged to take\nthe lowest seat. But not to go too far into antiquity for examples, we\nhave the acts of a council held under Gregory at Rome, at which the\npresbyters sat in the lowest place, and subscribed separately; and the\ndeacons were not allowed to subscribe at all. And, indeed, the priests\nhad no other office at that time, than to attend and assist the bishop\nin the ministry of the word and the administration of the sacraments.\nNow, their condition is so changed, that they are become the cousins of\nkings and emperors. And there is no doubt but they rose by degrees,\ntogether with their head, till they reached their present high dignity.\nThis also I have thought proper to suggest by the way in a few words,\nthat the reader may more fully understand, that the Roman see, in its\npresent circumstances, is widely different from its ancient state, under\nthe pretext of which it is now maintained and defended. But whatever\nthey may have been in former times, since they have now no true and\nlegitimate office in the Church, and only retain a mere name and useless\nmask of one, and since every thing belonging to them is quite contrary\nto it, it was necessary that what Gregory often forebodes should\nactually befall them: \u201cI say it with tears, I denounce it with groans,\nthat since the sacerdotal order is fallen within, it will not long be\nable to stand without.\u201d Or rather it was necessary that what Malachi\ndeclares of similar characters should be fulfilled in them: \u201cYe are\ndeparted out of the way; ye have caused many to stumble at the law; ye\nhave corrupted the covenant of Levi, saith the Lord of hosts. Therefore\nhave I also made you contemptible and base before all the people.\u201d[898]\nI now leave it to all pious persons to consider the nature of the lofty\nfabric of the Roman hierarchy, to which the Papists, with nefarious\nimpudence, and without any hesitation, sacrifice even the word of God\nitself, which ought to have been held venerable and sacred by heaven and\nearth, by men and angels.\n\nFootnote 893:\n\n  2 Thess. ii. 4.\n\nFootnote 894:\n\n  Dan. vii. 25.\n\nFootnote 895:\n\n  2 Thess. ii. 7.\n\nFootnote 896:\n\n  Luke xxii. 32.\n\nFootnote 897:\n\n  Matt. xvi. 23.\n\nFootnote 898:\n\n  Mal. ii. 8, 9.\n\n\n\n\n                             CHAPTER VIII.\nTHE POWER OF THE CHURCH RESPECTING ARTICLES OF FAITH, AND ITS LICENTIOUS\n    PERVERSION, UNDER THE PAPACY, TO THE CORRUPTION OF ALL PURITY OF\n                               DOCTRINE.\n\n\nThe next subject is the power of the Church, which is to be considered\nas residing, partly in the respective bishops, partly in councils, and\nthose either provincial or general. I speak only of the spiritual power\nwhich belongs to the Church. Now, it consists either in doctrine, in\nlegislation, or jurisdiction. The subject of doctrine contains two\nparts\u2014the authority to establish doctrines, and the explication of them.\nBefore we enter on the particular discussion of each of these points, we\nwould apprize the pious readers, that whatever is asserted respecting\nthe power of the Church, they should be mindful to refer to the end for\nwhich Paul declares it to have been given, namely, \u201cto edification, and\nnot to destruction;\u201d[899] and all who make a legitimate use of it,\nconsider themselves as nothing more than \u201cservants of Christ,\u201d[900] and\nthe people\u2019s \u201cservants for Jesus\u2019 sake.\u201d[901] Now, the only way to edify\nthe Church is, for the ministers themselves to study to preserve to\nJesus Christ his rightful authority, which can no longer be secure than\nwhile he is left in possession of what he has received from the Father,\nthat is, to be the sole Master in the Church.[902] For of him alone, and\nof no other, is it said, \u201cHear ye him.\u201d[903] The power of the Church,\ntherefore, is not to be depreciated, yet it must be circumscribed by\ncertain limits, that it may not be extended in every direction,\naccording to the caprice of men. It will, therefore, be highly useful to\nobserve how it is described by the prophets and apostles. For if we\nsimply grant to men the power which they may be pleased to assume, it\nmust be obvious to every one, what a door will be opened for tyranny,\nwhich ought never to be seen in the Church of Christ.\n\nII. Here, therefore, it is necessary to remember, that whatever\nauthority and dignity is attributed by the Holy Spirit, in the\nScripture, either to the priests and prophets under the law, or to the\napostles and their successors, it is all given, not in a strict sense to\nthe persons themselves, but to the ministry over which they were\nappointed, or, to speak more correctly, to the word, the ministration of\nwhich was committed to them. For if we examine them all in succession,\nwe shall not find that they were invested with any authority to teach or\nto answer inquiries, but in the name and word of the Lord. For when they\nwere called to their office, it was at the same time enjoined that they\nshould bring forward nothing of themselves, but should speak from the\nmouth of the Lord. Nor did he send them forth in public to address the\npeople, before he had instructed them what they should say, that they\nmight speak nothing beside his word. Moses himself, the prince of all\nthe prophets, was to be heard above all others; but he was first\nfurnished with his commission, that he might not be able to announce any\nthing except from the Lord. Therefore the people, when they received his\ndoctrine, were said to \u201cbelieve the Lord and his servant Moses.\u201d[904]\nThe authority of the priests also, that it might not fall into contempt,\nwas confirmed by the severest punishments.[905] But, on the other hand,\nthe Lord shows on what condition they were to be heard, when he says,\n\u201cMy covenant was with Levi. The law of truth was in his mouth.\u201d And just\nafterwards, \u201cThe priest\u2019s lips should keep knowledge, and they should\nseek the law at his mouth; for he is the messenger of the Lord of\nhosts.\u201d[906] Therefore, if a priest would be heard, it was necessary for\nhim to prove himself the messenger of God, by faithfully communicating\nthe commands which he had received from his master; and where attention\nto the priests is enjoined, it is expressly stated, that \u201cthey shall\nteach the sentence of the law\u201d[907] of God.\n\nIII. The power of the prophets is fully and beautifully described in\nEzekiel. \u201cSon of man,\u201d says the Lord, \u201cI have made thee a watchman unto\nthe house of Israel; therefore hear the word at my mouth, and give them\nwarning from me.\u201d[908] When he is commanded to hear from the mouth of\nthe Lord, is he not prohibited to invent any thing of himself? And what\nis it to give warning from the Lord, but, to speak in such a manner as\nto be able to declare with confidence that the message he has brought is\nnot his own, but the Lord\u2019s? The Lord expresses the same thing in other\nwords in the prophecy of Jeremiah: \u201cThe prophet that hath a dream, let\nhim tell a dream; and he that hath my word, let him speak my word\nfaithfully.\u201d[909] He clearly delivers a law for them all; its import is,\nthat he permits no one to teach more than he has been commanded; and he\nafterwards gives the appellation of \u201cchaff\u201d to every thing that has not\nproceeded from himself alone. Not one of the prophets opened his mouth,\ntherefore, without having first received the words from the Lord. Hence\ntheir frequent use of these expressions: \u201cThe word of the Lord,\u201d \u201cThe\nburden of the Lord,\u201d \u201cThus saith the Lord,\u201d \u201cThe mouth of the Lord hath\nspoken;\u201d and this was highly necessary; for Isaiah exclaimed, \u201cI am a\nman of unclean lips;\u201d[910] and Jeremiah said, \u201cBehold, I cannot speak,\nfor I am a child.\u201d[911] What could proceed from the pollution of the\none, and the folly of the other, but impure and foolish speeches, if\nthey had spoken their own words? But their lips were holy and pure, when\nthey began to be the organs of the Holy Spirit. While the prophets were\nbound by this law to deliver nothing but what they had received, they\nwere likewise adorned with eminent power and splendid titles. For when\nthe Lord declares, \u201cSee, I have this day set thee over the nations, and\nover the kingdoms, to root out, and to pull down, and to destroy, and to\nthrow down, and to build, and to plant,\u201d he at the same time assigns the\nreason\u2014\u201cBehold, I have put my words in thy mouth.\u201d[912]\n\nIV. If we advert to the apostles, they are certainly honoured with many\nextraordinary characters. It is said that they are \u201cthe light of the\nworld,\u201d and \u201cthe salt of the earth;\u201d[913] that \u201che that heareth\u201d them\n\u201cheareth Christ;\u201d[914] that \u201cwhatsoever\u201d they \u201cshall bind on earth shall\nbe bound in heaven, and whatsoever\u201d they \u201cshall loose on earth shall be\nloosed in heaven.\u201d[915] But their very name shows what degree of liberty\nthey were allowed in their office; that if they were apostles, they were\nnot to declaim according to their own pleasure, but to deliver with\nstrict fidelity the commands of him who had sent them. And the language\nof Christ is sufficiently clear, in which he has defined their message\nby the following commission: \u201cGo ye, and teach all nations whatsoever I\nhave commanded you.\u201d[916] He had even received and imposed on himself\nthe same law, in order that no one might refuse to submit to it. \u201cMy\ndoctrine,\u201d says he, \u201cis not mine, but his that sent me.\u201d[917] He who was\nalways the eternal and only counsellor of the Father, and was\nconstituted by the Father the Lord and Master of all, yet because he\nsustained the office of a teacher, prescribed, by his own example, the\nrule which all ministers ought to follow in their teaching. The power of\nthe Church, therefore, is not unlimited, but subject to the word of the\nLord, and, as it were, included in it.\n\nV. But whereas it has been a principle received in the Church from the\nbeginning, and ought to be admitted in the present day, that the\nservants of God should teach nothing which they have not learned from\nhim, yet they have had different modes of receiving instruction from\nhim, according to the variety of different periods; and the present mode\ndiffers from those which have preceded it. In the first place, if the\nassertion of Christ be true, that \u201cno man knoweth the Father except the\nSon, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him,\u201d[918] it must always\nhave been necessary for those who would arrive at the knowledge of God,\nto be directed by that eternal wisdom. For how could they have\ncomprehended the mysteries of God, or how could they have declared them,\nexcept by the teaching of him, to whom alone the secrets of the Father\nare intimately known? The saints in former ages, therefore, had no other\nknowledge of God than what they obtained by beholding him in the Son, as\nin a mirror. By this observation I mean that God never manifested\nhimself to man in any other way than by his Son, his only wisdom, light,\nand truth. From this fountain Adam, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and\nothers, drew all the knowledge which they possessed of heavenly\ndoctrine; from this fountain the prophets themselves drew all the\ncelestial oracles which they spoke and wrote. But this wisdom has not\nalways manifested itself in the same way. With the patriarchs God\nemployed secret revelations; for the confirmation of which, however, he\nat the same time added such signs that they could not entertain the\nleast doubt that it was God who spake to them. What the patriarchs had\nreceived, they transmitted from hand to hand to their posterity; for the\nLord had committed it to them on the express condition that they should\nso propagate it. Succeeding generations, from the testimony of God in\ntheir hearts, knew that what they heard was from heaven, and not from\nthe earth.\n\nVI. But when it pleased God to raise up a more visible form of a church,\nit was his will that his word should be committed to writing, in order\nthat the priests might derive from it whatever they would communicate to\nthe people, and that all the doctrine which should be delivered might be\nexamined by that rule. Therefore, after the promulgation of the law,\nwhen the priests were commanded to teach \u201cout of the mouth of the Lord,\u201d\nthe meaning is, that they should teach nothing extraneous, or different\nfrom that system of doctrine which the Lord had comprised in the law; it\nwas not lawful for them to add to it or to diminish from it. Afterwards\nfollowed the prophets, by whom God published new oracles, which were to\nbe added to the law; yet they were not so new but that they proceeded\nfrom the law, and bore a relation to it. For in regard to doctrine, the\nprophets were merely interpreters of the law, and added nothing to it\nexcept prophecies of things to come. Except these, they brought forward\nnothing but pure explication of the law. But because it pleased God that\nthere should be a more evident and copious doctrine, for the better\nsatisfaction of weak consciences, he directed the prophecies also to be\ncommitted to writing, and to be accounted a part of his word. To these\nlikewise were added the histories, which were the productions of the\nprophets, but composed under the dictation of the Holy Spirit. I class\nthe Psalms with the prophecies, because what we attribute to the\nprophecies is common to the Psalms. That whole body of Scripture,\ntherefore, consisting of the Law, the Prophets, the Psalms, and the\nHistories, was the word of God to the ancient Church; and to this\nstandard the priests and teachers, even to the coming of Christ, were\nbound to conform their doctrine; nor was it lawful for them to deviate\neither to the right hand or to the left, because their office was wholly\nconfined within these limits, that they should answer the people from\nthe mouth of God. And this may be inferred from that remarkable passage\nof Malachi, where he commands the Jews to remember the law, and to be\nattentive to it, even till the publication of the gospel.[919] For in\nthat injunction he drives them off from all adventitious doctrines, and\nprohibits even the smallest deviation from the path which Moses had\nfaithfully showed them. And it is for this reason that David so\nmagnifies the excellence of the law, and recounts so many of its\npraises; to prevent the Jews from desiring any addition to it, since it\ncontained every thing necessary for them to know.\n\nVII. But when, at length, the Wisdom of God was manifested in the flesh,\nit openly declared to us all that the human mind is capable of\ncomprehending, or ought to think, concerning the heavenly Father. Now,\ntherefore, since Christ, the Sun of Righteousness, has shone upon us, we\nenjoy the full splendour of Divine truth, resembling the brightness of\nnoonday, whereas the light enjoyed before was a kind of twilight. For\ncertainly the apostle intended to state no unimportant fact when he\nsaid, that \u201cGod, who, at sundry times, and in divers manners, spake in\ntime past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days\nspoken unto us by his Son;\u201d[920] for he here suggests, and even plainly\ndeclares, that God will not in future, as in ages past, speak from time\nto time by one and another, that he will not add prophecies to\nprophecies, or revelations to revelations, but that he has completed all\nthe branches of instruction in his Son, so that this is the last and\neternal testimony that we shall have from him; for which reason this\nwhole period of the New Testament, from the appearance of Christ to us\nin the first promulgation of his gospel, even to the day of judgment, is\ndesignated as \u201cthe last time,\u201d \u201cthe last times,\u201d \u201cthe last days;\u201d in\norder that, being content with the perfection of the doctrine of Christ,\nwe may learn neither to invent any thing new or beyond it ourselves, nor\nto receive any such thing from the invention of others. It is not\nwithout cause, therefore, that the Father has given us his Son by a\npeculiar privilege, and appointed him to be our teacher, commanding\nattention to be paid to him, and not to any mere man. He has recommended\nhis tuition to us in few words, when he says, \u201cHear ye him;\u201d[921] but\nthere is more weight and energy in them than is commonly imagined; for\nthey call us away from all the instructions of men, and place us before\nhim alone; they command us to learn from him alone all the doctrine of\nsalvation, to depend upon him, to adhere to him, in short, as the words\nexpress, to listen solely to his voice. And, indeed, what ought now to\nbe either expected or desired from man, when the Word of Life himself\nhas familiarly presented himself before us? It is rather necessary that\nthe mouths of all men should be shut, since he has once spoken, in whom\nit has pleased the heavenly Father that all the treasures of wisdom and\nknowledge should be hidden,[922] and has spoken in a manner becoming the\nwisdom of God, in which there is no imperfection, and the Messiah, who\nwas expected to reveal all things;[923] that is, has spoken in such a\nmanner as to leave nothing to be said by others after him.\n\nVIII. Let us lay down this, then, as an undoubted axiom, that nothing\nought to be admitted in the Church as the word of God, but what is\ncontained first in the law and the prophets, and secondly in the\nwritings of the apostles, and that there is no other method of teaching\naright in the Church than according to the direction and standard of\nthat word. Hence we conclude, also, that the apostles were allowed no\nmore discretion than the prophets before them\u2014namely, to expound the\nancient Scripture, and to show that the things delivered in it were\naccomplished in Christ; but this they were only to do from the Lord,\nthat is to say, under the guidance and dictation of the Spirit of\nChrist. For Christ limited their mission by this condition, when he\nordered them to go and teach, not the fabrications of their own\npresumption, but whatsoever he had commanded them.[924] And nothing\ncould be more explicit than what he said on another occasion: \u201cBe not ye\ncalled Rabbi; for one is your Master, even Christ.\u201d[925] To fix this\nmore deeply in their minds, he repeats it twice in the same place. And\nbecause their weakness was such that they were unable to comprehend the\nthings which they had heard and learned from the lips of their Master,\nthe Spirit of truth was promised to them, to lead them into the true\nunderstanding of all things.[926] For that restriction is to be\nattentively remarked, which assigns to the Holy Spirit the office of\nsuggesting to their minds all that Christ had before taught them with\nhis mouth.\n\nIX. Therefore Peter, who had been fully taught by his Master how far his\noffice extended, represents nothing as left for himself or others, but\nto dispense the doctrine committed to them by God. \u201cIf any man speak,\u201d\nsays he, \u201clet him speak as the oracles of God;\u201d[927] that is, not with\nhesitation or uncertainty, like persons conscious of no sufficient\nauthority, but with the noble confidence which becomes a servant of God\nfurnished with his certain commission. What is this but rejecting all\nthe inventions of the human mind, from whatever head they may proceed,\nin order that the pure word of God may be taught and learned in the\nChurch of believers? What is this but removing all the decrees, or\nrather inventions of men, whatever be their station, that the ordinances\nof God alone may be observed? These are the spiritual \u201cweapons, mighty\nthrough God to the pulling down of strong-holds,\u201d by which the faithful\nsoldiers of God \u201ccast down imaginations, and every high thing that\nexalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bring into captivity\nevery thought to the obedience of Christ.\u201d[928] This is the extent of\nthe power with which the pastors of the Church, by whatever name they\nmay be distinguished, ought to be invested;\u2014that by the word of God they\nmay venture to do all things with confidence; may constrain all the\nstrength, glory, wisdom, and pride of the world to obey and submit to\nhis majesty; supported by his power, may govern all mankind, from the\nhighest to the lowest; may build up the house of Christ, and subvert the\nhouse of Satan; may feed the sheep, and drive away the wolves; may\ninstruct and exhort the docile; may reprove, rebuke, and restrain the\nrebellious and obstinate; may bind and loose; may discharge their\nlightnings and thunders, if necessary; but all in the word of God.\nBetween the apostles and their successors, however, there is, as I have\nstated, this difference\u2014that the apostles were the certain and authentic\namanuenses of the Holy Spirit, and therefore their writings are to be\nreceived as the oracles of God; but succeeding ministers have no other\noffice than to teach what is revealed and recorded in the sacred\nScriptures. We conclude, then, that it is not now left to faithful\nministers to frame any new doctrine, but that it behoves them simply to\nadhere to the doctrine to which God has made all subject, without any\nexception. In making this observation, my design is to show, not only\nwhat is lawful to individuals, but also to the universal Church. With\nrespect to particular persons, Paul had certainly been appointed by the\nLord an apostle to the Corinthians; yet he denies that he had any\ndominion over their faith.[929] Who can now dare to arrogate to himself\na dominion which Paul testifies did not belong to him? If he had\nsanctioned such a license of teaching, that whatever the pastor\ndelivered, he might require, as a matter of right, that the same should\nbe implicitly believed, he would never have recommended to the same\nCorinthians such a regulation as this: \u201cLet the prophets speak two or\nthree, and let the other judge. If any thing be revealed to another that\nsitteth by, let the first hold his peace.\u201d[930] For here he exempted\nnone, but made the authority of every one subject to the control of the\nword of God. But the case of the universal Church, it will be said, is\ndifferent. I reply\u2014Paul has obviated this objection in another place,\nwhen he says that \u201cfaith cometh by hearing, and hearing, by the word of\nGod.\u201d[931] But if it be the word of God alone upon which faith is\nsuspended, towards which it looks, and on which it relies, I ask what is\nthere left for the word of the whole world? Here it will be impossible\nfor any man to hesitate who has really known what faith is. For it ought\nto rest on such firm ground as to stand invincible and undismayed in\nopposition to Satan, to all the machinations of hell, and to all the\nassaults of the world. This stability we shall find in the word of God\nalone. Besides the reason which we are here required to consider is of\nuniversal application\u2014that God denies to man the right of promulgating\nany new article of faith, in order that he alone may be our Master in\nspiritual doctrine, as he alone is true beyond all possibility of\ndeceiving or being deceived. This reason is no less applicable to the\nwhole Church than to every individual believer.\n\nX. But if this power, which we have shown to belong to the Church, be\ncompared with that which has now for some ages past been claimed over\nthe people of God by the spiritual tyrants who have falsely called\nthemselves bishops and prelates of religion, there will be no more\nresemblance than there is between Christ and Belial. It is not my\nintention here to expose the shameful methods in which they have\nexercised their tyranny: I shall only state the doctrine, which they\ndefend in the present age, not only by their writings, but also by fire\nand sword. As they take it for granted that a universal council is the\ntrue representative of the Church, having assumed this principle, they\nat once determine, as beyond all doubt, that such councils are under the\nimmediate direction of the Holy Spirit, and therefore cannot err. Now,\nas they themselves influence the councils, and even constitute them, the\nfact is, that they assume to themselves all that they contend for as\nbelonging to the councils. They wish our faith, therefore, to stand or\nfall at their pleasure, that whatever they may have determined on one\nside or the other, may be implicitly received by our minds as fully\ndecided; so that if they approve of any thing, we must approve of the\nsame without any hesitation; and if they condemn any thing, we must\nunite in the condemnation of it. At the same time, according to their\nown caprice, and in contempt of the word of God, they fabricate\ndoctrines which, for no other reason than this, they require to be\nbelieved. For they acknowledge no man as a Christian, who does not fully\nassent to all their dogmas, affirmative as well as negative, if not with\nan explicit, at least with an implicit faith, because they pretend that\nthe Church has authority to make new articles of faith.\n\nXI. First, let us hear by what arguments they prove this authority to\nhave been given to the Church; and then we shall see how far their\nallegations respecting the Church contribute to support their cause. The\nChurch, they say, has excellent promises, that she is never to be\nforsaken by Christ, her spouse, but will be led by his Spirit into all\ntruth.[932] But of the promises which they are accustomed to allege,\nmany are given no less to each believer in particular, than collectively\nto the whole Church. For though the Lord was addressing the twelve\napostles when he said, \u201cLo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of\nthe world;\u201d[933] and \u201cI will pray the Father, and he shall give you\nanother comforter, even the Spirit of truth;\u201d[934] he made these\npromises not only to the apostles considered as a body, but to every one\nof the number, and even to the other disciples whom he had already\nreceived, or who were afterwards to be added to them. Now, when they\ninterpret these promises, replete with peculiar consolation, in such a\nsense as if they were given to no individual Christian, but only to the\nwhole Church collectively, what is this but depriving all Christians of\nthe confidence with which such promises ought to animate them? Here I do\nnot deny that the whole society of believers, being adorned with a\nmanifold variety of gifts, possesses a more ample and precious treasure\nof heavenly wisdom, than each particular individual; nor do I intend\nthat these things are spoken of believers in common, as if they were all\nequally endued with the spirit of understanding and doctrine; but we\nmust not allow the adversaries of Christ, in defence of a bad cause, to\nwrest the Scripture to a sense which it was not intended to convey.\nLeaving this remark, I freely acknowledge that the Lord is continually\npresent with his servants, and that he guides them by his Spirit; that\nthis is not a spirit of error, ignorance, falsehood, or darkness, but\n\u201cthe spirit of wisdom, and revelation, and truth,\u201d from whom they may\ncertainly learn \u201cthe things that are given to\u201d them \u201cof God,\u201d or, in\nother words, \u201cmay know what is the hope of his calling, and what the\nriches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints.\u201d[935] But as it is\nnothing more than the first fruits, a kind of foretaste of that Spirit\nthat is enjoyed by believers in the present state, even by those of them\nwho are favoured with more excellent graces than others, there remains\nnothing for them, but that, conscious of their imbecility, they\nsolicitously confine themselves within the limits of the word of God;\nlest, if they proceed far by their own sense, they should wander from\nthe right way, in consequence of being not yet fully enlightened by that\nSpirit, by whose teaching alone truth is distinguished from falsehood.\nFor all confess with Paul, that they have not yet attained the mark;\ntherefore they rather press on towards daily improvement, than boast of\nperfection.[936]\n\nXII. But they will object, that whatever is partially attributed to\nevery one of the saints, completely and perfectly belongs to the whole\nChurch. Notwithstanding the plausibility of this position, yet I deny it\nto be true. I admit that God distributes the gifts of his Spirit by\nmeasure to every member of his Church, in such a manner that nothing\nnecessary is wanting to the whole body, when those gifts are bestowed in\ncommon. But the riches of the Church are always such as to be very far\nfrom that consummate perfection boasted by our adversaries. Yet the\nChurch is not left destitute in any respect, but that it always has what\nis sufficient; for the Lord knows what its necessity requires. But to\nrestrain it within the bounds of humility and pious modesty, he bestows\nno more than he sees to be expedient. Here, I know, they are accustomed\nto object, that the Church has been \u201ccleansed by the washing of water by\nthe word, that he might present it to himself a glorious Church, not\nhaving spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing, but that it should be holy\nand without blemish;\u201d[937] and that for this reason it is called \u201cthe\npillar and ground of the truth.\u201d[938] But the former of these passages\nrather indicates what Christ is daily performing in his Church, than any\nthing that he has already accomplished. For if he is daily sanctifying,\npurifying, polishing, and cleansing his people, it must be evident that\nthey still have some spots and wrinkles, and that something is still\nwanting to their sanctification. How vain and visionary is it to imagine\nthe Church already perfectly holy and immaculate, while all its members\nare the subjects of corruption and impurity! It is true that the Church\nis sanctified by Christ, but it is only the commencement of their\nsanctification that is seen in the present state; the end and perfect\ncompletion of it will be when Christ, the Holy of Holies, shall fill it\ntruly and entirely with his holiness. It is likewise true that its spots\nand wrinkles are effaced, but in such a manner that they are in a daily\ncourse of obliteration, till Christ at his coming shall entirely efface\nall that remains. For, unless we admit this, we must of necessity\nassert, with the Pelagians, that the righteousness of believers is\nperfect in the present life, and with the Cathari and Donatists, must\nallow no infirmity in the Church. The other passage, as we have already\nseen, has a meaning totally different from what they pretend. For after\nPaul had instructed Timothy in the true nature of the office of a\nbishop, he says, \u201cThese things I write unto thee, that thou mayest know\nhow thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God;\u201d and to enforce\nhis conscientious attention to this object, he adds, that the Church\nitself is \u201cthe pillar and ground of the truth.\u201d[939] Now, what is the\nmeaning of this expression, but that the truth of God is preserved in\nthe Church, and that by the ministry of preaching? As in another place\nhe states, that Christ \u201cgave some apostles, and some prophets, and some\nevangelists, and some pastors and teachers, that we be no more carried\nabout with every wind of doctrine,\u201d or deluded by men, but that, being\nenlightened with the true knowledge of the Son of God, we may \u201call come\ninto the unity of the faith.\u201d[940] The preservation of the truth,\ntherefore, from being extinguished in the world, is in consequence of\nthe Church being its faithful guardian, by whose efforts and ministry it\nis maintained. But if this guardianship consists in the ministry of the\nprophets and apostles, it follows that it wholly depends on the faithful\npreservation of the purity of the word of God.\n\nXIII. And that the readers may better understand upon what point this\nquestion principally turns, I will briefly state what our adversaries\nrequire, and wherein we oppose them. When they assert that the Church\ncannot err, their meaning is, as they themselves explain it, that as it\nis governed by the Spirit of God, it may safely proceed without the\nword; that whithersoever it goes, it can neither think nor speak any\nthing that is not true; and, therefore, that if it determine any thing\nbeyond or beside the Divine word, the same is to be considered in no\nother light than as a certain oracle of God. If we grant the first\npoint, that the Church cannot err in things essential to salvation, our\nmeaning is, that its security from error is owing to its renouncing all\nits own wisdom, and submitting itself to the Holy Spirit, to be taught\nby means of the word of God. This, then, is the difference between us.\nThey ascribe to the Church an authority independent of the word; we\nmaintain it to be annexed to the word, and inseparable from it. And what\nis there surprising that the spouse and disciple of Christ is subject to\nher Lord and Master, so as to be assiduously and sedulously awaiting his\ncommands and instructions? For it is the order of a well regulated\nfamily, for the wife to obey the command of the husband; it is the order\nof a well disciplined school, that nothing be heard there but the\ninstructions of the master. Wherefore let not the Church be wise of\nitself, nor think any thing of itself, but let it fix the boundary of\nits wisdom where Christ has made an end of speaking. In this manner it\nwill distrust all the inventions of its own reason; but in those things\nin which it is supported by the word of God, it will not waver with any\ndistrust or hesitation, but will rest upon it with strong certainty and\nunshaken constancy. Thus confiding in the amplitude of the promises it\nhas received, it will have an excellent support for its faith, so that\nit cannot doubt that the Holy Spirit, the best guide in the right way,\nis always present with it; but, at the same time, it will remember what\nadvantage the Lord intends should be received from his Spirit. \u201cThe\nSpirit,\u201d says he, \u201cwhom I will send from the Father, will guide you into\nall truth.\u201d But how will this be done? Christ says, \u201cHe shall bring all\nthings to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.\u201d[941] He\nannounces, therefore, that nothing more is to be expected from his\nSpirit, than that he will enlighten our minds to discover the truth of\nhis doctrine. Wherefore it is very judiciously observed by Chrysostom,\nthat \u201cmany boast of the Holy Spirit; but in those who speak from\nthemselves this is a false pretence. As Christ testified that he spake\nnot of himself, because he spake from the law and the prophets, so, if,\nunder the name of the Spirit, any thing be obtruded that is not\ncontained in the gospel, let us not believe it. For as Christ is the\naccomplishment of the law and the prophets, so is the Spirit, of the\ngospel.\u201d These are the words of Chrysostom. Now, it is easy to infer how\ngreat is the error of our adversaries, who boast of the Holy Spirit for\nno other purpose than to recommend, under his name, doctrines strange\nand inconsistent with the word of God, whereas it is his determination\nto be connected with the word by an indissoluble bond; and this was\ndeclared by Christ when he promised him to his Church. And so he is, in\npoint of fact. The sobriety which the Lord has once prescribed to his\nChurch, he will have to be perpetually observed; and he has forbidden\nthe Church to add any thing to his word, or to diminish any thing from\nit. This is the inviolable decree of God and of the Holy Spirit, which\nour adversaries endeavour to abrogate, when they pretend that the Church\nis governed by the Spirit without the word.\n\nXIV. Here, again, they cavil, that it was necessary for the Church to\nadd some things to the writings of the apostles, or at least for the\napostles themselves afterwards to supply in their discourses what they\nhad not so explicitly delivered in their writings, because Christ\ndeclared to them, \u201cI have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot\nbear them now;\u201d[942] and that these are the ordinances which have been\nreceived by usage and custom without the Scripture. But what effrontery\nis here betrayed! I confess that the disciples were ignorant, and not\nvery docile, when the Lord made this declaration to them; but they were\nnot so stupid, when they committed their doctrine to writing, as to\nrender it necessary for them afterwards to supply in their discourses\nwhat they had from ignorance omitted in their writings. But if, when\nthey published their writings, they had already been led by the Spirit\ninto all truth, what hindered them from comprising and leaving on record\nin those writings a perfect system of evangelical doctrine? Let us grant\nour opponents, however, what they ask: only let them enumerate those\nthings which required to be revealed, and are not contained in the\napostolical writings. If they dare to attempt this, I will reply in the\nwords of Augustine, \u201cWhere the Lord has been silent, which of us can\nsay, These things or those are intended; and if he dare to say so, how\nwill he prove it?\u201d But why do I contend a point that is unnecessary? For\neven children know that the apostolic writings, which these men\nrepresent as incomplete and essentially deficient, contain the fruit of\nthat revelation which the Lord then promised them.\n\nXV. What, say they, did not Christ place the doctrines and decrees of\nthe Church beyond all controversy, when he commanded him who should dare\nto contradict it, to be regarded \u201cas a heathen man and a publican?\u201d[943]\nIn the first place, Christ in that text makes no mention of doctrine,\nbut only asserts the authority of the Church in pronouncing censures for\nthe correction of vices, in order that its judgment may not be opposed\nby any who are admonished or reproved. But leaving this remark, it is\nastonishing, that they have no more modesty than to presume to boast of\nthat passage. For what will they extort from it, but that it is unlawful\nto despise the consent of the Church, which never consents to any thing\nexcept the truth of the word of God? The Church is to be heard, they\nsay. Who denies it? For it pronounces nothing but from the word of the\nLord. If they require any thing further, let them know that these words\nof Christ afford them no support. Nor ought it to be esteemed too\ncontentious in me to insist so strenuously on this point\u2014That it is not\nlawful for the Church to invent any new doctrine, or to teach and\ndeliver, as of Divine authority, any thing more than the Lord has\nrevealed in his word. All persons of sound judgment perceive how\nexceedingly dangerous it would be if so much power were once granted to\nany man. For they see how wide a door is opened to the scoffs and cavils\nof the impious, if we assert that the decisions of men are to be\nreceived by Christians as articles of faith. It is also to be remarked,\nthat Christ spoke according to the established order of his own time,\nand gave this name to the Sanhedrim, that his disciples might learn\nafterwards to reverence the solemn assemblies of the Church. And thus,\non the principle of our adversaries, every city and village would have\nan equal liberty to frame new articles of faith.\n\nXVI. The examples which they allege are nothing to the purpose. They say\nthat the baptism of infants arose, not so much from any express command\nof Scripture, as from the decree of the Church. It would be a most\nmiserable asylum, if, in defence of infant baptism, we were compelled to\nhave recourse to the mere authority of the Church; but it will be shown\nin another place, that the fact is very different. So when they object,\nthat the Scriptures nowhere affirm what was pronounced in the Council of\nNice, that the Son is of the same substance with the Father, they do\ngreat injury to the fathers of that council, as if they had\npresumptuously condemned Arius for having refused to subscribe to their\nlanguage, while he professed all the doctrine which is contained in the\nwritings of the prophets and apostles. The word _consubstantial_,\n(\u1f41\u03bc\u03bf\u03bf\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bf\u03c2,) I confess, is not to be found in the Scripture; but while,\non the one hand, it is so often affirmed that there is but one God, and,\non the other, Christ is so frequently called the true and eternal God,\none with the Father, what have the Nicene fathers done, but simply\nexpressed the natural sense of the Scripture, in declaring the Father\nand the Son to be of one and the same substance? And Theodoret the\nhistorian states, that Constantine the emperor opened that council with\nthe following preliminary address: \u201cIn disputes on Divine subjects, we\nare to adhere to the doctrine of the Holy Spirit; the books of the\nevangelists and apostles, with the oracles of the prophets, fully reveal\nto us the will of God. Wherefore, laying aside all discord, let us take\nthe decision of all questions in debate from the words of the Spirit.\u201d\nThere was no one at that time who opposed these holy admonitions. No one\nobjected, that the Church might add something of its own, that the\nSpirit had not revealed every thing to the apostles, or, at least, that\nthey had not transmitted the whole to posterity in writing, or any thing\nof the like nature. If what our adversaries contend for be true, in the\nfirst place, Constantine acted unjustly in depriving the Church of its\npower; and in the next place, when none of the bishops rose to vindicate\nthat power, their silence was not to be excused from treachery, for on\nthat occasion they must have betrayed the rights of the Church. But from\nthe statement of Theodoret, that they readily received what was said by\nthe emperor, it is evident that this novel dogma of our adversaries was\nat that time altogether unknown.\n\nFootnote 899:\n\n  2 Cor. x. 8; xiii. 10.\n\nFootnote 900:\n\n  Phil. i. 1.\n\nFootnote 901:\n\n  2 Cor. iv. 5.\n\nFootnote 902:\n\n  Matt. xxiii. 8.\n\nFootnote 903:\n\n  Matt. xvii. 5.\n\nFootnote 904:\n\n  Exod. xiv. 31.\n\nFootnote 905:\n\n  Deut. xvii. 8-12.\n\nFootnote 906:\n\n  Mal. ii. 4-7.\n\nFootnote 907:\n\n  Deut. xvii. 11.\n\nFootnote 908:\n\n  Ezek. iii. 17.\n\nFootnote 909:\n\n  Jer. xxiii. 28.\n\nFootnote 910:\n\n  Isaiah vi. 5.\n\nFootnote 911:\n\n  Jer. i. 6.\n\nFootnote 912:\n\n  Jer. i. 9, 10.\n\nFootnote 913:\n\n  Matt. v. 13, 14.\n\nFootnote 914:\n\n  Luke x. 16.\n\nFootnote 915:\n\n  Matt. xviii. 18.\n\nFootnote 916:\n\n  Matt. xxviii. 19, 20.\n\nFootnote 917:\n\n  John vii. 16.\n\nFootnote 918:\n\n  Matt. xi. 27.\n\nFootnote 919:\n\n  Mal. iv. 4.\n\nFootnote 920:\n\n  Heb. i. 1, 2.\n\nFootnote 921:\n\n  Matt. xvii. 5.\n\nFootnote 922:\n\n  Col. i. 19; ii. 3.\n\nFootnote 923:\n\n  John iv. 25.\n\nFootnote 924:\n\n  Matt. xxviii. 19, 20.\n\nFootnote 925:\n\n  Matt. xxiii. 8, 10.\n\nFootnote 926:\n\n  John xiv. 26; xvi. 13.\n\nFootnote 927:\n\n  1 Peter iv. 11.\n\nFootnote 928:\n\n  2 Cor. x. 4, 5.\n\nFootnote 929:\n\n  2 Cor. i. 24.\n\nFootnote 930:\n\n  1 Cor. xiv. 29, 30.\n\nFootnote 931:\n\n  Rom. x. 17.\n\nFootnote 932:\n\n  John xvi. 13.\n\nFootnote 933:\n\n  Matt. xxviii. 20.\n\nFootnote 934:\n\n  John xiv. 16, 17.\n\nFootnote 935:\n\n  Ephes. i. 17, 18. John xiv. 17. 1 Cor. ii. 12.\n\nFootnote 936:\n\n  Phil. iii. 12-14.\n\nFootnote 937:\n\n  Ephes. v. 26, 27.\n\nFootnote 938:\n\n  1 Tim. iii. 15.\n\nFootnote 939:\n\n  1 Tim. iii. 14, 15.\n\nFootnote 940:\n\n  Ephes. iv. 11, 13, 14.\n\nFootnote 941:\n\n  John xiv. 26; xv. 26; xvi. 13.\n\nFootnote 942:\n\n  John xvi. 12.\n\nFootnote 943:\n\n  Matt. xviii. 17.\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER IX.\n                       COUNCILS; THEIR AUTHORITY.\n\n\nThough I should concede to our adversaries all the claims which they set\nup on behalf of the Church, yet this would effect but little towards the\nattainment of their object. For whatever is said respecting the Church,\nthey immediately transfer to the councils, which they consider as\nrepresenting the Church; and it may further be affirmed, that their\nviolent contentions for the power of the Church, are with no other view\nthan to ascribe all that they can extort, to the Roman pontiff and his\nsatellites. Before I enter on the discussion of this question, it is\nnecessary for me to premise two brief observations. First, if in this\nchapter I am rather severe on our opponents, it is not that I would show\nthe ancient councils less honour than they deserve. I venerate them from\nmy heart, and wish them to receive from all men the honour to which they\nare entitled; but here some limits must be observed, that we may\nderogate nothing from Christ. Now, it is the prerogative of Christ to\npreside over all councils, and to have no mortal man associated with him\nin that dignity. But I maintain, that he really presides only where he\ngoverns the whole assembly by his word and Spirit. Secondly, when I\nattribute to the councils less than our adversaries require, I am not\ninduced to do this from any fear that the councils would favour their\ncause and oppose ours. For as we are sufficiently armed by the word of\nthe Lord, and need not seek any further assistance for the complete\nestablishment of our doctrine, and the total subversion of Popery, so,\non the other hand, if it were necessary, the ancient councils would\nfurnish us in a great measure with sufficient arguments for both these\nobjects.\n\nII. Let us now come to the subject itself. If it be inquired what is the\nauthority of councils according to the Scriptures, there is no promise\nmore ample or explicit than this declaration of Christ: \u201cWhere two or\nthree are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of\nthem.\u201d[944] But this belongs no less to every particular congregation\nthan to a general council. The main stress of the question, however,\ndoes not lie in this, but in the annexed condition,\u2014that Christ will be\nin the midst of a council, then, and then only, when it is assembled in\nhis name. Wherefore, though our adversaries mention councils of bishops\na thousand times, they will gain but little ground; nor will they\nprevail upon us to believe what they pretend,\u2014that such councils are\ndirected by the Holy Spirit,\u2014till it shall have been proved, that they\nare assembled in the name of Christ. For it is equally as possible for\nimpious and unfaithful bishops to conspire against Christ, as for pious\nand upright bishops to assemble together in his name. Of this we have\nample proof in numerous decrees which have been issued by such councils;\nas will be seen in the course of this discussion. At present I only\nreply in one word, that the promise of Christ is exclusively restricted\nto those who \u201care gathered together in his name.\u201d Let us, therefore,\ndefine wherein this consists. I deny that they are assembled in the name\nof Christ, who, rejecting the command of God, which prohibits any\ndiminution of his word, or the smallest addition to it,[945] determine\nevery thing according to their own pleasure; who, not content with the\noracles of the Scripture, which constitute the only rule of perfect\nwisdom, invent something new out of their own heads. Since Christ has\nnot promised to be present in all councils, but has added a particular\nmark to discriminate true and legitimate councils from others, it\ncertainly behoves us by no means to neglect this distinction. This was\nthe covenant which God anciently made with the Levitical priests, that\nthey should teach their people from his mouth;[946] he always required\nthe same of the prophets; and we see that a similar law was imposed upon\nthe apostles. Those who violate this covenant, God neither dignifies\nwith the honour of the priesthood, nor invests with any authority. Let\nour adversaries solve this difficulty, if they wish me to submit my\nfaith to the decrees of men, independently of the word of God.\n\nIII. For their supposition, that no truth remains in the Church, unless\nit be found among the pastors, and that the Church itself stands, no\nlonger than it appears in general councils, is very far from having been\nalways correct, if the prophets have left us any authentic records of\ntheir times. In the days of Isaiah, there was a Church at Jerusalem,\nwhich God had not yet forsaken: nevertheless he speaks of the priests in\nthe following manner: \u201cHis watchmen are blind; they are all ignorant;\nthey are all dumb dogs, they cannot bark; sleeping, lying down, loving\nto slumber: they are shepherds that cannot understand: they all look to\ntheir own way, every one for his gain, from his quarter.\u201d[947]\u2014Hosea\nspeaks in a similar manner: \u201cThe watchman of Ephraim was with my God;\nbut the prophet is a snare of a fowler in all his ways, and hatred in\nthe house of his God.\u201d[948] By thus ironically connecting them with God,\nhe shows that their priesthood was a vain pretence. The Church continued\nalso to the time of Jeremiah. Let us hear what he says of the pastors.\n\u201cFrom the prophet even unto the priest, every one dealeth falsely.\u201d[949]\nAgain: \u201cthe prophets prophesy lies in my name; I sent them not, neither\nhave I commanded them.\u201d[950] And to avoid too much prolixity in reciting\nhis words, I would recommend my readers to peruse the whole of the\ntwenty-third and fortieth chapters. Nor were the same persons treated\nwith less severity by Ezekiel: \u201cThere is a conspiracy of her prophets in\nthe midst thereof, like a roaring lion ravening the prey; they have\ndevoured souls; they have taken the treasure and precious things; they\nhave made her many widows in the midst thereof. Her priests have\nviolated my law, and have profaned mine holy things; they have put no\ndifference between the holy and profane. Her prophets have daubed them\nwith untempered mortar, seeing vanity, and divining lies unto them,\nsaying, Thus saith the Lord God, when the Lord hath not spoken.\u201d[951]\nSimilar complaints abound in all the prophets, so that there is nothing\nof more frequent recurrence.\n\nIV. But it will be said, though such may have been the case among the\nJews, our age is exempt from so great a calamity. I sincerely wish that\nit were so; but the Holy Spirit has denounced that the event would be\nvery different. The language of Peter is clear: \u201cThere were false\nprophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers\namong you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies.\u201d[952] Observe\nhow he declares that danger will arise, not from the common people, but\nfrom those who will assume to themselves the name of pastors and\nteachers. Besides, how often is it predicted by Christ and his apostles,\nthat the greatest dangers would be brought upon the Church by its\npastors![953] Paul expressly denounces that Antichrist will \u201csit in the\ntemple of God;\u201d[954] by which he signifies, that the dreadful calamity\nof which he speaks, will arise from the very persons who will sit as\npastors in the Church. And in another place, he shows that the\ncommencement of the mischief was then near at hand. For addressing the\nbishops of the Church of Ephesus, he says, \u201cI know this, that after my\ndeparting shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the\nflock; also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse\nthings, to draw away disciples after them.\u201d[955] If the pastors could so\ndegenerate in a very short space of time, what enormous corruption might\nbe introduced among them in a long series of years! And not to occupy\nmuch room with an enumeration, we are taught by the examples of almost\nall ages, that neither is the truth always maintained in the bosom of\nthe pastors, nor the safety of the Church dependent on their stability.\nThey ought, indeed, to be the guardians and defenders of the peace and\nsafety of the Church, for the preservation of which they are appointed;\nbut it is one thing to perform a duty which we owe, and another, to owe\na duty which we do not perform.\n\nV. Let no person conclude from what I have said, that I am inclined on\nall occasions, and without any discrimination, to weaken the authority\nof pastors, and bring it into contempt. I only mean to suggest the\nnecessity of discriminating between some pastors and others, that we may\nnot immediately consider persons as pastors because they bear that\ntitle. But the pope and all his bishops, for no other reason but because\nthey are called pastors, casting off all obedience to the word of God,\ndisturb and confound every thing at their own pleasure; while they\nlabour to persuade us that it is impossible for them to be destitute of\nthe light of truth, that the Spirit of God perpetually resides in them,\nand that with them the Church lives and dies. As though the Lord had now\nno judgments, to inflict upon the world, in the present day, the same\nkind of punishment, with which he once visited the ingratitude of his\nancient people;[956] namely, to smite the pastors with astonishment,\nmadness, and blindness. And such is their extreme stupidity, they are\nnot aware that they are acting the same part which was acted by those\nwho resisted the word of the Lord in ancient times. For thus the enemies\nof Jeremiah fortified themselves in opposition to the truth: \u201cCome, and\nlet us devise devices against Jeremiah; for the law shall not perish\nfrom the priest, nor counsel from the wise, nor the word from the\nprophet.\u201d[957]\n\nVI. Hence it is easy to reply to another plea in behalf of general\ncouncils. That a true Church existed among the Jews in the time of the\nprophets, cannot be denied. But if a general council of the priests had\nbeen convened, what appearance of a Church would such a council have\ndisplayed? We hear what God denounces, not against two or three of them,\nbut against the whole body: \u201cThe priests shall be astonished, and the\nprophets shall wonder.\u201d[958] Again: \u201cThe law shall perish from the\npriest, and counsel from the ancients.\u201d[959] Again: \u201cNight shall be unto\nyou, that ye shall not have a vision; and it shall be dark unto you,\nthat ye shall not divine; and the sun shall go down over the prophets,\nand the day shall be dark over them.\u201d[960] Now, if these priests and\nprophets had all been collected together, what spirit would have\npresided in their assembly? This is remarkably exemplified in the\ncouncil convoked by Ahab. Four hundred prophets were present. But\nbecause they were assembled with no other intention than to flatter that\nimpious monarch, Satan was sent by the Lord to be a lying spirit in all\ntheir mouths.[961] There the truth was rejected with one consent;\nMicaiah was condemned as a heretic, beaten, and cast into prison.\nJeremiah received the same treatment, and other prophets experienced\nsimilar injustice.\n\nVII. But one example, which is more memorable than the rest, may suffice\nas a specimen of all. In the council which the chief priests and\nPharisees convened at Jerusalem against Christ, what was there wanting\nin point of external form? For if there had then been no Church at\nJerusalem, Christ would never have united in their sacrifices and other\nceremonies. A solemn summons was issued; the high priest presided; all\nthe priests attended; yet there Christ was condemned, and his doctrine\nrejected. This act proves that the Church was not contained in that\ncouncil. But, it will be said, there is no danger of such a circumstance\nhappening to us. Who has assured us of this? For to be too confident in\na matter of such great importance, is culpable stupidity. But while the\nSpirit has expressly predicted, by the mouth of Paul, that there shall\ncome an apostasy, which cannot take place without the pastors being the\nfirst to revolt from God,[962] why do we wilfully shut our eyes to our\nown ruin? Wherefore it is by no means to be conceded, that the Church\nconsists in the assembly of the pastors, respecting whom God has nowhere\npromised that they should always be good, but, on the contrary, has\ndenounced that they would sometimes be wicked. Now, when he warns us of\na danger, his design is to make us more cautious.\n\nVIII. What, then, it will be said, shall the decisions of councils have\nno authority? Yes, certainly; for I am not contending that all councils\nought to be condemned, or that all their acts ought to be rescinded and\ncancelled at once. Still I shall be told, that I degrade their\nauthority, so as to leave it to the option of every individual to\nreceive or reject whatever a council shall have determined. By no means;\nbut whenever a decree of any council is brought forward, I would wish,\nfirst, that a diligent inquiry should be made, at what time, for what\ncause, and with what design it was held, and what kind of persons were\npresent; secondly, that the subject discussed in it should be examined\nby the standard of the Scripture; and this in such a manner that the\ndetermination should have its weight, and be considered as a precedent\nor case formerly decided, but that it should not preclude the\nexamination which I have mentioned. I sincerely wish that every person\nwould observe the method recommended by Augustine in his third book\nagainst Maximinus. For, with a view to silence the contentions of that\nheretic respecting the decrees of councils, he says, \u201cI ought not to\nobject to you the Council of Nice, nor ought you to object to me the\nCouncil of Ariminum, to preclude each other\u2019s judgment by a previous\ndecision. I am not bound by the authority of the latter, nor you by that\nof the former. Let cause contend with cause, and argument with argument,\non the ground of scriptural authorities, which exclusively belong to\nneither party, but are common to both.\u201d The consequence of such a mode\nof proceeding would be, that councils would retain all the majesty which\nis due to them, while at the same time the Scripture would hold the\npre\u00ebminence, so that every thing would be subject to its standard. Upon\nthis principle, those ancient councils, such as the Council of Nice, of\nConstantinople, the first of Ephesus, that of Chalcedon, and others like\nthem, which were held for the condemnation of errors, we cheerfully\nreceive and reverence as sacred, as far as respects the articles of\nfaith which they have defended; for they contain nothing but the pure\nand natural interpretation of the Scripture, which the holy fathers,\nwith spiritual prudence, applied to the discomfiture of the enemies of\nreligion who arose in those days. In some of the succeeding councils,\nlikewise, we discover a true zeal for piety, and evident proofs of\nsense, learning, and prudence. But as the progress of the world is\ngenerally from worse to worse, it is easy to see, from the more recent\ncouncils, how much the Church has gradually degenerated from the purity\nof that golden age. Even in these more corrupt ages, I doubt not, the\ncouncils have been partly composed of some bishops of a better\ncharacter; but the same observation may be applied to their acts, which\nwas formerly made in a way of complaint against the decrees of the Roman\nsenate, by the senators themselves. Where opinions prevail according to\ntheir number, and not according to the weight of argument by which they\nare supported, the better part of the assembly must of necessity be\nfrequently overcome by the majority. And councils have certainly issued\nmany impious decrees. It is unnecessary here to produce particular\nexamples, as well because this would carry us to too great a length, as\nbecause it has already been done by others with a diligence which\nscarcely admits of any addition.\n\nIX. Now, what need is there to enumerate the repugnances between\ncouncils and councils, and how decrees passed by one have been rescinded\nby another? Here it must not be alleged, that where there is such\nvariance between two councils, one or the other is not legitimate. For\nhow shall we determine this? The only way I know, is to ascertain from\nthe Scriptures that its decrees are not orthodox; for there is no other\ncertain rule of decision. It is now about nine hundred years ago, that\nthe Council of Constantinople, assembled under the emperor Leo, decreed\nthat all images placed in churches should be thrown down and broken in\npieces. Soon after, the Council of Nice, which the empress Irene\nconvened in opposition to the former, decreed that they should be\nrestored. Which of these two shall we acknowledge as a legitimate\ncouncil? This character has generally been attributed to the latter,\nwhich gave images a place in the Churches. But Augustine declares that\nthis cannot be done without imminent danger of idolatry. Epiphanius, a\nmore ancient writer, expresses himself in terms of much greater\nseverity; he says that it is abominable wickedness for images to be seen\nin the temples of Christians. Would the fathers who speak in this manner\napprove of that council, if they were now living? But if the accounts of\nhistorians be true, and credit be given to the acts themselves, that\ncouncil not only admitted of images, but determined that they were to be\nworshipped. Now, it is evident that such a decree must have originated\nfrom Satan. What shall we say to their perversions and mutilations of\nthe Scripture, which demonstrate that they held it all in contempt, as I\nhave already proved? We shall never be able to discriminate between the\nnumerous councils, which dissent from and contradict each other, unless\nwe examine them all by the word of God, which is the universal standard\nfor men and angels. On this ground, we reject the second Council of\nEphesus, and receive the Council of Chalcedon, because the latter\ncouncil condemned the impiety of Eutyches, which the former had\nsanctioned. This judgment of the Council of Chalcedon was formed from\nthe Scriptures by holy men, whom we imitate in forming our judgment, as\nthe word of God which enlightened them continues to give light to us.\nNow, let the Romanists go and boast, as they are accustomed to do, that\nthe Holy Spirit is inseparably attached to their councils.\n\nX. Even in the earliest and purest councils, however, there is something\nto complain of\u2014either that the bishops who composed them, though men of\nlearning and prudence, being perplexed with the subjects immediately\nbefore them, did not extend their views to many other things; or that\nwhile they were occupied with more weighty and serious concerns, things\nof inferior moment escaped their notice; or merely that, being men, they\nwere liable to ignorance and error; or that they were sometimes hurried\ninto precipitancy by the violence of their passions. Of the truth of the\nlast observation, which seems the severest of all, there is a remarkable\nexample in the Council of Nice; the dignity of which has been\nuniversally and justly held in the highest veneration. For though the\nprincipal article of our faith was endangered, and they had to contend\nwith Arius, the enemy of it, who was there in readiness for the\ncontest,\u2014though it was of the greatest importance that harmony should be\nmaintained among those who came with a design to confute the error of\nArius,\u2014notwithstanding that, careless of such great dangers, forgetful\nof gravity, modesty, and every thing like good manners, dropping the\ncontroversy between them, as if they had assembled with an express view\nto the gratification of Arius, they began to counteract themselves with\nintestine dissensions, and to direct against each other the pen which\nought to have been employed against Arius. The foulest accusations were\nheard, defamatory libels were circulated, and there would have been no\nend of the contentions till they had murdered one another, if it had not\nbeen for the interference of the emperor Constantine, who protested that\na scrutiny into their lives was a thing beyond his cognizance, and\nrepressed this intemperate conduct with praise rather than with censure.\nIn how many instances is it probable that errors were committed by other\nsucceeding councils? Nor does this require any long proof; for whoever\nperuses their acts, will discover many infirmities, not to mention any\nthing worse.\n\nXI. And Leo, the Roman pontiff, hesitates not to bring a charge of\nambition and inconsiderate temerity against the Council of Chalcedon,\nwhich he at the same time acknowledges to have been orthodox in points\nof doctrine. He does not deny it to have been a legitimate council, but\nhe unequivocally asserts that it was possible for it to err. It may be\nthought, perhaps, that I betray a want of judgment in taking pains to\npoint out such errors; since our adversaries confess that councils might\nerr in things not essential to salvation. This labour, however, is not\nunnecessary. For though they find themselves obliged to confess this in\nwords, yet when they obtrude upon us the decision of every council on\nevery subject, without any discrimination, as an oracle of the Holy\nSpirit, they require of us, in fact, more than they had first assumed.\nWhat is the language of such conduct, but that councils cannot err, or\nthat, if they do err, it is unlawful for us to discover the truth, or to\nrefuse assent to errors? And I intend to draw no other conclusion from\nthese facts, than that the Holy Spirit governed pious and Christian\ncouncils in such a manner, as at the same time to permit them to betray\nsomething of human infirmity, that we might not place too much\nconfidence in men. This sentiment is far more favourable than that of\nGregory of Nazianzum, \u201cthat he never saw a good end of any council.\u201d For\nhe who affirms that all without exception terminated ill, leaves them\nbut little authority. It is unnecessary here to take distinct notice of\nprovincial councils, since it is easy to judge from the general\ncouncils, what authority they ought to possess in framing articles of\nfaith, and receiving whatever kind of doctrine they pleased.\n\nXII. But our Romanists, when they find all the supports of reason fail\nthem in the defence of their cause, have recourse to that last and\nwretched subterfuge\u2014That although the persons themselves betray the\ngreatest stupidity in their understandings and pleas, and act from the\nmost iniquitous motives and designs, still the word of God remains,\nwhich commands us to obey our governors.[963] But what if I deny that\nsuch persons are our governors? For they ought not to arrogate to\nthemselves more than belonged to Joshua, who was a prophet of the Lord\nand an excellent pastor. Now, let us hear with what language he was\ninaugurated into his office by the Lord: \u201cThis book of the law shall not\ndepart out of thy mouth; but thou shalt meditate therein day and night:\nturn not from it to the right hand or to the left, that thou mayest\nprosper whithersoever thou goest.\u201d[964] We shall consider them as our\nspiritual governors, therefore, who deviate not from the word of God,\neither to the right hand or to the left. If the doctrine of all pastors\nought to be received without any hesitation, why have we such frequent\nand earnest admonitions from the mouth of the Lord himself, not to\nlisten to the speeches of false prophets? \u201cHearken not,\u201d says he by\nJeremiah, \u201cunto the words of the prophets that prophesy unto you; they\nmake you vain; they speak a vision of their own hearts, and not out of\nthe mouth of the Lord.\u201d[965] Again: \u201cBeware of false prophets, which\ncome to you in sheep\u2019s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening\nwolves.\u201d[966] The exhortation given us by John would also have been\nuseless: \u201cTry the spirits, whether they are of God;\u201d[967] though from\nthis examination the very angels are not exempted, much less Satan with\nall his falsehoods. How are we to understand this caution of our Lord?\n\u201cIf the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.\u201d[968] Does\nit not sufficiently declare, that it is of the highest importance what\nkind of pastors are heard, and that they are not all entitled to the\nsame attention? Wherefore there is no reason why they should overawe us\nwith their titles, to make us partakers of their blindness, while we\nsee, on the contrary, that the Lord has taken peculiar care to deter us\nfrom suffering ourselves to be seduced by the error of other men, under\nwhatever mask or name it may be concealed. For if the answer of Christ\nbe true, all blind guides, whether they are denominated priests,\nprelates, or pontiffs, can do nothing but precipitate their followers\ninto the same ruin with themselves. Impressed, therefore, by these\nwarnings, both of precepts and of examples, no names of pastors,\nbishops, or councils, which are as capable of being falsely claimed as\nrightly assumed, ought ever to prevent us from examining all the spirits\nby the rule of the Divine word, in order to \u201ctry whether they are of\nGod.\u201d\n\nXIII. Having proved that the Church has received no power to frame any\nnew doctrine, let us now speak of the power which our opponents\nattribute to it in the interpretation of the Scripture. We have not the\nleast objection to admit, that if a controversy arise respecting any\ndoctrine, there is no better or more certain remedy than to assemble a\ncouncil of true bishops, in which the controverted doctrine may be\ndiscussed. For such a decision, formed by the common consent of the\npastors of the Churches, after an invocation of the Spirit of Christ,\nwill have far greater weight, than if every one of them separately were\nto maintain it in preaching to his people, or if it were the result of a\nprivate conference between a few individuals. Besides, when bishops are\ncollected in one assembly, they deliberate together with greater\nadvantage on what they ought to teach, and the manner in which their\ninstructions should be conveyed, so as to guard against offence arising\nfrom diversity. In the third place, Paul prescribes this method of\ndetermining respecting doctrines. For while he attributes to every\ndistinct Church a power \u201cto judge,\u201d[969] he shows what ought to be the\norder of proceeding in more important cases; namely, that the Churches\nshould undertake the common cognizance of them. And so the dictate of\npiety itself teaches us, that if any one disturb the Church with a new\ndoctrine, and the matter be carried so far as to cause danger of a more\ngrievous dissension, the Churches should first assemble, should examine\nthe question proposed to them, and after a sufficient discussion of it,\nshould announce a decision taken from the Scriptures, which would put an\nend to all doubt among the people, and shut the mouths of refractory and\nambitious persons, so as to check their further presumption. Thus, when\nArius arose, the Council of Nice was assembled, and by its authority\ndefeated the pernicious attempts of that impious man, restored peace to\nthe Churches which he had disturbed, and asserted the eternal deity of\nChrist in opposition to his sacrilegious dogma. Some time after, when\nEunomius and Macedonius raised new contentions, their frenzy was opposed\nwith a similar remedy by the Council of Constantinople. The impiety of\nNestorius was condemned in the first Council of Ephesus. In short, this\nhas been the ordinary method of the Church from the beginning, for the\npreservation of unity, whenever Satan has begun to make any attempt\nagainst it. But let it be remembered, that neither every age, nor every\nplace, can produce an Athanasius, a Basil, a Cyril, and other such\nchampions of the true doctrine, as the Lord raised up at those periods.\nLet it also be recollected what happened at the second Council of\nEphesus, in which the heresy of Eutyches prevailed. Flavianus, a bishop\nof irreproachable memory, was banished, together with other pious men,\nand many similar enormities were committed, because it was Dioscorus, a\nfactious and ill-disposed man, and not the Spirit of the Lord, that\npresided in that council. But that council, it will be said, was not the\nChurch. I admit it: for I am firmly persuaded of this, that the truth is\nnot extinct in the Church, though it may be oppressed by one council,\nbut that it is wonderfully preserved by the Lord, to arise and triumph\nagain in his own time. But I deny it to be an invariable rule, that\nevery interpretation which may have been approved by a council is the\ntrue and certain sense of the Scripture.\n\nXIV. But the Romanists have a further design in maintaining that\ncouncils possess the power of interpreting the Scripture, and that\nwithout appeal. For it is a false pretence, when every thing that has\nbeen determined in councils is called an interpretation of the\nScripture. Of purgatory, the intercession of saints, auricular\nconfession, and similar fooleries, the Scriptures contain not a single\nsyllable. But, because all these things have been sanctioned by the\nauthority of councils, or, to speak more correctly, have been admitted\ninto the general belief and practice, therefore every one of them is to\nbe taken for an interpretation of Scripture. And not only so; but if a\ncouncil determine in direct opposition to the Scripture, it will still\nbe called an interpretation of it. Christ commands all to drink of the\ncup which he presents to them in the sacred supper.[970] The Council of\nConstance prohibited it to be given to the laity, and determined that\nnone but the priest should drink of it. Yet this, which is so\ndiametrically repugnant to the institution of Christ, they wish us to\nreceive as an interpretation of it. Paul calls \u201cforbidding to marry\u201d a\n\u201cdoctrine of devils;\u201d[971] and the Holy Spirit, in another place,\npronounces that \u201cmarriage is honourable in all, and the bed\nundefiled.\u201d[972] The prohibition, which they have since denounced, of\nthe marriage of priests, they wish us to consider as the true and\nnatural interpretation of the Scriptures, though nothing can be imagined\nmore repugnant to it. If any one dare to open his mouth to the contrary,\nhe is condemned as a heretic, because the determination of the Church is\nwithout appeal, and the truth of its interpretation cannot be doubted\nwithout impiety. What further requires to be urged against such\nconsummate effrontery? The mere exhibition of it is a sufficient\nrefutation. Their pretensions to confirm the Scripture by the authority\nof the Church, I purposely pass over. To subject the oracles of God to\nthe authority of men, so as to make their validity dependent on human\napprobation, is a blasphemy unworthy of being mentioned; beside which, I\nhave touched on this subject already. I will only ask them one question:\nIf the authority of the Scripture be founded on the approbation of the\nChurch, what decree of any council can they allege to this point? I\nbelieve, none at all. Why, then, did Arius suffer himself to be\nvanquished at Nice by testimonies adduced from the Gospel of John?\nAccording to the argument of our opponents, he was at liberty to reject\nthem, as not having yet received the approbation of any general council.\nThey allege an ancient catalogue, which is called the Canon of\nScripture, and which they say proceeded from the decision of the Church.\nI ask them again, in what council that canon was composed. To this they\ncan make no reply. Yet I would wish to be further informed, what kind of\na canon they suppose it to be. For I see that the ancient writers were\nnot fully agreed respecting it. And if any weight be attached to the\ntestimony of Jerome, the two books of the Maccabees, the history of\nTobit, Ecclesiasticus, and other books, will be considered as\napocryphal; to which our opponents will by no means consent.\n\nFootnote 944:\n\n  Matt. xviii. 20.\n\nFootnote 945:\n\n  Deut. iv. 2. Rev. xxii. 18, 19.\n\nFootnote 946:\n\n  Mal. ii. 5-7.\n\nFootnote 947:\n\n  Isaiah lvi. 10, 11.\n\nFootnote 948:\n\n  Hosea ix. 8.\n\nFootnote 949:\n\n  Jer. vi. 13.\n\nFootnote 950:\n\n  Jer. xiv. 14.\n\nFootnote 951:\n\n  Ezek. xxii. 25, 26, 28.\n\nFootnote 952:\n\n  2 Peter ii. 1.\n\nFootnote 953:\n\n  Matt. xxiv. 11, 24.\n\nFootnote 954:\n\n  2 Thess. ii. 4.\n\nFootnote 955:\n\n  Acts xx. 29, 30.\n\nFootnote 956:\n\n  Zech. xii. 4.\n\nFootnote 957:\n\n  Jer. xviii. 18.\n\nFootnote 958:\n\n  Jer. iv. 9.\n\nFootnote 959:\n\n  Ezek. vii. 26.\n\nFootnote 960:\n\n  Micah iii. 6.\n\nFootnote 961:\n\n  1 Kings xxii. 6, 22, 24, 27.\n\nFootnote 962:\n\n  2 Thess. ii. 3. 1 Tim. iv. 1.\n\nFootnote 963:\n\n  Heb. xiii. 17.\n\nFootnote 964:\n\n  Joshua i. 7, 8.\n\nFootnote 965:\n\n  Jer. xxiii. 16.\n\nFootnote 966:\n\n  Matt. vii. 15.\n\nFootnote 967:\n\n  1 John iv. 1.\n\nFootnote 968:\n\n  Matt. xv. 14.\n\nFootnote 969:\n\n  1 Cor. xiv. 29.\n\nFootnote 970:\n\n  Matt. xxvi. 27.\n\nFootnote 971:\n\n  1 Tim. iv. 1, 3.\n\nFootnote 972:\n\n  Heb. xiii. 4.\n\n\n\n\n                               CHAPTER X.\nTHE POWER OF LEGISLATION, IN WHICH THE POPE AND HIS ADHERENTS HAVE MOST\n  CRUELLY TYRANNIZED OVER THE MINDS, AND TORTURED THE BODIES, OF MEN.\n\n\nWe now proceed to the second branch of the power of the Church, which\nthe Romanists represent as consisting in legislation\u2014a source from which\nhave issued innumerable human traditions, the most pestilent and fatal\nto wretched souls. For they have made no more scruple than the scribes\nand Pharisees to \u201clay on other men\u2019s shoulders burdens which they\nthemselves would not touch with one of their fingers.\u201d[973] I have shown\nin another place the extreme cruelty of their injunctions concerning\nauricular confession. None of their other laws discover such enormous\nviolence; but those which appear the most tolerable of them all, are\ntyrannically oppressive to the conscience. I forbear to remark how they\nadulterate the worship of God, and despoil God himself, who is the sole\nLegislator, of the right which belongs to him. This power is now to be\nexamined\u2014whether the Church has authority to make laws which shall bind\nthe consciences of men. This question has nothing to do with political\norder; the only objects of our present attention are, that God may be\nrightly worshipped according to the rule he has prescribed, and that our\nspiritual liberty which relates to God may be preserved entire. Whatever\nedicts have been issued by men respecting the worship of God,\nindependently of his word, it has been customary to call _human\ntraditions_. Against such laws we contend, and not against the holy and\nuseful constitutions of the Church, which contribute to the preservation\nof discipline, or integrity, or peace. The object for which we contend,\nis, to restrain that overgrown and barbarous empire, which is usurped\nover men\u2019s souls by those who wish to be accounted the pastors of the\nChurch, but who in reality are its most savage butchers. For they say\nthat the laws which they make are spiritual, pertaining to the soul, and\nthey affirm them to be necessary to eternal life. Thus, as I have lately\nhinted, the kingdom of Christ is invaded; thus the liberty given by him\nto the consciences of believers is altogether subverted and destroyed. I\nforbear to remark at present with what great impiety they enforce the\nobservance of their laws, while they teach men to seek the pardon of\ntheir sins and righteousness and salvation from it, and while they make\nthe whole of religion and piety to consist in it. I only contend for\nthis one point, that no necessity ought to be imposed upon consciences\nin things in which they have been set at liberty by Christ; and without\nthis liberty, as I have before observed, they can have no peace with\nGod. They must acknowledge Christ their Deliverer as their only King,\nand must be governed by one law of liberty, even the sacred word of the\ngospel, if they wish to retain the grace which they have once obtained\nin Christ; they must submit to no slavery; they must be fettered by no\nbonds.\n\nII. These sapient legislators, indeed, pretend that their constitutions\nare laws of liberty, an easy yoke, a light burden. But who does not see\nthat these are gross falsehoods? The hardship of their laws is not at\nall felt by themselves, who have rejected the fear of God, and securely\nand boldly disregard all laws, human and divine. But persons who are\nimpressed with any concern for their salvation, are far from considering\nthemselves at liberty as long as they are entangled in these snares. We\nsee what great caution Paul used in this respect, to avoid \u201ccasting a\nsnare upon\u201d men in a single instance;[974] and that not without cause;\nfor he saw what a deep wound would be made in their consciences, by the\nimposition of any necessity upon them in those things in which the Lord\nhad left them at liberty. On the contrary, it is scarcely possible to\nenumerate the constitutions, which these men have most rigorously\nenforced with the denunciation of eternal death, and which they require\nto be most minutely observed as necessary to salvation. Among these,\nthere are many exceedingly difficult to be fulfilled; but when they are\nall collected together in one body, so immense is the accumulation, the\nobservance of the whole is utterly impracticable. How, then, can it be\npossible for those who are loaded with such a vast weight of difficulty,\nnot to be perplexed and tortured with extreme anxiety and terror? My\ndesign at present, then, is, to oppose constitutions of this kind, which\ntend to bind souls internally before God, and to fill them with\nscruples, as if they enjoined things necessary to salvation.\n\nIII. The generality of men, therefore, are embarrassed with this\nquestion, for want of distinguishing with sufficient exactness between\nthe outward judgment of men and the court of conscience. The difficulty\nis increased by the injunction of Paul, that the magistrate is to be\nobeyed, \u201cnot only for wrath, but also for conscience\u2019 sake;\u201d[975] whence\nit follows, that consciences are bound by political laws. If this were\nthe case, all that we said in the last chapter, and are about to say in\nthis, on the subject of spiritual government, would fall to the ground.\nTo solve this difficulty, it is first of all necessary to understand\nwhat is conscience. The definition may be derived from the etymology of\nthe word. _Science_, or _knowledge_, is the apprehension which men have\nof things in their mind and understanding. So, when they have an\napprehension of the judgment of God, as a witness that suffers them not\nto conceal their sins, but forces them as criminals before the tribunal\nof the judge, this apprehension is called _conscience_. For it is\nsomething between God and man, which permits not a man to suppress what\nhe knows within himself, but pursues him till it brings him to a sense\nof his guilt. This is what Paul means, when he speaks of men\u2019s\n\u201cconscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while\naccusing, or else excusing, one another\u201d[976] before God. A simple\nknowledge might remain in man, as it were, in a state of concealment.\nTherefore this sentiment, which places men before the tribunal of God,\nis like a keeper appointed over man to watch and observe all his\nsecrets, that nothing may remain buried in darkness. Hence that old\nproverb, that conscience is equal to a thousand witnesses. For the same\nreason, Peter speaks of \u201cthe answer of a good conscience towards\nGod,\u201d[977] to denote our tranquillity of mind, when, persuaded of the\ngrace of Christ, we present ourselves before God without fear. And the\nauthor of the Epistle to the Hebrews speaks of persons \u201chaving no more\nconscience of sins,\u201d[978] to signify their being liberated, or absolved,\nso as to feel no more remorse or compunction for sin.\n\nIV. Therefore, as works have respect to man, so the conscience is\nreferred to God. A good conscience is no other than an internal purity\nof heart. In this sense Paul says that \u201cthe end of the commandment is\ncharity, out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith\nunfeigned.\u201d[979] In a subsequent part of the same chapter, he shows how\nwidely it differs from simple knowledge, when he says, that \u201csome having\nput away a good conscience, concerning faith have made shipwreck.\u201d[980]\nFor in these words he implies that it is a lively zeal for the worship\nof God, and a sincere desire and endeavour to live a pious and holy\nlife. Sometimes, indeed, it is likewise extended to men, as when Luke\nstates Paul to have made this declaration\u2014\u201cI exercise myself, to have\nalways a conscience void of offence toward God and toward men.\u201d[981] The\napostle expressed himself in this manner, because the benefits\nproceeding from a good conscience do reach even to man. But strictly\nspeaking, the conscience has respect to God alone, as I have already\nobserved. Hence it is, that a law is said to bind the conscience, which\nsimply binds a man without any observation or consideration of other\nmen. For example, God not only commands the heart to be preserved chaste\nand pure from every libidinous desire, but prohibits all obscenity of\nlanguage and external lasciviousness. My conscience is bound to observe\nthis law, even though not another man existed in the world. The person,\ntherefore, who commits any breach of chastity, not only sins by setting\na bad example to his brethren, but brings his conscience into a state of\nguilt before God. The case of things, in themselves indifferent, stands\nnot on the same ground; for we ought to abstain from whatever is likely\nto give offence, but with a free conscience. Thus Paul speaks of meat\nconsecrated to idols: \u201cIf any man say unto you, This is offered in\nsacrifice to idols, eat not for his sake, and for conscience\u2019 sake.\nConscience, I say, not thine own, but of the other.\u201d[982] A faithful\nman, who, after previous admonition, should eat such meat, would be\nguilty of sin. But though such abstinence is enjoined on him by God as\nnecessary on account of his brother, he still retains his liberty of\nconscience. We see how this law, while it binds the external act, leaves\nthe conscience free.\n\nV. Let us now return to human laws. If they are designed to introduce\nany scruple into our minds, as though the observance of them were\nessentially necessary, we assert, that they are unreasonable impositions\non the conscience. For our consciences have to do, not with men, but\nwith God alone. And this is the meaning of the well known distinction,\nmaintained in the schools, between a human tribunal and the court of\nconscience. When the whole world was enveloped in the thickest shades of\nignorance, this little spark of light still remained unextinguished, so\nthat they acknowledged the conscience of man to be superior to all human\njudgments. It is true that what they confessed in one word, they\nafterwards overturned in fact; yet it was the will of God that even at\nthat time there should remain some testimony in favour of Christian\nliberty, to rescue the conscience from the tyranny of men. But we have\nnot yet solved the difficulty which arises from the language of Paul.\nFor if princes are to be obeyed, \u201cnot only for wrath, but also for\nconscience\u2019 sake,\u201d[983] it seems to follow, that the laws of princes\nhave dominion over the conscience. If this be true, the same must be\naffirmed of the laws of the Church. I reply, In the first place, it is\nnecessary to distinguish between the _genus_ and the _species_. For the\nconscience is not affected by every particular law; yet we are bound by\nthe general command of God, which establishes the authority of\nmagistrates. And this is the hinge upon which Paul\u2019s argument turns,\nthat magistrates are to be honoured because they are \u201cordained of\nGod.\u201d[984] At the same time he is far from insinuating that the laws\nenacted by them have any thing to do with the internal government of the\nsoul; for he every where extols the service of God and the spiritual\nrule of a holy life, above all the statutes and decrees of men. A second\nconsideration worthy of notice, which is a consequence of the first, is,\nthat human laws,\u2014I mean such as are good and just, whether enacted by\nmagistrates or by the Church,\u2014though they are necessary to be observed,\nare not on this account binding on the conscience; because all the\nnecessity of observing them has reference to the general object of laws,\nbut does not consist in the particular things which are commanded. There\nis an immense distance between laws of this description, and those which\nprescribe any new form for the worship of God, and impose a necessity in\nthings that were left free and indifferent.\n\nVI. Such are the _Ecclesiastical Constitutions_, as they are now called,\nin the Papacy, which are obtruded as necessary to the true worship of\nGod; and as they are innumerable, they are so many bonds to entrap and\ninsnare souls. Though we have touched on them a little in the exposition\nof the law, yet as this is a more suitable place to discuss them at\nlarge, I shall now endeavour to collect a summary of the whole, in the\nbest order I can. And as we have already said what appeared sufficient\nrespecting the tyrannical power, which the false bishops arrogate to\nthemselves, of teaching whatever doctrines they please, I shall at\npresent pass over all that subject, and confine myself to a discussion\nof the power which they say they have, to make laws. Our false bishops,\ntherefore, burden men\u2019s consciences with new laws under this\npretext\u2014that the Lord has constituted them spiritual legislators, by\ncommitting to them the government of the Church. Wherefore they contend,\nthat all the commands and ordinances ought of necessity to be observed\nby all Christian people, and that whoever violates them is guilty of\ndouble disobedience, because he is a rebel both against God and the\nChurch. Certainly, if they were true bishops, I would allow them some\nauthority of this kind; not all that they demand, but all that is\nrequisite to the maintenance of good order in the Church. But as they\nbear no resemblance of the character to which they pretend, the least\nthey can possibly assume is more than their right. Yet as this has been\nalready proved, let us admit the supposition at present, that whatever\npower true bishops are entitled to, belongs to them. Still I deny that\nthey are therefore appointed as legislators over believers, with power\nto prescribe a rule of life according to their own pleasure, or to\nconstrain the people committed to them to submit to their decrees. By\nthis observation I mean, that they have no authority to enjoin upon the\nobservance of the Church any thing that they may have invented\nthemselves, independently of the word of God. As this power was unknown\nto the apostles, and was so frequently interdicted to the ministers of\nthe Church by the mouth of the Lord, I wonder how they have dared to\nusurp it, and still dare to maintain it contrary to the example of the\napostles, and in defiance of the express prohibition of God.\n\nVII. Every thing pertaining to the perfect rule of a holy life, the Lord\nhas comprehended in his law, so that there remains nothing for men to\nadd to that summary. And he has done this, first, that, since all\nrectitude of life consists in the conformity of all our actions to his\nwill, as their standard, we might consider him as the sole Master and\nDirector of our conduct; and secondly, to show that he requires of us\nnothing more than obedience. For this reason, James says, \u201cHe that\njudgeth his brother, judgeth the law; but if thou judge the law, thou\nart not a doer of the law, but a judge. There is one lawgiver, who is\nable to save and to destroy.\u201d[985] We hear that God asserts this as his\npeculiar and exclusive prerogative; to govern us by the empire and laws\nof his word. And the same sentiment had before been expressed by Isaiah,\nthough in terms not quite so explicit: \u201cThe Lord is our Judge, the Lord\nis our Lawgiver, the Lord is our King, he will save us.\u201d[986] Both\npassages imply, that he who has authority over the soul, is the Arbiter\nof life and death; and James even clearly expresses it. No man can\nassume this to himself. It follows therefore, that God ought to be\nacknowledged as the only King of souls, who alone has power to save and\nto destroy, or, in the language of Isaiah, as the King, Judge,\nLegislator, and Saviour. Wherefore Peter, when he admonishes pastors of\ntheir duty, exhorts them \u201cto feed the flock, not as being lords over\nGod\u2019s heritage,\u201d[987] or the company of believers. If we duly consider\nthis point, that it is not lawful to transfer to man that which God\nappropriates solely to himself, we shall understand that this cuts off\nall the power which is claimed by those who wish to exalt themselves to\ncommand any thing in the Church, unsanctioned by the word of God.\n\nVIII. Now, as the whole argument rests here, that, if God is the sole\nlegislator, it is not lawful for men to assume this honour to\nthemselves,\u2014we ought also to bear in mind the two reasons which we have\nstated, why God asserts this exclusively to himself. The first is, that\nhis will may be received as the perfect rule of all righteousness and\nholiness, and so that an acquaintance with it may be all the knowledge\nnecessary to a good life. The second is, that with respect to the mode\nof worshipping him aright, he may exercise the sole empire over our\nsouls, to whom we are under the strongest obligation to obey his\nauthority and await his commands. When these two reasons are kept in\nview, it will be easy to judge what constitutions of men are contrary to\nthe word of God. Now, of this description are all those which are\npretended to belong to the true worship of God, and to be obligatory on\nmen\u2019s consciences as necessary to be observed. Let us remember,\ntherefore, that all human laws are to be weighed in this balance, if we\nwould have a certain and infallible test. The first of these reasons is\nurged by Paul in his Epistle to the Colossians, in opposition to the\nfalse apostles, who endeavoured to oppress the Churches with fresh\nburdens. In a similar argument, in the Epistle to the Galatians, he\ninsists more on the second reason. In the Epistle to the Colossians, he\ncontends that the doctrine of the true worship of God is not to be\nsought from men, because the Lord has faithfully and fully instructed us\nhow we ought to worship him. To prove this, in the first chapter he\nstates that all the wisdom by which the man of God is made perfect in\nChrist is contained in the gospel. In the beginning of the second\nchapter, he declares that \u201cin Christ are hid all the treasures of wisdom\nand knowledge;\u201d from which he concludes that believers should \u201cbeware\nlest any man spoil them through philosophy and vain deceit, after the\ntradition of men.\u201d At the end of the chapter, he still more confidently\ncondemns all \u201cwill worship;\u201d[988] this includes all those fictitious\nservices which men either invent for themselves or receive from others,\ntogether with all the precepts by which they presume to regulate the\nworship of God. Thus we have ascertained the impiety of all those\nconstitutions, in the observance of which the worship of God is\npretended to consist. The passages in the Epistle to the Galatians, in\nwhich he argues that snares ought not to be imposed on consciences,\nwhich are subject to the government of God alone, are too plain to be\nmistaken; especially in the fifth chapter.[989] It will therefore be\nsufficient to have mentioned them.\n\nIX. But as the whole of this subject will be better elucidated by\nexamples, before I proceed any further, it will be useful to apply this\ndoctrine to our own times. We affirm that the Ecclesiastical\nConstitutions, with which the pope and his satellites oppress the\nChurch, are pernicious and impious; our adversaries assert them to be\nholy and useful. Now, they are of two classes: some regard rites and\nceremonies, others have more relation to discipline. Is there just\ncause, then, to induce us to reject both? There certainly is juster\ncause than we would desire. In the first place, do not the authors of\nthem explicitly declare that the very essence of the worship of God\nconsists in them? To what end do they refer their ceremonies, but that\nGod may be worshipped through them? And this arises not from the mere\nerror of the uninformed multitude, but from the approbation of those who\nsustain the office of teachers. I am not yet referring to the gross\nabominations by which they have attempted to overturn all piety; but\nthey would never pretend a failure in any one of the most insignificant\ntraditions to be such an atrocious crime, unless they made the worship\nof God subject to their inventions. Wherein are we guilty of any\noffence, then, if we cannot bear in our day what was declared to be\nintolerable by Paul: namely, that the legitimate mode of worshipping God\nshould be regulated by the will of men; especially when they enjoin a\nworship \u201cafter the rudiments of the world,\u201d which Paul asserts to be\n\u201cnot after Christ.\u201d[990] It is well known also, with what rigorous\nnecessity they bind men\u2019s consciences to observe every thing that they\ncommand. In our opposition to this, we unite in a common cause with\nPaul, who would by no means allow the consciences of believers to be\nsubjected to the bondage of men.[991]\n\nX. Moreover, this worst of consequences ensues; that when men have begun\nto place religion in such vain figments, that perversion is immediately\nfollowed by another execrable corruption, with which Christ reproached\nthe Pharisees. \u201cYe have made the commandment of God of none effect by\nyour tradition.\u201d[992] I will not combat our modern legislators with my\nown words; I will grant them the victory, if they can vindicate\nthemselves from this accusation of Christ. But how can they vindicate\nthemselves, while they esteem it infinitely more criminal, to have\nomitted auricular confession at a stated time of the year, than to have\nlived a most iniquitous life for a whole year together; to have infected\nthe tongue with the least taste of animal food on a Friday, than to have\npolluted the whole body by committing fornication every day; to have put\na hand to any honest labour on a day consecrated to any pretended saint,\nthan to have continually employed all the members in the most flagitious\nactions; for a priest to be connected in one lawful marriage, than to be\ndefiled with a thousand adulteries; to have failed of performing one vow\nof pilgrimage, than to violate every other promise; not to have lavished\nany thing on the enormous, superfluous, and useless magnificence of\nChurches, than to have failed of relieving the most pressing necessities\nof the poor; to have passed by an idol without some token of honour,\nthan to have insulted all the men in the world; not to have muttered\nover, at certain seasons, a multitude of words without any meaning, than\nto have never offered a genuine prayer from the heart? What is it for\nmen to make the commandment of God of none effect by their traditions,\nif this be not? When coldly and carelessly recommending the observance\nof the commandments of God, they insist on an exact obedience to their\nown, with as much zeal and anxiety as if the whole essence of piety\nconsisted in them; when avenging the violation of the Divine law with\nslight penalties of satisfactions, they punish the smallest\ntransgression of one of their decrees with nothing less than\nimprisonment, banishment, fire, or sword; when less severe and\ninexorable against the despisers of God, they persecute the despisers of\nthemselves with implacable hatred even to death; and when they instruct\nall those whom they hold in the chains of ignorance in such a manner,\nthat they would feel less concern at seeing the subversion of the whole\nlaw of God, than the violation of the smallest tittle of the commands of\nthe Church? In the first place, here is a grievous error, that on\naccount of things of no importance in themselves, and left free by God,\none man despises, condemns, and rejects another. Now, as if this were\nnot bad enough, \u201cthe beggarly elements of the world,\u201d[993] as Paul calls\nthem, are esteemed of more force than the celestial oracles of God. He\nwho is absolved in adultery, is condemned in meat; he who is allowed a\nharlot, is interdicted from a wife. This is the fruit of that\nprevaricating obedience, which recedes from God in proportion as it\ninclines to men.\n\nXI. There are also two other faults, far from small ones, which we\ncharge on these Constitutions. The first is, that they prescribe for the\nmost part useless, and sometimes even foolish observances. The second\nis, that pious consciences are oppressed with the immense number of\nthem, and being carried back to a species of Judaism, are so occupied\nwith shadows as to be prevented from coming to Christ. When I call these\nobservances useless and foolish, I know this will not be admitted by the\nwisdom of the flesh, which is so pleased with them, as to consider the\nChurch altogether deformed where they are abolished. But these are the\nthings which Paul describes as \u201chaving a show of wisdom in will-worship,\nand humility, and neglecting of the body; not in any honour to the\nsatisfying of the flesh.\u201d[994] This is certainly a most salutary\nadmonition, which ought never to be forgotten by us. Human traditions,\nhe says, deceive under a show of wisdom. Is it inquired whence they have\nthis appearance? I reply, that being contrived by man, the human mind\nrecognizes them as its own, and recognizing them, embraces them with\ngreater pleasure than it would any thing of the greatest excellence, but\nless agreeable to its vanity. A further recommendation of them is, that\nas they keep the minds of men depressed to the ground under their yoke,\nthey appear well adapted to promote humility. Lastly, they are regarded\nas the expedients of prudence, from their supposed tendency to restrain\ncorporeal indulgence, and to subdue sensuality by the rigour of\nabstinence. But what does Paul say to these things? Does he strip off\nsuch disguises, that the simple may not be deluded by false pretences?\nSatisfied that he had said enough to refute them, when he had called\nthem \u201cthe commandments and doctrines of men,\u201d[995] he passes over all\nthese things as undeserving of any particular refutation. And knowing\nthat all services of human invention are condemned in the Church, and\nought to excite the suspicion of believers in proportion to the pleasure\nthey afford to the minds of men; knowing that false appearance of\nexternal humility to be at such an immense distance from true humility,\nthat it might be easily distinguished from it; knowing that discipline\nto be entitled to no other consideration than as a mere exercise of the\nbody,\u2014he intended these very things, by which the traditions of men are\nrecommended to the ignorant, to serve as their refutation with\nbelievers.\n\nXII. So, at the present day, not only the unlearned vulgar, but those\nwho are most inflated with worldly wisdom, are universally and\nwonderfully captivated with the pomp of ceremonies. Hypocrites and silly\nwomen think it impossible to imagine any thing more beautiful or\nexcellent. But those who examine more minutely, and judge with more\naccuracy, according to the rule of piety, respecting the real value of\nthose numerous ceremonies, perceive, in the first place, that they are\nfrivolous, because they have no utility; and in the next place, that\nthey are delusive, because they deceive the eyes of the spectators with\nempty pomp. I speak of those ceremonies under which, the Roman doctors\ncontend, are concealed great mysteries, but which, on examination, we\nfind to be mere mockeries. And it is not to be wondered at, that the\nauthors and advocates of them have fallen into such folly as to delude\nboth themselves and others with contemptible absurdities; because they\nhave taken their model in some things from the reveries of the heathen,\nand in others, without any judgment, have imitated the ancient rites of\nthe Mosaic law, which were no more applicable to us than the sacrifices\nof animals and other similar ceremonies. Indeed, if there were no\nargument besides, yet no man in his senses would expect any thing good\nfrom such a heterogeneous compound. And the fact itself plainly\ndemonstrates, that numerous ceremonies have no other use than to stupefy\nthe people, instead of instructing them. So hypocrites attach great\nimportance to those novel canons, which overturn discipline rather than\npreserve it; for on a more accurate investigation, they will be found a\nmere shadow of discipline, without any reality.\n\nXIII. Now, to proceed to the other fault which I have mentioned, who\ndoes not see that traditions, by the continual accumulation of one upon\nanother, have grown to such an immense number, that they are altogether\nintolerable to the Christian Church? Hence it is, that the ceremonies\ndiscover a kind of Judaism, and other observances inflict grievous\ntortures on pious souls. Augustine complained that, in his time, the\ncommands of God were neglected, and every thing was so full of\npresumption, that a person was more severely censured for having touched\nthe ground with his bare feet within eight days of his baptism, than for\nhaving drowned his senses in intoxication. He complained that the\nChurch, which the mercy of God intended to place in a state of liberty,\nwas so grievously oppressed, that the condition of the Jews was more\ntolerable. If that holy man had lived in our day, with what lamentations\nwould he have deplored the present state of bondage? For the number of\nordinances is ten times greater, and every tittle is enforced with a\nhundred times more rigour, than in his time. Such is the general\nconsequence, when these corrupt legislators have seized the dominion,\nthey make no end of commands and prohibitions, till they arrive at such\nan extreme that obedience is scarcely if at all practicable. This is\nfinely expressed by Paul, when he says, \u201cIf ye be dead from the\nrudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye\nsubject to ordinances? Eat not, taste not, handle not.\u201d[996] The word\n\u1f01\u03c8\u03b7, signifying both to _eat_ and to _handle_, requires here to be\nunderstood in the former sense, to avoid an unnecessary repetition.\nHere, then, he most beautifully describes the progress of the false\napostles. They begin with superstition, forbidding to eat not only a\nlarge quantity, but even a little; when they have carried this point,\nthey next forbid to taste; and after this is submitted to them, they\npronounce it unlawful even to touch with a finger.\n\nXIV. In the present age, we justly censure this tyranny in human\nconstitutions, which astonishingly torments miserable consciences with\ninnumerable edicts, and the extreme rigour with which they are enforced.\nThe canons relating to discipline have been already considered. What\nshall I say of the ceremonies, which have half buried Christ, and caused\nus to return to Jewish figures? \u201cChrist our Lord,\u201d says Augustine, \u201chas\nconnected together the society of the new people with sacraments, very\nfew in number, most excellent in signification, and very easy to\nobserve.\u201d The immense distance of this simplicity from the multitude and\nvariety of rites in which we see the Church now involved, can hardly be\nstated in terms sufficiently strong. I know with what artifice some\ningenious men apologize for this corruption. They say, that there are\ngreat numbers among us as ignorant as there were among the Israelites;\nthat for their sakes such discipline was instituted, which those who are\nstronger, though they do not find it necessary, ought not to neglect,\nwhen they perceive it to be useful to their weak brethren. I reply, that\nwe are not ignorant of what is due from every Christian to the infirmity\nof his brethren; but, on the other hand, we reply, that this is not the\nway to benefit the weak, by oppressing them with heavy loads of\nceremonies. It was not without cause that the Lord has made this\ndifference between his ancient people and us; that he chose to instruct\nthem, like children, with emblems and figures, but has been pleased to\nteach us in a more simple manner, without such a large external\napparatus. As \u201ca child,\u201d says Paul, \u201cis under tutors and governors until\nthe time appointed of the father,\u201d[997] so the Jews were under the\ninstruction and government of the law. But we resemble adults, who,\nhaving left a state of tuition and guardianship, have no need of puerile\ndiscipline. Surely the Lord foresaw what sort of common people there\nwould be in his Church, and in what manner they would require to be\ngoverned. Yet he made the difference we have mentioned between us and\nthe Jews. It is a foolish way, therefore, to pretend to benefit the\nignorant by reviving Judaism, which has been abrogated by Christ. This\ndiversity, between the people under the old dispensation and the new,\nwas signified by Christ, when he said to the woman of Samaria, \u201cThe hour\ncometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father\nin spirit and in truth.\u201d[998] This, indeed, had always been the case;\nbut the new worshippers differ from the ancient in this respect, that\nunder Moses the spiritual adoration of God was concealed, and in some\ndegree embarrassed with many ceremonies, which being now abolished, he\nis worshipped with greater simplicity. Wherefore those who confound this\ndifference, subvert the order instituted and established by Christ.\nShall no ceremonies, then, it will be asked, be given to the ignorant,\nto assist their weakness? I say no such thing; for I think some\nassistance of this kind very useful to them. I only contend that such\nmeans should be employed as would tend to make known Christ, not to\nconceal him. God has, therefore, given us few ceremonies, and those by\nno means laborious, to exhibit Christ to us as present; the Jews had a\ngreater number, to represent him as absent. He was then absent, I say,\nnot as to his power, but with respect to the manner of representing him.\nTherefore, to observe proper bounds, it is necessary to retain that\npaucity in number, that facility in observance, that dignity in\nsignification, which consists in simplicity. That this has not been\ndone, it is scarcely necessary to mention. The fact is visible to all.\n\nXV. Here I forbear to remark the pernicious opinions with which the\nminds of men are impressed, that these ceremonies of human invention are\nsacrifices by which God is justly appeased, by which sins are expiated,\nby which righteousness and salvation are procured. It will be denied\nthat things intrinsically good are corrupted by such adventitious\nerrors, since equal guilt of this kind may be incurred in the\nperformance of works commanded by God. But it is more intolerable to\nattribute so much honour to works presumptuously devised by the will of\nmen, as to believe them to be meritorious of eternal life. For works\ncommanded by God obtain a reward, because the Legislator himself accepts\nthem as acts of obedience. They derive their value, therefore, not from\ntheir own dignity or intrinsic merit, but from God\u2019s estimation of our\nobedience to him. I speak here of that perfection of works which God\ncommands, but which men never attain. For the works of the law which we\nperform, are only accepted through the gratuitous goodness of God, our\nobedience in them being weak and imperfect. But as we are not here\ndiscussing the value of works independent of Christ, let us drop this\nquestion. With regard to the present argument, I again repeat, that\nwhatever value is attributed to works, they derive from the\nconsideration of the obedience, which is alone regarded by God, as he\ndeclares by the prophet: \u201cI commanded not concerning burnt-offerings or\nsacrifices, but this thing I commanded, saying, Obey my voice.\u201d[999] Of\nworks of human device, he speaks in another place. \u201cWherefore do ye\nspend money for that which is not bread?\u201d[1000] Again: \u201cIn vain do they\nworship me by the precepts of men.\u201d[1001] Our adversaries, therefore,\ncan never excuse themselves for suffering the unhappy people to seek in\nthose external fooleries a righteousness to present before God, and to\nsupport them at the heavenly tribunal. Besides, is it not a fault\ndeserving of severe reprehension, that they exhibit ceremonies not\nunderstood, like the scenery of a stage or a magical incantation? For it\nis certain that all ceremonies are corrupt and pernicious, unless they\ndirect men to Christ. Now, the ceremonies practised in the Papacy have\nno connection with doctrine: they confine men to mere signs, destitute\nof all signification. Lastly, so ingenious is cupidity, it is evident\nthat many of them have been invented by avaricious priests, merely as\ncontrivances for the extortion of money. But whatever be their origin,\nthey are all so prostituted to the acquisition of gain, that it is\nnecessary to abolish the principal part of them, if we wish to prevent a\nprofane and sacrilegious traffic from being carried on in the Church.\n\nXVI. Though I may be considered as not delivering a doctrine of\nperpetual application respecting human constitutions, because the\npreceding observations have been wholly directed to the present age, yet\nnothing has been advanced which would not be useful in all ages. For\nwherever this superstition intrudes, that men are determined to worship\nGod with their own inventions, all the laws made for this purpose\npresently degenerate into such gross abuses as we have described. It is\na curse which God denounces, not against any particular age, but against\nall ages, that he will strike with blindness and stupidity all those who\nworship him with the doctrines of men.[1002] The invariable effect of\nthis blindness is, that no absurdity is too great to be embraced by\npersons who, in contempt of so many warnings from God, wilfully entangle\nthemselves in such fatal snares. But if, irrespective of peculiar\ncircumstances, any one wish to have a simple statement, what are the\nhuman traditions of all ages, which ought to be rejected and reprobated\nby the Church and all pious persons, the direction we have already given\nis clear and certain\u2014that they are all laws made by men without the word\nof God, for the purpose, either of prescribing any method for the\nworship of God, or of laying the conscience under a religious\nobligation, as if they enjoined things necessary to salvation. If either\nor both of these be accompanied with other faults, such as, that the\nceremonies, by their multitude, obscure the simplicity of the gospel;\nthat they tend to no edification, but are useless and ridiculous\noccupations rather than real exercises of piety; that they are employed\nfor the sordid purposes of dishonest gain; that they are too difficult\nto be observed; that they are polluted with impious superstitions;\u2014these\nthings will further assist us in discovering the vast evil which they\ncontain.\n\nXVII. I hear the answer which they make\u2014that their traditions are not\nfrom themselves, but from God; for that the Church is directed by the\nHoly Spirit, so that it cannot err; and that they are in possession of\nhis authority. When this point is gained, it immediately follows, that\ntheir traditions are the revelations of the Holy Spirit, which cannot be\ndespised without impiety and contempt of God. That they may not appear\nto attempt any thing without high authorities, they wish it to be\nbelieved that the greatest part of their observances have descended from\nthe apostles; and they contend that one example sufficiently shows what\nwas the conduct of the apostles in other cases; when, being assembled\ntogether in a council, they determined and announced to all Gentiles,\nthat they should \u201cabstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood,\nand from things strangled.\u201d[1003] We have already exposed the falsehood\nof their pretensions in arrogating to themselves the title of the\nChurch. With regard to the present argument, if, stripping off all false\ndisguises, we confine our attention to what ought to be our chief\nconcern, and involves our highest interests, namely, what kind of a\nChurch Christ requires, in order that we may conform ourselves to its\nstandard,\u2014it will be sufficiently evident to us, that the name of the\nChurch does not belong to those who overleap all the limits of the word\nof God, and exercise an unbounded license of enacting new laws. For does\nnot that law, which was once given to the Church, remain forever in\nforce? \u201cWhat thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt\nnot add thereto, nor diminish from it.\u201d[1004] And again: \u201cAdd not thou\nunto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.\u201d[1005]\nSince they cannot deny these things to have been spoken to the Church,\ndo they not declare the rebellion of the Church, when they pretend that,\nnotwithstanding such prohibitions, it has dared to mingle additions of\nits own with the doctrine of God? Far be it from us, however, to\ncountenance their falsehoods, by which they do so great an injury to the\nChurch; let us know that the assumption of the name of the Church is a\nfalse pretence in all who are so carried away by the violence of human\npresumption, as to disregard all the restraints of the word of God, and\nto introduce a torrent of their own inventions. There is nothing\ninvolved, nothing intricate, nothing ambiguous in these words, by which\nthe whole Church is forbidden to add any thing to the word, or to\ndiminish any thing from it, in any question relating to the worship of\nGod and his salutary precepts. But it will be alleged, that this was\nspoken exclusively of the law, which has been succeeded by the\nprophecies and the whole dispensation of the gospel. This I certainly\nadmit, and at the same time assert, that these were accomplishments of\nthe law, rather than additions to it, or retrenchments of it. But if the\nLord suffered no enlargement or diminution of the ministry of Moses,\nnotwithstanding it was enveloped in such great obscurity, till he\ndispensed a clearer doctrine by his servants the prophets, and finally\nby his beloved Son,\u2014why do not we consider ourselves far more severely\nprohibited from making any addition to the law, the prophets, the\npsalms, and the gospel? No change has taken place in the Lord, who long\nago declared that nothing was so highly offensive to him, as to attempt\nto worship him with the inventions of men. Hence those striking\ndeclarations in the prophets, which ought to be continually sounding in\nour ears: \u201cI spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day\nthat I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt-offerings\nor sacrifices; but this thing commanded I them, saying, Obey my voice,\nand I will be your God, and ye shall be my people: and walk ye in all\nthe ways that I have commanded you.\u201d[1006] Again: \u201cI earnestly protested\nunto your fathers, saying, Obey my voice.\u201d[1007] There are many other\nsimilar passages, but the most remarkable of all is the following: \u201cHath\nthe Lord,\u201d says Samuel, \u201cas great delight in burnt-offerings and\nsacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey is\nbetter than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams. For\nrebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity\nand idolatry.\u201d[1008] Therefore, whatever human inventions relating to\nthe worship of God, may be defended by the authority of the Church,\nsince it is impossible to vindicate them from impiety, it is easy to\ninfer that the imputation of them to the Church has no foundation in\ntruth.\n\nXVIII. For this reason we freely censure that tyranny of human\ntraditions, which is imposed upon the world under the name of the\nChurch. Nor do we hold the Church in contempt, as our adversaries, in\norder to render us obnoxious, falsely assert. We allow it the praise of\nobedience, than which no higher praise can be given. On the contrary,\nthey are themselves the most outrageous violators of the Church, which\nthey represent as guilty of rebellion against the Lord, when they\npretend that it has gone beyond what was permitted by the word of God;\nto say nothing of the combination of impudence and wickedness discovered\nin their incessant vociferations respecting the authority of the Church,\nwhile they take no notice of the command of the Lord, or of the\nobedience due from the Church to that command. But if we desire, as we\nought, to agree with the Church, it will be best for us to observe and\nremember what commands are given by the Lord, equally to us and to the\nwhole Church, that we may all obey him with one consent. For there is no\ndoubt that we shall fully agree with the Church, if we show ourselves in\nall things obedient to the Lord. Now, to attribute to the apostles the\norigin of the traditions which have hitherto oppressed the Church, is a\nmere imposture; for the whole tendency of the doctrine of the apostles\nwas, that men\u2019s consciences should not be burdened with new observances,\nor the worship of God contaminated with human inventions. Besides, if\nthere be any credit due to ancient histories and records, the apostles\nnot only never knew, but never even heard of that which is ascribed to\nthem. Nor let it be pretended, that the greatest part of their\nConstitutions were received in use and commonly practised, which were\nnever committed to writing; namely, those things which, during the life\nof Christ, they were not able to understand, but which after his\nascension, they learned from the revelation of the Holy Spirit. The\nmeaning of that passage we have already examined. With respect to the\npresent subject, we may observe, they make themselves truly ridiculous\nby maintaining that those great mysteries, which were so long unknown to\nthe apostles, consisted partly of Jewish or heathen ceremonies, of which\nthe former had long before been promulgated among the Jews, and the\nlatter among the heathen, and partly of foolish gesticulations and\nunmeaning rites, which stupid priests, who scarcely know how to walk or\nspeak, perform with the greatest exactness, and which even infants and\nfools counterfeit so well, that it might be thought there were no more\nsuitable ministers of such solemnities. If there were no histories, yet\nmen of sound judgment would conclude from the thing itself, that such a\nvast multitude of rites and observances did not break into the Church\nall on a sudden, but that they must have been introduced by degrees. For\nwhen those holy bishops, who were the immediate successors of the\napostles, had made some appointments relating to order and discipline,\nthey were followed by a series of others, who had too little\nconsideration, and too much curiosity and cupidity, of whom every one in\nsuccession vied with his predecessors, from a foolish emulation to excel\nthem in the invention of new observances. And because there was danger\nthat their inventions, by which they desired to obtain the praises of\nposterity, might in a short time be disused, they were the more rigid in\nenforcing the observance of them. This foolish and perverse imitation\nhas been the source of most of those rites which the Romanists urge upon\nus as apostolic. And this is also attested by various histories.\n\nXIX. To avoid too much prolixity in composing a catalogue of them all,\nwe shall content ourselves with one example. In the administration of\nthe Lord\u2019s supper, the apostles used great simplicity. Their immediate\nsuccessors, to adorn the dignity of the mystery, added some forms which\nwere not to be altogether condemned. Afterwards followed those foolish\nimitators, who, by adding various fragments from time to time, at length\nformed those vestments of the priests, those ornaments of the altar,\nthose gesticulations, and all that apparatus of useless things, which we\nsee in the mass. But they object that it was an ancient opinion, that\nwhatever was done with the common consent of the universal Church, had\noriginated from the apostles. In proof of this, they cite the testimony\nof Augustine. I shall give them no other answer than in the words of\nAugustine himself. \u201cThose things which are observed throughout the\nworld,\u201d says he, \u201cwe may understand to have been ordained, either by the\napostles themselves, or by general councils, whose authority is very\nuseful in the Church; as that the sufferings, resurrection, and\nascension of our Lord, and the descent of the Holy Spirit, are\ncelebrated by solemn anniversaries; and if there be any thing else of a\nsimilar kind observed by the universal Church wherever it has extended\nitself.\u201d When he enumerates so few examples, who does not see that he\nintended to attribute to authors worthy of credit and reverence the\nobservances which were then in use, and none but those simple, rare, and\nsober ones, which are useful in preserving the order of the Church? But\nhow distant is this passage from the conclusion the Roman doctors would\nextort from it, that there is not the most insignificant ceremony among\nthem which ought not to be considered as resting on the authority of the\napostles!\n\nXX. Not to be too tedious, I will produce only one example. If any one\ninquire whence they have their holy water, they immediately answer, From\nthe apostles. As if the histories did not attribute this invention to a\nbishop of Rome, who, if he had taken counsel of the apostles, would\ncertainly never have contaminated baptism by a strange and unseasonable\nsymbol. Though it does not appear to me probable that the origin of that\nconsecration was so ancient as those histories state. For the\nobservation of Augustine, that some Churches in his time rejected the\ncustom of washing the feet as a solemn imitation of Christ, lest that\nceremony might be supposed to have any reference to baptism, implies\nthat there was no other kind of washing then practised which bore any\nresemblance to baptism. Be this as it may, I shall never admit it to\nhave been a dictate of the spirit of the apostles, that baptism should\nbe recalled to the memory by a daily ablution, which would be little\nelse than a repetition of it. It is of no consequence that Augustine\nelsewhere ascribes other things also to the apostles; for as he has\nnothing but conjectures, no conclusion ought to be drawn from them on\nsuch an important subject. Lastly, though we should even grant, that\nthose things which he mentions had been transmitted from the time of the\napostles, yet there is a wide difference between instituting some pious\nexercise which believers may use with a free conscience, or if they find\nnot profitable, may abstain from the use of it, and making laws to\nentangle their consciences with bondage. But whoever was their author,\nsince we see that they have fallen into so great an abuse, nothing\nprevents our abolishing them without any disrespect to him; because they\nwere never instituted in order to be perpetual and unalterable.\n\nXXI. Nor does the cause of our adversaries derive much advantage from\ntheir attempt to excuse their own tyranny, by alleging the example of\nthe apostles. The apostles, they say, and elders of the primitive\nChurch, passed a decree without the command of Christ, enjoining all the\nGentiles to \u201cabstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and\nfrom things strangled.\u201d[1009] If this was lawful for them, why may it\nnot be lawful for their successors, whenever circumstances require, to\nimitate their conduct? I sincerely wish they would imitate them in other\nthings as well as in this. For I deny that the apostles, on that\noccasion, instituted or decreed any thing new, as it is easy to prove by\na sufficient reason. For when Peter had declared in that assembly, that\nto \u201cput a yoke upon the neck of the disciples\u201d would be to \u201ctempt\nGod,\u201d[1010] he would have contradicted his own opinion, if he had\nafterwards consented to the imposition of any yoke. Yet there was a yoke\nimposed, if the apostles decreed, from their own authority, that the\nGentiles should be prohibited \u201cfrom meats offered to idols, and from\nblood, and from things strangled.\u201d There still remains some difficulty,\nthat nevertheless they seem to prohibit them. But this will be easily\nsolved, if we more closely examine the meaning of the decree itself; of\nwhich the first point in order and principal in importance is, that the\nGentiles were to be left in possession of their liberty, and not to be\ndisturbed or troubled about the observance of the law. So far it is\ncompletely in our favour. The exception which immediately follows is not\na new law made by the apostles, but the Divine and eternal command for\nthe preservation of charity inviolate; nor does it diminish a tittle of\nthat liberty: it only admonishes the Gentiles how they ought to\naccommodate themselves to their brethren, to avoid offending them by an\nabuse of their liberty. The second point, therefore, is, that the\nGentiles were to use a harmless liberty, and without offence to their\nbrethren. If it be still objected, that they prescribe a certain\ndirection, I reply, that as far as was expedient for that period, they\npoint out and specify the things in which the Gentiles were liable to\ngive offence to their brethren, that they might refrain from them; yet\nthey add nothing new of their own to the eternal law of God, by which\noffences against our brethren are prohibited.\n\nXXII. As if any faithful pastors, who preside over churches not yet well\nregulated, were to recommend all their people not to eat meat openly on\nFridays, or to labour publicly on festivals, or the like, till their\nweaker neighbours should be more established. For though, setting aside\nsuperstition, these things are in themselves indifferent, yet when they\nare attended with offences to brethren, they cannot be performed without\nsin; and the times are such that believers could not do these things in\nthe presence of their weak brethren, without most grievously wounding\ntheir consciences. Who but a caviller would say that in this instance\nthey made a new law, whereas it would evidently appear that their sole\nobject was to guard against offences which are most expressly forbidden\nby the Lord? No more can it be said of the apostles, who had no other\ndesign in removing the occasion of offences, than to urge the Divine law\nrespecting the avoidance of offence: as though they had said, It is the\ncommand of the Lord that you hurt not your weak brother; you cannot eat\nmeats offered to idols, or blood, or things strangled, without your weak\nbrethren being offended; therefore, we command you by the word of the\nLord not to eat with offence. And that such was the intention of the\napostles, Paul himself is an unexceptionable witness, who, certainly in\nconsistence with their sentence, writes in the following manner: \u201cAs\nconcerning the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto\nidols, we know that an idol is nothing. Howbeit, there is not in every\nman that knowledge; for some with conscience of the idol, eat it as a\nthing offered unto an idol; and their conscience, being weak, is\ndefiled. Take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a\nstumbling-block to them that are weak.\u201d[1011] He who shall have duly\nconsidered these things, will not afterwards be deceived by the fallacy\nof those who attempt to justify their tyranny by the example of the\napostles, as if they had begun to infringe the liberty of the Church by\ntheir decree. But that they may not be able to avoid confirming this\nsolution by their own confession, let them tell me by what right they\nhave dared to abrogate that decree. They can only reply, Because there\nwas no more danger from those offences and dissensions which the\napostles intended to guard against, and they knew that a law was to be\njudged of by the end for which it was made. As this law, therefore, is\nadmitted to have been made from a consideration of charity, there is\nnothing prescribed in it any further than charity is concerned. When\nthey confess that the transgression of this law is no other than a\nviolation of charity, do they not thereby acknowledge that it is not a\nnovel addition to the law of God, but a genuine and simple application\nof it to the times and manners for which it was designed?\n\nXXIII. But it is contended, that though the ecclesiastical laws should\nin a hundred instances be unjust and injurious to us, yet they ought all\nto be obeyed without any exception; for that the point here is not that\nwe should consent to errors, but that we, who are subjects, should\nfulfil even the severe commands of our governors, which we are not at\nliberty to reject. But here likewise the Lord most happily interposes\nwith the truth of his word, delivers us from such bondage, and\nestablishes us in the liberty which he has procured for us by his sacred\nblood, the benefit of which he has repeatedly confirmed by his word. For\nthe question here is not, as they fallaciously pretend, merely whether\nwe shall endure some grievous oppression in our bodies; but whether our\nconsciences shall be deprived of their liberty, that is, of the benefit\nof the blood of Christ, and shall be tormented with a wretched bondage.\nLet us, however, pass over this also, as if it were matter of little\nimportance. But do we think it a matter of little importance to deprive\nthe Lord of his kingdom, which he claims to himself, in such a\nperemptory manner? And it is taken away from him whenever he is\nworshipped with laws of human invention, whereas he requires himself to\nbe honored as the sole legislator of his own worship. And that no one\nmay suppose it to be a thing of trivial importance, let us hear in what\nestimation it is held by the Lord. \u201cForasmuch,\u201d he says, \u201cas this people\ndraw near me with their mouth, but their fear toward me is taught by the\nprecept of men; therefore, behold, I will proceed to do a marvellous\nwork among this people, even a marvellous work and a wonder; for the\nwisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the understanding of their\nprudent men shall be hid.\u201d[1012] Again: \u201cIn vain do they worship me,\nteaching for doctrines the commandments of men.\u201d[1013] When the children\nof Israel polluted themselves by various idolatries, the cause of all\nthe evil is attributed to the impure mixture which they made by devising\nnew modes of worship in violation of the commands of God. Therefore, the\nsacred history relates that the strangers who had been transplanted by\nthe king of Assyria from Babylon to inhabit Samaria, were torn in pieces\nand devoured by wild beasts, \u201cbecause they knew not the statutes or\nordinances of the God of the land.\u201d Though they had committed no fault\nin the ceremonies, yet vain pomp would not have been approved by God;\nbut he did not fail to punish the violation of his worship, when men\nintroduced new inventions inconsistent with his word. Hence it is\nafterwards stated, that being terrified with that punishment, they\nadopted rites prescribed in the law; yet because they did not yet\nworship the true God aright, it is twice repeated that \u201cthey feared the\nLord,\u201d and, at the same time, that \u201cthey feared not the Lord.\u201d[1014]\nWhence we conclude, that part of the reverence which is paid to him\nconsists in our worshipping him in a simple adherence to his commands,\nwithout the admixture of any inventions of our own. Hence the frequent\ncommendations of pious kings, that they \u201cwalked in all his commandments,\nand turned not aside to the right hand or to the left.\u201d[1015] I go still\nfurther: though in some services of human invention there appears no\nmanifest impiety, yet as soon as ever men have departed from the command\nof God, it is severely condemned by the Holy Spirit. The altar of Ahaz,\nthe model of which was brought from Damascus, might seem to be an\naddition to the ornaments of the temple, because his design was to offer\nsacrifices upon it to God alone, with a view to perform these services\nin a more splendid manner than upon the ancient and original altar; yet\nwe see how the Holy Spirit detests such audacity, for no other reason\nthan because all the inventions of men in the worship of God are impure\ncorruptions.[1016] And the more clearly the will of God is revealed to\nus, the more inexcusable is our presumption in making any such attempt.\nWherefore the guilt of Manasseh is justly aggravated by the circumstance\nof his having \u201cbuilt\u201d new \u201caltars in the house of the Lord, of which the\nLord said, In Jerusalem will I put my name;\u201d[1017] because such conduct\nwas like an avowed rejection of the authority of God.\n\nXXIV. Many persons wonder why the Lord so severely threatens that he\nwould \u201cdo a marvellous work among the people,\u201d whose \u201cfear toward him\u201d\nwas \u201ctaught by the precepts of men,\u201d and pronounces that he is\n\u201cworshipped in vain\u201d by \u201cthe commandments of men.\u201d But if such persons\nwould consider what it is to follow the word of God alone in matters of\nreligion, that is, of heavenly wisdom, they would immediately perceive\nit to be for no trivial reason that the Lord abominates such corrupt\nservices, which are rendered to him according to the caprice of the\nhuman mind. For, though persons who obey such laws for the worship of\nGod, have a certain appearance of humility in this their obedience, yet\nthey are very far from being humble before God, to whom they prescribe\nthe same laws which they observe themselves. This is the reason why Paul\nrequires us to be so particularly cautious against being deceived by the\ntraditions of men, and will-worship, that is, voluntary worship,\ninvented by men, without the word of God.[1018] And so indeed it is,\nthat our own wisdom, and that of all other men, must become folly in our\nesteem, that we may allow God alone to be truly wise. This is very far\nfrom being the case with those who study to render themselves acceptable\nto him by petty observances of human contrivance, and obtrude upon him,\nin opposition to his commands, a hypocritical obedience, which in\nreality is rendered to men. This was the conduct of men in former ages;\nthe same has happened within our own remembrance, and still happens in\nthose places where the authority of the creature is more regarded than\nthat of the Creator; where religion, if religion it deserves to be\ncalled, is polluted with more numerous and senseless superstitions than\never disgraced the worship of paganism. For what could proceed from the\nminds of men but things carnal, foolish, and truly expressive of their\nauthors?\n\nXXV. When the advocates of superstition allege, that Samuel sacrificed\nin Ramah, that there this was done without the direction of the law, yet\nit was acceptable to God,[1019] the answer is easy\u2014that this was not the\nerection of a second altar, in opposition to one already erected, and\nappointed by the Divine command to supersede every other; but as there\nhad yet been no fixed place assigned for the ark of the covenant, he\nappointed the town which he inhabited for the oblation of sacrifices, as\nthe most convenient place. It certainly was not the intention of the\nholy prophet to make any innovation in religious worship, in which God\nhad so strictly forbidden any thing to be added or diminished. The\nexample of Manoah I consider as an extraordinary and singular case.\nThough a private man, he offered a sacrifice to God, yet not without the\nDivine approbation; because he did it not from the hasty impulse of his\nown mind, but in consequence of the secret inspiration of Heaven.[1020]\nBut of the Lord\u2019s utter abomination of all the contrivances of mortals\nin his worship, we have a memorable example in another person, not\ninferior to Manoah\u2014I mean Gideon, whose ephod produced fatal\nconsequences, not only to himself and his family, but to all the\npeople.[1021] In short, every additional invention by which men pretend\nto serve God is nothing but a pollution of true holiness.\n\nXXVI. Why, then, it is inquired, was it the will of Christ that men\nshould submit to those intolerable burdens which were imposed upon them\nby the scribes and Pharisees?[1022] I ask, on the other hand, Why did\nChrist, in another place, direct men to \u201cbeware of the leaven of the\nPharisees and of the Sadducees?\u201d[1023] by _leaven_, according to the\ninterpretation given us by the evangelist, intending every doctrine of\ntheir own that they mixed with the pure word of God. What can we wish\nfor plainer, than when he commands us to avoid and beware of all their\ndoctrine? Hence it is very evident to us, that in the other passage our\nLord did not intend that the consciences of his disciples should be\nharassed with the traditions of the Pharisees; and the words themselves,\nif they are not perverted, convey no such meaning. For, being about to\ndeliver a severe invective against the conduct of the Pharisees, our\nLord only prefaced it by instructing his hearers, that though they would\nsee nothing in their lives worthy of imitation, yet they should continue\nto practise those things which were taught by them in their discourses,\nwhen they were sitting in the chair of Moses, that is to say, when they\nwere expounding the law. His only design, therefore, was to guard the\npeople against being induced to despise the doctrine by the bad examples\nof those who taught it. But, as some persons are never affected by\narguments, but always require authority, I will subjoin the words of\nAugustine, who gives exactly the same interpretation: \u201cThe Lord\u2019s fold\nhas pastors, some faithful, some hirelings. Those who are faithful are\ntrue shepherds; yet hear how the hirelings also are necessary. For many\nin the Church, pursuing worldly advantages, preach Christ, and the voice\nof Christ is heard through them; and the sheep follow not the hireling,\nbut the Shepherd by means of the hireling. Hear how the hirelings are\npointed out by the Lord himself. He says, The scribes and Pharisees sit\nin Moses\u2019 chair; what they say, do; but what they do, imitate not. Is\nnot this equivalent to saying, Hear the voice of the Shepherd through\nthe hirelings; for, sitting in the chair of Moses, they teach the law of\nGod; therefore, God teaches by them; but if they choose to teach any\nthing of their own, neither attend to it, nor practise it?\u201d\n\nXXVII. But, as many ignorant persons, when they hear that the\nconsciences of men ought not to be bound by human traditions, and that\nit is in vain to worship God by such services, immediately conclude the\nsame rule to be applicable to all the laws which regulate the order of\nthe Church, we must also refute their error. It is easy, indeed, to be\ndeceived in this point, because it does not immediately appear, at the\nfirst glance, what a difference there is between the one and the other;\nbut I will place the whole subject in such a clear light, in a few\nwords, that no one may be misled by the resemblance. In the first place,\nlet us consider that if, in every society of men, we see the necessity\nof some polity in order to preserve the common peace, and to maintain\nconcord; if in the transaction of business there is always some order,\nwhich the interest of public virtue, and even of humanity itself,\nforbids to be rejected; the same ought particularly to be observed in\nChurches, which are best supported by a well-ordered regulation of all\ntheir affairs and which without concord are no Churches at all.\nWherefore, if we would make a proper provision for the safety of the\nChurch, we ought to pay the strictest attention to the injunction of\nPaul, that \u201call things be done decently and in order.\u201d[1024] But as\nthere is such great diversity in the manners of men, so great a variety\nin their minds, and so much contrariety in their judgments and\ninclinations, no polity will be sufficiently steady unless it be\nestablished by certain laws; nor can any order be preserved without some\nsettled form. The laws, therefore, which promote this end, we are so far\nfrom condemning, that, we contend, their abolition would be followed by\na disruption of the bands of union, and the total disorganization and\ndispersion of the Churches. For it is impossible to attain what Paul\nrequires, that \u201call things be done decently and in order,\u201d unless order\nand decorum be supported by additional regulations. But in regard to\nsuch regulations, care must always be taken, that they be not considered\nnecessary to salvation, and so imposing a religious obligation on the\nconscience, or applied to the worship of God, and so represented as\nessential to piety.\n\nXXVIII. We have an excellent and most certain mark, therefore, which\ndistinguishes those impious constitutions, by which it has been stated\nthat true religion is obscured and men\u2019s consciences subverted, and the\nlegitimate regulations of the Church, which are always directed to one\nof these two ends, or to both together; that, in the holy assembly of\nbelievers, all things may be conducted with suitable decorum and\ndignity, that the community may be kept in order by the firm bonds of\ncourtesy and moderation. For when it is once understood that a law is\nmade for the sake of public order, this removes the superstition\nembraced by them who place the worship of God in human inventions.\nMoreover, when it is known that it only refers to matters of common\npractice, this overturns all that false notion of obligation and\nnecessity, which filled men\u2019s consciences with great terror, when\ntraditions were thought necessary to salvation. For here nothing is\nrequired but the maintenance of charity among us by the common\nintercourse of friendly offices. But it is proper to describe more fully\nwhat is comprehended under the decorum and the order which Paul\nrecommends. The end of _decorum_ is, partly, that while ceremonies are\nemployed to conciliate veneration to sacred things, we may be excited to\npiety by such aids; partly that the modesty and gravity, which ought to\nbe discovered in all virtuous actions, may be most of all conspicuous in\nthe Church. In _order_, the first point is, that those who preside\nshould be acquainted with the rule and law of good government, and that\nthe people who are governed should be accustomed to an obedience to God\nand to just discipline; the second is, that when the Church is in a well\nregulated state, care should be taken to preserve its peace and\ntranquillity.\n\nXXIX. We shall not call that _decorum_, therefore, which is merely a\nfrivolous spectacle, yielding an unprofitable gratification; such as we\nsee exemplified in the theatrical apparatus employed by the Papists in\ntheir services, where nothing is to be seen but a useless appearance of\nelegance and splendour, without any advantage. But we shall esteem that\nas _decorum_, which shall be so adapted to inspire a reverence of holy\nmysteries as to be calculated for an exercise of piety; or which at\nleast shall contribute an ornament corresponding to the act; and that\nnot without some beneficial tendency, but that believers may be\nadmonished with what modesty, fear, and reverence, they ought to engage\nin sacred services. Now, that ceremonies may be exercises of piety, it\nis necessary that they should lead us directly to Christ. In like\nmanner, we do not place _order_ in those nugatory pomps which have\nnothing but a vain appearance of splendour, but in that well regulated\npolity, which excludes all confusion, incivility, obstinacy, clamours,\nand dissensions. Of the first kind, examples are furnished by Paul; as\nthat profane banquets should not be connected with the sacred supper of\nthe Lord; that women should not appear in public without being\nveiled;[1025] and many others in common use among us; such as, that we\npray with bended knees and with our heads uncovered; that we administer\nthe sacraments of the Lord, not in a slovenly manner, but with due\ndecorum; that we observe some decent order in the burial of the dead;\nand other things of a similar nature. Of the second sort are the hours\nappointed for public prayers, sermons, and sacraments; quietness and\nsilence under sermons; the singing of hymns; the places appointed for\nthese services, and the days fixed for the celebration of the Lord\u2019s\nsupper;[1026] the prohibition of Paul, that women should not teach in\nthe Church, and the like; but especially the regulations for the\npreservation of discipline, as catechizing, ecclesiastical censures,\nexcommunication, fastings, and every thing else that can be referred to\nthe same class. Thus all the constitutions of the Church which we\nreceive as holy and useful, may be classed under two heads; some refer\nto rites and ceremonies, others to discipline and peace.\n\nXXX. But, because there is danger here, on the one hand, that the false\nbishops may seize a pretext to excuse their impious and tyrannical laws,\nand, on the other, that there may be some persons who, from an excessive\nfear of falling into the evils we have mentioned, will reject all\necclesiastical laws, however holy and useful they may be,\u2014it is\nnecessary to protest, that I approve of no human constitutions, except\nsuch as are founded on the authority of God, and deduced from the\nScripture, so that they may be considered as altogether Divine. Let us\ntake, as an example, the kneeling practised during solemn prayers. The\nquestion is, whether it be a human tradition, which every one is at\nliberty to reject or neglect. I answer that it is at once both human and\nDivine. It is of God, as it forms a branch of that decorum which is\nrecommended to our attention and observance by the apostle; it is of\nmen, as it particularly designates that which had in general been rather\nhinted than clearly expressed. From this single example, it is easy to\njudge what opinion ought to be entertained of all the rest. Because the\nLord, in his holy oracles, has faithfully comprehended and plainly\ndeclared to us the whole nature of true righteousness, and all the parts\nof Divine worship, with whatever is necessary to salvation,\u2014in these\nthings he is to be regarded as our only Master. Because, in external\ndiscipline and ceremonies, he has not been pleased to give us minute\ndirections what we ought to do in every particular case, foreseeing that\nthis would depend on the different circumstances of different periods,\nand knowing that one form would not be adapted to all ages,\u2014here we must\nhave recourse to the general rules which he has given, that to them may\nbe conformed all the regulations which shall be necessary to the decorum\nand order of the Church. Lastly, as he has delivered no express\ninjunctions on this subject, because these things are not necessary to\nsalvation, and ought to be applied to the edification of the Church,\nwith a variety suitable to the manners of each age and nation,\ntherefore, as the benefit of the Church shall require, it will be right\nto change and abolish former regulations, and to institute new ones. I\ngrant, indeed, that we ought not to resort to innovation rashly or\nfrequently, or for trivial causes. But charity will best decide what\nwill injure or edify, and if we submit to the dictates of charity, all\nwill be well.\n\nXXXI. Now, such regulations as have been made upon this principle and\nfor this end, it is the duty of Christian people to observe, with a free\nconscience, indeed, and without any superstition, yet with a pious and\nready inclination; they must not treat them with contempt or\ncarelessness, much less violate them, in an open manner, through pride\nand obstinacy. It will be asked, What kind of liberty of conscience can\nbe retained amidst so much attention and caution? I reply, It will very\nwell be supported, when we consider, that these are not fixed and\nperpetual laws by which we are bound, but external aids for human\ninfirmity, which though we do not need, yet we all use, because we are\nunder obligations to each other to cherish mutual charity between us.\nThis may be observed in the examples already mentioned. What! does\nreligion consist in a woman\u2019s veil, so that it would be criminal for her\nto walk out with her face uncovered? Is the solemn decree respecting her\nsilence such as cannot be violated without a capital offence? Is there\nany mystery in kneeling, or in the interment of a dead body, which\ncannot be omitted without sin? Certainly not; for if a woman, in the\nassistance of a neighbour, finds a necessity for such haste as allows\nher no time to cover her head, she commits no offence in running to the\nplace with her head uncovered. And it is sometimes as proper for her to\nspeak, as at other times to be silent. And he who from disease is unable\nto kneel, is quite at liberty to pray standing. Lastly, it is better to\nbury a dead body in proper season, even without a shroud, than, for want\nof persons to carry it to burial, to suffer it to putrefy without\ninterment. Nevertheless, in these things, the customs and laws of the\ncountry we inhabit, the dictates of modesty, and even humanity itself,\nwill direct us what to do, and what to avoid; and if an error be\nincurred through inadvertence or forgetfulness, no crime is committed;\nbut if through contempt, such perverseness deserves to be reprobated. So\nit is of little importance what days and hours are appointed, what is\nthe form of the places, what psalms are sung on the respective days. But\nit is proper that there should be certain days and stated hours, and a\nplace capable of receiving all the people, if any regard be paid to the\npreservation of peace. For what a source of contentions would be\nproduced by the confusion of these things, if every man were permitted\nto change, at his pleasure, what relates to the general order, for it\nwould never happen that the same thing would be agreeable to all, if\nthings were undetermined and left to the choice of every individual. If\nany one object, and resolve to be wiser on this subject than is\nnecessary, let him examine by what reason he can justify his obstinacy\nto the Lord. We ought, however, to be satisfied with the declaration of\nPaul, \u201cIf any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor\nthe Churches of God.\u201d[1027]\n\nXXXII. Now, it is necessary to exert the greatest diligence to prevent\nthe intrusion of any error which may corrupt or obscure this pure use of\necclesiastical regulations. This end will be secured, if all the forms,\nwhatever they may be, carry the appearance of manifest utility, if very\nfew are admitted, and principally if they are accompanied with the\ninstructions of a faithful pastor, to shut the door against all corrupt\nopinions. The consequence of this knowledge is, that every person will\nretain his liberty in all these things, and yet will voluntarily impose\nsome restraint upon his liberty, so far as the decorum we have\nmentioned, or the dictates of charity, shall require. In the next place,\nit will be necessary, that, without any superstition, we should attend\nto the observance of these things ourselves, and not too rigidly exact\nit from others; that we should not esteem the worship of God to be\nimproved by the multitude of ceremonies; and that one Church should not\ndespise another on account of a variety of external discipline. Lastly,\nestablishing no perpetual law of this kind for ourselves, we ought to\nrefer the use and end of all such observances to the edification of the\nChurch, according to the exigence of which we should be content not only\nwith the change of some particular observance, but with the abolition of\nany that have hitherto been in use among us. For that the abrogation of\nsome ceremonies, not otherwise inconsistent with piety or decorum, may\nbecome expedient from the circumstances of particular periods, the\npresent age exhibits an actual proof. For such has been the blindness\nand ignorance of former times, Churches have heretofore adhered to\nceremonies with such corrupt sentiments and such obstinate zeal, that it\nis scarcely possible for them to be sufficiently purified from monstrous\nsuperstitions without the abolition of many ceremonies, for the original\ninstitution of which, perhaps, there was some cause, and which are not\nin themselves remarkable for any impiety.\n\nFootnote 973:\n\n  Matt. xxiii. 4. Luke xi. 46.\n\nFootnote 974:\n\n  1 Cor. vii. 35.\n\nFootnote 975:\n\n  Rom. xiii. 5.\n\nFootnote 976:\n\n  Rom. ii. 15.\n\nFootnote 977:\n\n  1 Peter iii. 21.\n\nFootnote 978:\n\n  Heb. x. 2.\n\nFootnote 979:\n\n  1 Tim. i. 5.\n\nFootnote 980:\n\n  1 Tim. i. 19.\n\nFootnote 981:\n\n  Acts xxiv. 16.\n\nFootnote 982:\n\n  1 Cor. x. 28, 29.\n\nFootnote 983:\n\n  Rom. xiii. 5.\n\nFootnote 984:\n\n  Rom. xiii. 1.\n\nFootnote 985:\n\n  James iv. 11, 12.\n\nFootnote 986:\n\n  Isaiah xxxiii. 22.\n\nFootnote 987:\n\n  1 Peter v. 2, 3.\n\nFootnote 988:\n\n  Col. i. 27, 28; ii. 3, 8, 23.\n\nFootnote 989:\n\n  Gal. v. 1-18.\n\nFootnote 990:\n\n  Col. ii. 8.\n\nFootnote 991:\n\n  Gal. v. 1.\n\nFootnote 992:\n\n  Matt. xv. 6.\n\nFootnote 993:\n\n  Gal. iv. 9. Col. ii. 8.\n\nFootnote 994:\n\n  Col. ii. 23.\n\nFootnote 995:\n\n  Col. ii. 22.\n\nFootnote 996:\n\n  Col. ii. 20, 21.\n\nFootnote 997:\n\n  Gal. iv. 1, 2.\n\nFootnote 998:\n\n  John iv. 23.\n\nFootnote 999:\n\n  Jer. vii. 22, 23.\n\nFootnote 1000:\n\n  Isaiah lv. 2.\n\nFootnote 1001:\n\n  Isaiah xxix. 13. Matt. xv. 7-9.\n\nFootnote 1002:\n\n  Isaiah xxix. 13, 14.\n\nFootnote 1003:\n\n  Acts xv. 28, 29.\n\nFootnote 1004:\n\n  Deut. xii. 32.\n\nFootnote 1005:\n\n  Prov. xxx.\n\nFootnote 1006:\n\n  Jer. vii. 22, 23.\n\nFootnote 1007:\n\n  Jer. xi. 7.\n\nFootnote 1008:\n\n  1 Sam. xv. 22, 23.\n\nFootnote 1009:\n\n  Acts xv. 29.\n\nFootnote 1010:\n\n  Acts xv. 10.\n\nFootnote 1011:\n\n  1 Cor. viii. 4, 7, 9.\n\nFootnote 1012:\n\n  Isaiah xxix. 13, 14.\n\nFootnote 1013:\n\n  Matt. xv. 9.\n\nFootnote 1014:\n\n  2 Kings xvii. 24-34.\n\nFootnote 1015:\n\n  2 Kings xxii. 2. 2 Chron. xvii. 4, et alibi.\n\nFootnote 1016:\n\n  2 Kings xvi. 10, &c.\n\nFootnote 1017:\n\n  2 Kings xxi. 4.\n\nFootnote 1018:\n\n  Col. ii. 4, 8, 18, 23.\n\nFootnote 1019:\n\n  1 Sam. vii. 17.\n\nFootnote 1020:\n\n  Judges xiii. 19.\n\nFootnote 1021:\n\n  Judges viii. 27.\n\nFootnote 1022:\n\n  Matt. xxiii. 3.\n\nFootnote 1023:\n\n  Matt. xvi. 6.\n\nFootnote 1024:\n\n  1 Cor. xiv. 40.\n\nFootnote 1025:\n\n  1 Cor. xi. 5; xiv. 34.\n\nFootnote 1026:\n\n  1 Cor. xi. 20-22.\n\nFootnote 1027:\n\n  1 Cor. xi. 16.\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER XI.\n    THE JURISDICTION OF THE CHURCH, AND ITS ABUSE UNDER THE PAPACY.\n\n\nWe come now to the third branch of the power of the Church, and that\nwhich is the principal one in a well regulated state, which we have said\nconsists in jurisdiction. The whole jurisdiction of the Church relates\nto the discipline of manners, of which we are about to treat. For as no\ncity or town can exist without a magistracy and civil polity, so the\nChurch of God, as I have already stated, but am now obliged to repeat,\nstands in need of a certain spiritual polity; which, however, is\nentirely distinct from civil polity, and is so far from obstructing or\nweakening it, that, on the contrary, it highly conduces to its\nassistance and advancement. This power of jurisdiction, therefore, will,\nin short, be no other than an order instituted for the preservation of\nthe spiritual polity. For this end, there were from the beginning\njudiciaries appointed in the Churches, to take cognizance of manners, to\npass censures on vices, and to preside over the use of the keys in\nexcommunication. This order Paul designates in his First Epistle to the\nCorinthians, when he mentions \u201cgovernments;\u201d[1028] and to the Romans,\nwhen he says, \u201cHe that ruleth,\u201d let him do it \u201cwith diligence.\u201d[1029] He\nis not speaking of magistrates or civil governors, for there were at\nthis time no Christian magistrates, but of those who were associated\nwith the pastor in the spiritual government of the Church. In the First\nEpistle to Timothy, also, he mentions two kinds of presbyters or elders,\nsome \u201cwho labour in the word and doctrine,\u201d others who have nothing to\ndo with preaching the word, and yet \u201crule well.\u201d[1030] By the latter\nclass, there can be no doubt that he intends those who were appointed to\nthe cognizance of manners, and to the whole exercise of the keys. For\nthis power, of which we now speak, entirely depends on the keys, which\nChrist has conferred upon the Church in the eighteenth chapter of\nMatthew, where he commands that those who shall have despised private\nadmonitions shall be severely admonished in the name of the whole\nChurch; and that if they persist in their obstinacy, they are to be\nexcluded from the society of believers.[1031] Now, these admonitions and\ncorrections cannot take place without an examination of the cause; hence\nthe necessity of some judicature and order. Wherefore, unless we would\nnullify the promise of the keys, and entirely abolish excommunication,\nsolemn admonitions, and every thing of a similar kind, it is necessary\nto allow the Church some jurisdiction. Let it be observed, that the\npassage to which we have referred, relates not to the general authority\nof the doctrine to be preached by the apostles, as in the sixteenth\nchapter of Mathew and the twentieth chapter of John; but that the power\nof the sanhedrim is for the future transferred to the Church of Christ.\nTill that time, the Jews had their own method of government, which, as\nfar as regards the pure institution, Jesus Christ established in his\nChurch, and that with a severe sanction. For this was absolutely\nnecessary, because the judgment of an ignoble and despised Church might\notherwise be treated with contempt by presumptuous and proud men. And\nthat the readers may not be embarrassed by the circumstance of Christ\nhaving used the same words to express different things, it will be\nuseful to solve this difficulty. There are two places which speak of\n_binding_ and _loosing_. One is in the sixteenth chapter of Matthew,\nwhere Christ, after having promised Peter that he would \u201cgive\u201d him \u201cthe\nkeys of the kingdom of heaven,\u201d[1032] immediately adds, \u201cWhatsoever thou\nshalt bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt\nloose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven.\u201d In these words he means\nprecisely the same as he intends in other language recorded by John,\nwhen, being about to send forth his disciples to preach, after having\n\u201cbreathed on them,\u201d he said, \u201cWhose soever sins ye remit, they are\nremitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are\nretained.\u201d[1033] I shall offer an interpretation of this passage,\nwithout any subtlety, violence, or perversion, but natural, suitable,\nand obvious. This command respecting the remission and retention of\nsins, and the promise made to Peter respecting binding and loosing,\nought to be wholly referred to the ministry of the word, which when our\nLord committed to the apostles, he at the same time invested them with\nthe power of binding and loosing. For what is the sum of the gospel, but\nthat, being all slaves of sin and death, we are loosed and delivered by\nthe redemption which is in Christ Jesus, and that those who never\nreceive or acknowledge Christ as their Deliverer and Redeemer, are\ncondemned and sentenced to eternal chains? When the Lord delivered this\nembassy to his apostles, to be conveyed to all nations, in order to\nevince it to be his, and to have proceeded from him, he honoured it with\nthis remarkable testimony, and that for the particular confirmation both\nof the apostles themselves, and of all those to whom it was to be\nannounced. It was of importance, that the apostles should have a strong\nand constant assurance of their preaching; which they were not only to\nundertake and execute amidst immense labours, cares, troubles, and\ndangers, but were at length to seal with their blood. That they might\nknow this ministry not to be vain or ineffectual, but full of power and\nenergy, it was of importance for them, in circumstances of such great\nanxiety, difficulty, and danger, to be persuaded that they were employed\nin the work of God; amidst all the hostility and opposition of the whole\nworld, to know that God was on their side; and though Christ, the Author\nof their doctrine, was not present to their view on earth, to be certain\nthat he was in heaven to confirm the truth of the doctrine which he had\ndelivered to them. On the other hand, also, it was necessary that the\nmost unequivocal testimony should be given to their hearers, that the\ndoctrine of the gospel was not the word of the apostles, but of God\nhimself; not a voice issuing from the earth, but descended from heaven.\nFor these things, the remission of sins, the promise of eternal life,\nand the message of salvation, cannot be in the power of man. Therefore\nChrist has testified that, in the preaching of the gospel, nothing\nbelonged to the apostles, except the ministration of it; that it was he\nhimself who spoke and promised every thing by the instrumentality of\ntheir mouths; and, consequently, that the remission of sins which they\npreached was the true promise of God, and that the condemnation which\nthey denounced was the certain judgment of God. Now, this testification\nhas been given to all ages, and remains unaltered, to certify and assure\nus all, that the word of the gospel, by whomsoever it may happen to be\npreached, is the very sentence of God himself, promulgated from his\nheavenly tribunal, recorded in the book of life, ratified, confirmed,\nand fixed in heaven. Thus we see, that the power of the keys, in these\npassages, is no other than the preaching of the gospel, and that,\nconsidered with regard to men, it is not so much authoritative as\nministerial; for, strictly speaking, Christ has not given this power to\nmen, but to his word, of which he has appointed men to be the ministers.\n\nII. The other passage, which we have mentioned, relative to the power of\nbinding and loosing, is in the eighteenth chapter of Matthew, where\nChrist says, \u201cIf any brother neglect to hear the Church, let him be unto\nthee as a heathen man and a publican. Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever\nye shall bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever ye\nshall loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven.\u201d[1034] This passage is\nnot altogether similar to the first, but is to be understood in a manner\nsomewhat different; though I do not conceive the difference to be so\ngreat, but that there is a considerable affinity between them. In the\nfirst place, they are both alike in this respect, that each contains a\ngeneral declaration, the same power of always binding and loosing,\u2014that\nis, by the word of God,\u2014the same command, the same promise. But they\ndiffer in this, that the former passage peculiarly relates to the\npreaching of the gospel, which is performed by the ministers of the\nword; the latter relates to the discipline, which is committed to the\nChurch. The Church binds him whom it excommunicates; not that it\nconsigns him to perpetual ruin and despair, but because it condemns his\nlife and manners, and already warns him of his final condemnation,\nunless he repent. The Church looses him whom it receives into its\ncommunion; because it makes him, as it were, a partaker of the unity\nwhich it has in Christ Jesus. That no man, therefore, may contemn the\njudgment of the Church, or consider it as of little consequence that he\nis condemned by the voice of believers, the Lord testifies that such\njudgment of believers is no other than the promulgation of his sentence,\nand that what they do on earth shall be ratified in heaven. For they\nhave the word of God, by which they condemn the perverse; they have the\nsame word, by which they receive penitents into favour; and they cannot\nerr or dissent from the judgment of God, because they judge only by the\nDivine law, which is not an uncertain or earthly opinion, but the holy\nwill and heavenly oracle of God. From these two passages, which I think\nI have familiarly and correctly, as well as concisely, explained, these\nunreasonable men, without any judgment, under the influence of misguided\nzeal, endeavour to establish, sometimes auricular confession, sometimes\nexcommunication, sometimes jurisdiction, sometimes the right of\nlegislation, and sometimes indulgences. The former passage they allege\nto support the primacy of the Roman see. They are so expert in fitting\ntheir keys to any locks and doors they please, that it should seem as if\nthey had followed the business of locksmiths all their lifetime.\n\nIII. The opinion entertained by some persons, that these things were\nonly temporary, while all civil magistrates were strangers to the\nprofession of Christianity, is a mistake for want of considering the\ngreat distinction, and the nature of the difference, between the\necclesiastical and civil power. For the Church has no power of the sword\nto punish or to coerce, no authority to compel, no prisons, fines, or\nother punishments, like those inflicted by the civil magistrate.\nBesides, the object of this power is, not that he who has transgressed\nmay be punished against his will but that he may profess his repentance\nby a voluntary submission to chastisement. The difference therefore is\nvery great; because the Church does not assume to itself what belongs to\nthe magistrate, nor can the magistrate execute that which is executed by\nthe Church. This will be better understood by an example. Is any man\nintoxicated? In a well regulated city he will be punished by\nimprisonment. Has he committed fornication? He will receive the same or\na severer punishment. With this, the laws, the magistrate, and the civil\njudgment, will all be satisfied; though it may happen that he will give\nno sign of repentance, but will rather murmur and repine against his\npunishment. Will the Church stop here? Such persons cannot be admitted\nto the sacred supper without doing an injury to Christ and to his holy\ninstitution. And reason requires, that he who has offended the Church\nwith an evil example, should remove, by a solemn declaration of\nrepentance, the offence which he has excited. The argument adduced by\nthose who espouse a contrary opinion, is of no force. They say, that\nChrist assigned this office to the Church, when there was no magistrate\nto execute it. But it frequently happens that the magistrate is too\nnegligent, and sometimes that he even deserves to be chastised himself;\nwhich was the case with the emperor Theodosius. Besides, the same\nargument might be extended to the whole ministry of the word. Now, then,\naccording to them, pastors must no longer censure notorious crimes; they\nmust cease to chide, to reprove, to rebuke; for there are Christian\nmagistrates, whose duty it is to correct such offences by the civil\nsword. But as it is the duty of the magistrate, by punishment and\ncorporeal coercion, to purge the Church from offences, so it behoves the\nminister of the word, on his part, to relieve the magistrate by\npreventing the multiplication of offenders. Their respective operations\nought to be so connected as to be an assistance, and not an obstruction\nto each other.\n\nIV. And, indeed, whoever will closely examine the words of Christ, will\neasily perceive that they describe the stated and perpetual order, and\nnot any temporary regulation, of the Church. For it is unreasonable for\nus to bring an accusation before a magistrate, against those who refuse\nto submit to our admonitions; yet this would be necessary if the\nmagistrate succeeded to this office of the Church. What shall we say of\nthis promise, \u201cVerily I say unto thee, whatsoever ye shall bind on\nearth, shall be bound in heaven?\u201d Was it only for one, or for a few\nyears? Besides, Christ here instituted nothing new, but followed the\ncustom always observed in the ancient Church of his own nation; thereby\nsignifying, that the spiritual jurisdiction, which had been exercised\nfrom the beginning, was indispensable to the Church. And this has been\nconfirmed by the consent of all ages. For when emperors and magistrates\nbegan to assume the profession of Christianity, the spiritual\njurisdiction was not in consequence abolished, but only regulated in\nsuch a manner as neither to derogate from the civil power, nor to be\nconfounded with it. And that justly; for a pious magistrate will not\nwish to exempt himself from the common subjection of the children of\nGod, which in no small degree consists in submitting to the Church, when\nit judges by the word of God: so very far is it from being his duty to\nabolish such a judicature. \u201cFor what is more honourable,\u201d says Ambrose,\n\u201cthan for the emperor to be called the son of the Church? For a good\nemperor is within the Church, not above the Church.\u201d Wherefore those\nwho, to exalt the magistrate, despoil the Church of this power, not only\npervert the language of Christ by a false interpretation, but pass a\nmost severe censure on all the holy bishops who have lived since the\ntime of the apostles, for having usurped to themselves, under a false\npretext, the honour and dignity which belonged to the magistrate.\n\nV. But, on the other hand, it is also worth while to examine what was\nthe true and ancient use of the jurisdiction of the Church, and what a\ngreat abuse of it has been introduced; that we may know what ought to be\nabrogated, and what ought to be restored from antiquity, if we would\noverturn the reign of Antichrist, and re\u00ebstablish the true kingdom of\nChrist. In the first place, the object to be secured is the prevention\nof offences, or the abolition of any that may have arisen. In the use of\nit, two things require to be considered; first, that this spiritual\npower be entirely separated from the power of the sword; secondly, that\nit be administered, not at the pleasure of one man, but by a legitimate\nassembly. Both these things were observed in the purer ages of the\nChurch. For the holy bishops never exercised their authority by fines,\nimprisonments, or other civil punishments; but, as became them, employed\nnothing but the word of the Lord. For the severest vengeance, the\nultimate punishment of the Church, is excommunication, which is never\nresorted to without absolute necessity. Now, excommunication requires no\nexternal force, but is content with the power of the word of God. In\nshort, the jurisdiction of the primitive Church was no other than a\npractical exposition of the description which Paul gives of the\nspiritual authority of pastors. This power he represents as conferred\nfor the purpose of \u201ccasting down imaginations, and every high thing that\nexalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into\ncaptivity every thought to the obedience of Christ; and having in\nreadiness to revenge all disobedience.\u201d[1035] As this is accomplished by\nthe preaching of the doctrine of Christ, so to preserve that doctrine\nfrom falling into contempt, they who profess themselves of the household\nof faith ought to be judged by what that doctrine contains. That cannot\nbe done, except the ministry be accompanied with the power to take\ncognizance of those who are to be privately admonished, or more severely\ncensured, and also to exclude from the communion of the Supper those who\ncannot be admitted without a profanation of such a solemn sacrament.\nWherefore when he denies, in another place, that we have any right \u201cto\njudge them that are without,\u201d[1036] he makes the children of the church\nsubject to the censures by which their faults are chastised, and implies\nthe existence at that time of judicatures from which none of the\nbelievers were exempt.\n\nVI. This power, as we have stated, was not in the hands of one man, for\nhim to act according to his own pleasure, but resided in the assembly of\nthe elders, which was in the Church what a senate is in a city. Cyprian,\nwhen he mentions by whom it was exercised in his time, generally unites\nall the clergy with the bishop; but in other passages he also shows,\nthat the clergy presided in such a manner, that the people were not\nexcluded from this cognizance. For he expresses himself in these words:\n\u201cFrom the commencement of my episcopate, I have determined to do nothing\nwithout the counsel of the clergy and the consent of the people.\u201d But\nthe common and usual custom was for the jurisdiction of the Church to be\nexercised by the council of the presbyters; of whom, as I have observed,\nthere were two classes; for some were ordained to the office of\nteaching, others were only censors of manners. This institution\ngradually degenerated from its original establishment; so that, in the\ntime of Ambrose, the judicial administration of the Church was wholly in\nthe hands of the clergy; of which he complains in the following\nlanguage: \u201cThe ancient synagogue, and afterwards the Church, had elders,\nwithout whose advice nothing was done. I know not by what negligence\nthis practice has been discontinued, except from the indolence of the\ndoctors, or rather from their pride, while they wish none but\nthemselves, to be seen.\u201d We perceive how indignant was that holy man,\nthat there had been some declension from a better state of things,\nthough they still retained an order that was at least tolerable. What\nwould he say now, if he were to see the present deformed ruins, which\nexhibit scarcely a vestige of the ancient edifice! What a complaint\nwould he make! First, in opposition to law and justice, that which had\nbeen given to the Church, the bishop usurped entirely to himself. This\nresembles the conduct of a consul or president, expelling the senate,\nand seizing the sole administration of a government. But as the bishop\nis superior to other persons in honour, so the assembly or congregation\npossesses more authority than one individual. It was a gross outrage,\ntherefore, for one man to transfer to himself all the power of the\ncommunity, and thereby to open a door to licentious tyranny, to deprive\nthe Church of its rights, and to suppress and abolish an assembly\nappointed by the Spirit of Christ.\n\nVII. But as one evil always produces another, bishops, disdaining this\ncharge as unworthy of their attention, have delegated it to others.\nHence the creation of officials, to discharge that duty. I say nothing,\nat present, of the characters of the persons; I only assert, that they\ndiffer in no respect from civil judges; yet they still call it a\nspiritual jurisdiction, where all the contention is about secular\naffairs. Though there were no other evil, what effrontery must they\nhave, to call a court full of litigation the judicature of the Church!\nBut, it is alleged, it employs admonitions, and pronounces\nexcommunication. Is it thus that they trifle with God? Does a poor man\nowe a sum of money? He is cited. If he appear, he is condemned; after\nthe condemnation, if he do not pay, he is admonished: after the second\nadmonition, they proceed to excommunication. If he do not appear to the\ncitation, he is admonished to be forthcoming: if he delay, he is\nadmonished a second time, and soon after is excommunicated. I ask, What\nis there in this that bears any resemblance to the institution of\nChrist, the ancient usage, or the order of the Church? It is further\nalleged, that this court also corrects vices. I reply, that acts of\nfornication, lasciviousness, and drunkenness, and similar enormities,\nthey not only tolerate, but sanction and encourage, by a kind of tacit\napprobation, and that not only in the people, but even in the clergy\nthemselves. Among multitudes of offenders, they only summon a few,\neither to avoid too flagrant an appearance of connivance, or for the\npurpose of extorting money. I say nothing of the robbery, the rapine,\nthe peculation, the sacrilege, connected with this office. I say nothing\nof the characters of most of the persons selected to discharge it. It is\nmore than sufficient for us, that while the Romanists boast of their\nspiritual jurisdiction, it is easy to show that nothing is more contrary\nto the order appointed by Christ, and that it has no more resemblance to\nthe ancient practice, than darkness has to light.\n\nVIII. Though we have not said all that might be adduced for this\npurpose, and what we have said has been condensed within a small\ncompass, yet I trust we have so refuted our adversaries, as to leave no\nroom for any one to doubt that the spiritual power arrogated by the pope\nand all his hierarchy, is a tyrannical usurpation, chargeable with\nimpious opposition to the word of God, and injustice to his people.\nUnder the term _spiritual power_, I include their audacity in\nfabricating new doctrines, by which they have seduced the unhappy people\nfrom the native purity of the word of God, the iniquitous traditions by\nwhich they have insnared them, and the pretended ecclesiastical\njurisdiction which they exercise by their suffragans, vicars,\npenitentiaries, and officials. For if we allow Christ any kingdom among\nus, all this kind of domination must immediately fall to the ground. The\npower of the sword, which they also claim, as that is not exercised over\nconsciences, but operates on property, is irrelevant to our present\nsubject; though in this also it is worth while to remark, that they are\nalways consistent with themselves, and are at the greatest possible\ndistance from the character they would be thought to sustain, as pastors\nof the Church. Here I am not censuring the particular vices of\nindividuals, but the general wickedness and common pest of the whole\norder, which they would consider as degraded, if it were not\ndistinguished by wealth and lofty titles. If we consult the authority of\nChrist on this subject, there is no doubt that he intended to exclude\nthe ministers of his word from civil dominion and secular sovereignty,\nwhen he said, \u201cThe kings of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them;\nbut it shall not be so among you.\u201d[1037] For by these words he\nsignifies, not only that the office of a pastor is distinct from the\noffice of a prince, but that they are so different, that they can never\nbe properly united in one man. For though Moses held both these offices\nat once, it may be observed, first, that this was the result of a\nspecial miracle; secondly, that it was only a temporary arrangement,\ntill things should be better regulated. But, as soon as God prescribed a\ncertain form of government, Moses was left in possession of the civil\nadministration, and was commanded to resign the priesthood to his\nbrother; and that for a very sufficient reason; for it is beyond the\nability of nature for one man to be capable of sustaining the burden of\nboth. And this has been carefully observed in the Church in all ages.\nFor as long as any real appearance of a Church remained, not one of the\nbishops ever thought of usurping the power of the sword; so that it was\na common proverb in the time of Ambrose, \u201cThat emperors rather coveted\nthe priesthood, than priests the empire;\u201d for as he afterwards observes,\nit was the firm and universal opinion, \u201cThat palaces belonged to\nemperors, and churches to priests.\u201d\n\nIX. But since a method has been contrived for bishops to retain the\ntitle, honour, and emoluments of their office without any burden or\nsolicitude, that they might not be left entirely without occupation, the\npower of the sword has been given to them, or rather they have usurped\nit to themselves. With what plea will they defend such impudence? Was it\nfor bishops to perplex themselves with judicial proceedings, to assume\nthe government of cities and provinces, and to undertake various other\noccupations so incompatible with their office, which alone would furnish\nthem so much labour and employment, that even if they were entirely and\nassiduously devoted to it, without the least distraction of other\navocations, they would scarcely be able to discharge its functions? But\nthey have the hardihood to boast, that this causes the Church of Christ\nto flourish with a glory suitable to its dignity, and at the same time\nthat they are not too much distracted from the duties of their vocation.\nWith respect to the first point, if it be a becoming ornament of the\nsacred office, for those who sustain it to be elevated to a degree of\npower formidable to the greatest monarchs, they have reason to\nexpostulate with Christ, by whom their honour has been so grievously\nwounded. For in their opinion, at least, what could have been said more\ndisgraceful than the following language? \u201cThe kings of the Gentiles\nexercise dominion over them; but it shall not be so among you.\u201d[1038]\nNor has he prescribed a severer law to his servants than he first\nimposed upon himself. \u201cMan,\u201d says he, \u201cwho made me a judge or a divider\nover you?\u201d[1039] We see he plainly refuses to act the part of a judge,\nwhich he would not have done, had it been a thing consistent with his\noffice. Will not his servants allow themselves to be reduced to that\nrank, to which their Lord voluntarily submitted himself? With respect to\nthe second point, I wish they could as easily prove it by experience as\nmake the assertion. But since the apostles thought it not right for them\n\u201cto leave the word of God, and serve tables,\u201d[1040] this must confound\nthose who are reluctant to admit, that it is not in the power of the\nsame man to be at the same time a good bishop and a good prince. For if\nthey, who by the extent of the gifts with which they were endued, were\nenabled to sustain far more numerous and weighty cares than any men who\nhave lived since their time, after all confessed themselves incapable of\nattending to the word of God and the service of tables without fainting\nunder the burden, how should it be possible for these men, who are by no\nmeans to be compared to the apostles, so vastly to surpass them in\nindustry? The very attempt has betrayed the most consummate effrontery\nand presumptuous confidence. Yet we see it has been done; with what\nsuccess, is obvious; the unavoidable consequence has been the desertion\nof their own functions, and intrusion into those which belonged to\nothers.\n\nX. It has, without doubt, been from small beginnings, that they have\ngradually risen to such eminence. For it was not possible for them to\nmake so great an advance at one step. But sometimes by fraudulent and\nsecret artifices, they exalted themselves in a clandestine manner, so\nthat no one perceived the encroachment till it had been effected:\nsometimes, when opportunity offered, by terrifying and menacing princes,\nthey extorted from them some augmentation of their power; sometimes,\nwhen they saw princes inclined to favour them, they abused their foolish\nand inconsiderate pliability. In early times, if any controversy arose,\nthe believers, in order to avoid the necessity of litigation, used to\nrefer it to the decision of their bishop, of whose integrity they were\nfully satisfied. The ancient bishops were frequently embarrassed with\nsuch arbitrations, which exceedingly displeased them, as Augustine\nsomewhere declares; but to save the parties from lawsuits, they\nreluctantly undertook this troublesome business. From voluntary\narbitrations, which were entirely different from the processes of civil\ncourts, their successors have erected an ordinary jurisdiction. In a\nsubsequent period, when cities and countries were oppressed with various\ndistresses, they had recourse to the patronage of their bishops, that\nthey might be protected by their influence; succeeding bishops, by\nwonderful artifice, of protectors have made themselves lords. Nor can it\nbe denied, that the principal acquisitions they have made, have been\neffected by faction and violence. The princes, who voluntarily invested\nthe bishops with jurisdiction, were actuated to this by various motives.\nBut though their indulgence may have exhibited some appearance of piety,\nyet their preposterous liberality was by no means adapted to promote the\nbenefit of the Church, the ancient and genuine discipline of which they\nthereby corrupted, or rather, to say the truth, utterly annihilated. But\nthose bishops who have abused such kindness of princes to their own\nprofit, have sufficiently evinced, by this one specimen, that they were\nin reality no bishops at all. For if they had possessed a particle of\nthe apostolic spirit, they would unquestionably have answered, in the\nlanguage of Paul, that \u201cthe weapons of our warfare are not carnal,\nbut\u201d[1041] spiritual. Instead of this, hurried away with a blind\ncupidity, they have ruined themselves, and their successors, and the\nChurch.\n\nXI. At length the Roman pontiff, not content with small provinces, first\nlaid his hand upon kingdoms, and then seized upon the empire. And to\nassign some plausible pretext for retaining a possession acquired by\nmere robbery, he sometimes boasts that he holds it by Divine right,\nsometimes pretends the donation from Constantine, and sometimes pleads\nsome other title. In the first place, I answer with Bernard, that\nsupposing he could vindicate his claim by any other reason, yet he\ncannot establish it by any apostolic right. \u201cFor Peter could not give\nwhat he never possessed; but he left his successors, what he did\npossess, the care of the churches. But as the Lord and Master said of\nhimself, that he was not constituted a judge between two persons, the\nservant and disciple ought not to think it any disgrace not to be judge\nof all men.\u201d Bernard is speaking here of civil judgments, for he adds,\naddressing the pope, \u201cTherefore your power is over sins, and not over\npossessions, since it is for the former, and not for the latter, that\nyou have received the keys of the kingdom of heaven. For which appears\nto you the superior dignity, to remit sins, or to divide lands? There is\nno comparison. These low and earthly things are subject to the judgment\nof kings and princes of the earth. Why do you invade the province of\nothers?\u201d Again; \u201cYou are made a superior. For what purpose? Not to\nexercise dominion, I apprehend. However highly we think of ourselves,\ntherefore, let us remember that we are appointed to a ministry not\ninvested with a sovereignty. Learn that you want no sceptre, but a\npruning-knife, to cultivate the Lord\u2019s vineyard.\u201d Again: \u201cIt is plain\nthat sovereignty is forbidden to the apostles. Go then, if you dare, and\nsustaining the office of a temporal sovereign, usurp the name of an\napostle, or filling an apostolical office, usurp a temporal\nsovereignty.\u201d And immediately after: \u201cThis is the apostolic form: they\nare forbidden to exercise any dominion; they are commanded to minister\nand serve.\u201d Though all these observations of Bernard are evidently\nconsistent with the truth, and even though the true state of the case\nmust be obvious to all without any thing being said, yet the Roman\npontiff was not ashamed, at the Council of Arles, to decree, that the\nsupreme power of both swords belonged to him by Divine right.\n\nXII. With respect to the donation of Constantine, persons who have only\na moderate acquaintance with the histories of those times, need no\ninformation how fabulous, and even ridiculous, this is. But to leave the\nhistories, Gregory, who lived above four hundred years after, is alone a\ncompetent and very sufficient witness of this fact. For, wherever he\nspeaks of the emperor, he gives him the title of Most Serene Lord, and\ncalls himself his unworthy servant. In one place he says, \u201cLet not our\nlord, from his earthly power, be too ready to treat priests with\ndisdain; but with excellent consideration, for the sake of him whose\nservants they are, let him rule over them in such a manner, as at the\nsame time to pay them due reverence.\u201d We see how, in the common\nsubjection, he wished to be considered as one of the people; for he is\nthere pleading, not another person\u2019s cause, but his own. In another\nplace he says, \u201cI trust in Almighty God, that he will grant a long life\nto our pious lords, and will govern us under your hand according to his\nmercy.\u201d I have not quoted these passages with any design to discuss at\nlarge this question of the donation of Constantine, but merely to show\nmy readers, by the way, what a puerile falsehood it is of the Romanists,\nto attempt to claim a temporal sovereignty for their pontiff. And so\nmuch the more contemptible is the impudence of Augustine Steuchus, the\npope\u2019s librarian, who has had the effrontery to prostitute his labours\nto serve his master in such a desperate cause. Laurentius Valla had\namply refuted that fable, which was no difficulty to a man of learning\nand an acute reasoner; yet, like a man little conversant in\necclesiastical affairs, he had not said all that would have corroborated\nthe argument. Steuchus sallies forth, and scatters the most disgusting\ntrash to obscure the clear light. But, in fact, he pleads the cause of\nhis master with no more force than if some facetious wit, ironically\nprofessing the same object, were in reality supporting the opposite side\nof the question. But this cause is well worthy of such advocates as the\npope hires to defend it; and equally worthy are those mercenary\nscribblers of being disappointed in their hopes of gain, as was the case\nwith Eugubinus.\n\nXIII. But if any one inquire the time when this fictitious empire began\nto arise, there have not yet elapsed five hundred years since the\npontiffs were still in subjection to the emperors, and no pontiff was\ncreated without the authority of the emperor. The first occasion of\ninnovation in this order was given to Gregory VII. by the emperor Henry,\nthe fourth of that name, a man of rash and unsteady disposition, of no\njudgment, great audacity, and dissolute life. For when he had all the\nbishoprics of Germany in his court, either exposed to sale, or to be\ndistributed as a booty, Hildebrand, who had been offended with him,\nseized a plausible pretext to avenge himself. Because he appeared to\nadvocate a good and pious cause, he was assisted by the favour of many;\nand Henry, on the other hand, had rendered himself odious to the\ngenerality of princes, by the insolence of his government. At length\nHildebrand, who assumed the name of Gregory VII., being a man of no\npiety or integrity, betrayed the wickedness of his heart; in consequence\nof which many, who had concurred with him, afterwards deserted him. He\nso far succeeded, however, as to enable his successors not only to cast\noff the imperial yoke with impunity, but even to oblige the emperors to\nsubmit to them. After that time there were many emperors, more like\nHenry than like Julius C\u00e6sar, whom there was no difficulty in overcoming\nwhile they were sitting at home in indolence and unconcern, when there\nwas the greatest necessity for every vigorous and legitimate exertion to\nrepress the cupidity of the pontiffs. Thus we see with what plausibility\nthey have represented this admirable donation of Constantine, by which\nthe pope pretends himself to have been invested with the sovereignty of\nthe Western empire.\n\nXIV. From that period the pontiffs have never ceased encroaching on the\njurisdictions, and seizing on the territories, of others, sometimes\nemploying fraud, sometimes treachery, and sometimes open war; even the\ncity of Rome itself, which till then was free, about a hundred and\nthirty years ago was compelled to submit to their dominion; in short,\nthey proceeded to make continual advances, till they attained the power\nwhich they at present possess, and for the retention or augmentation of\nwhich, they have now, for the space of two hundred years, (for they had\nbegun before they usurped the government of the city,) so disturbed and\ndistracted the Christian world, that they have brought it to the brink\nof ruin. In the time of Gregory the First, when the guardians of the\necclesiastical property seized for themselves the lands which belonged\nto the Church, and, according to the custom of princes, set up their\ntitles and armorial bearings on them in token of their claim, Gregory\nassembled a provincial council of bishops, in which he severely\ninveighed against that profane custom, and asked whether they would not\nexcommunicate any ecclesiastic who should attempt the seizure of\nproperty by the inscription of a title, or even any bishop who should\ndirect such a thing to be done, or if done without his direction, should\nnot punish it. They all pronounced that every such offender should be\nexcommunicated. But if claiming a field by the inscription of a title,\nbe a crime deserving of excommunication in a priest,\u2014when for two whole\ncenturies the pontiffs have been meditating nothing but wars, effusion\nof blood, slaughter of armies, storming and pillaging cities, the\ndestruction of nations, the devastation of kingdoms, for the sole\npurpose of seizing the dominions of others,\u2014what excommunications can be\nsufficient for the punishment of such examples? It is clear beyond all\ndoubt, that the glory of Christ is the object furthest from their\npursuit. For if they voluntarily resign all the secular power which they\npossess, no danger will result to the glory of God, to sound doctrine,\nor to the safety of the Church; but they are infatuated, and stimulated\nby the mere lust of dominion; and consider nothing as safe, unless, as\nthe prophet says, \u201cthey rule with force and with cruelty.\u201d[1042]\n\nXV. With jurisdiction is connected the immunity which the Roman\necclesiastics arrogate to themselves. For they consider it a degradation\nfor them to appear before a civil judge in personal causes, and they\nimagine the liberty and dignity of the Church to consist in their\nexemption from the common judicature and laws. But the ancient bishops,\nwho in other respects were the most rigid assertors of the rights of the\nChurch, esteemed it no injury to themselves, or to their order, to be\nsubject to lay judges in civil causes. The pious emperors also, without\nany opposition, always summoned the clergy before their tribunals,\nwhenever necessity required it. For this is the language of Constantine,\nin his epistle to the bishops of Nicomedia: \u201cIf any bishop excite any\ndisturbance by his indiscretion, his presumption shall be restrained by\nthe authority of the minister of God, that is, by mine.\u201d And Valentinian\nsays, \u201cGood bishops never traduce the power of the emperor, but\nsincerely observe the commands of God, the sovereign King, and obey our\nlaws.\u201d At that time this principle was universally admitted, without any\ncontroversy. Ecclesiastical causes were referred to the judgment of the\nbishop. As for example, if any ecclesiastic had committed no crime\nagainst the laws, but was only charged with offending against the\ncanons, he was not summoned to the common tribunal, but was judged by\nthe bishop. In like manner, if a question was agitated respecting an\narticle of faith, or any other subject properly belonging to the Church,\nto the Church the cognizance of it was committed. In this sense is to be\nunderstood what Ambrose writes to the emperor Valentinian: \u201cYour father,\nof august memory, not only answered verbally, but also ordained by\nedicts, that, in a cause relating to faith, he ought to judge, who is\nnot disqualified by office or dignity.\u201d Again: \u201cIf we regard the\nScriptures or ancient examples, who will deny that in a cause of\nfaith,\u2014I say, in a cause of faith,\u2014it is customary for bishops to judge\nof Christian emperors, and not emperors of bishops?\u201d Again: \u201cI would\nhave come to your consistory, sire, if either the bishops or the people\nwould have suffered me to go; but they say, that a cause of faith ought\nto be discussed in the Church, in the presence of the people.\u201d He\ncontended that a spiritual cause\u2014that is, a cause affecting\nreligion\u2014ought not to be carried into a civil court, where secular\ncontroversies are agitated; and his constancy in this respect has been\nuniversally and justly applauded. Yet, notwithstanding the goodness of\nhis cause, he went no further than to declare, that if the emperor\nproceeded to employ force, he would submit. He says, \u201cI will not\nvoluntarily desert the station committed to me: in case of compulsion, I\nknow not how to resist, for our arms are prayers and tears.\u201d Let us\nobserve the singular combination of moderation and prudence with\nmagnanimity and confidence in this holy man. Justina, the mother of the\nemperor, because she could not induce him to join the Arians,\nendeavoured to deprive him of his bishopric. And she would have\nsucceeded in her attempts, if, in compliance with the summons, he had\ngone to the palace of the emperor to plead his cause. Therefore he\ndenied the emperor to be a competent judge of so important a\ncontroversy; and this was necessary both from the circumstances of that\ntime, and from the invariable nature of the subject itself. For he was\nof opinion, that it was his duty to suffer death rather than, by his\nconsent, to permit such an example to be transmitted to posterity; and\nyet in case of violence being employed, he cherished not a thought of\nresistance. For he denied it to be compatible with the character of a\nbishop to defend the faith and privileges of the Church by arms; but in\nother cases he showed himself ready to do whatever the emperor would\ncommand. \u201cIf he demands tribute,\u201d says he, \u201cwe do not refuse it; the\nlands of the Church pay tribute. If he demands the lands, he has power\nto take them; none of us will oppose him.\u201d Gregory also speaks in a\nsimilar manner. \u201cI am not ignorant,\u201d he says, \u201cof the mind of our most\nserene lord, that he is not in the habit of interfering in sacerdotal\ncauses, lest he should in any respect be burdened with our sins.\u201d He\ndoes not entirely exclude the emperor from judging priests, but observes\nthat there are certain causes which he ought to leave to the decision of\nthe Church.\n\nXVI. And even in this exception, the sole object of these holy men was\nto prevent the tyrannical violence and caprice of princes less\nfavourable to religion from obstructing the Church in the discharge of\nits duty. For they did not disapprove of the occasional interposition of\nprinces in ecclesiastical affairs, provided they would exert their\nauthority for the preservation of the order of the Church, and not for\nthe disturbance of it; for the establishment of discipline, and not for\nits relaxation. For as the Church neither possesses, nor ought to\ndesire, the power to constrain,\u2014I speak of civil coercion,\u2014it is the\npart of pious kings and princes to support religion by laws, edicts, and\njudicial sentences. For this reason, when the emperor Mauritius\ncommanded certain bishops to receive their neighbouring colleagues, who\nhad been expelled from their sees by the barbarians, Gregory confirmed\nthis command, and exhorted them to obey it. And when he himself was\nadmonished by the same emperor to be reconciled to John, the bishop of\nConstantinople, he did, indeed, assign a reason why he ought not to be\nblamed, yet he boasted no immunity exempting him from the imperial\nauthority, but on the contrary promised compliance as far as should be\nconsistent with a good conscience; and at the same time acknowledged\nthat Mauritius acted in a manner becoming a religious prince in giving\nsuch commands to the bishops.\n\nFootnote 1028:\n\n  1 Cor. xii. 28.\n\nFootnote 1029:\n\n  Rom. xii. 8.\n\nFootnote 1030:\n\n  1 Tim. v. 17.\n\nFootnote 1031:\n\n  Matt. xviii. 15-18.\n\nFootnote 1032:\n\n  Matt. xvi. 19.\n\nFootnote 1033:\n\n  John xx. 22, 23.\n\nFootnote 1034:\n\n  Matt. xviii. 17, 18.\n\nFootnote 1035:\n\n  2 Cor. x. 5, 6.\n\nFootnote 1036:\n\n  1 Cor. v. 12.\n\nFootnote 1037:\n\n  Matt. xx. 25, 26. Luke xxii. 25, 26.\n\nFootnote 1038:\n\n  Matt. xx. 25, 26. Luke xxii. 25, 26.\n\nFootnote 1039:\n\n  Luke xii. 14.\n\nFootnote 1040:\n\n  Acts vi. 2.\n\nFootnote 1041:\n\n  2 Cor. x. 4.\n\nFootnote 1042:\n\n  Ezek. xxxiv. 4.\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER XII.\n    THE DISCIPLINE OF THE CHURCH; ITS PRINCIPAL USE IN CENSURES AND\n                            EXCOMMUNICATION.\n\n\nThe discipline of the Church, the discussion of which I have deferred to\nthis place, must be despatched in a few words, that we may proceed to\nthe remaining subjects. Now, the discipline depends chiefly on the power\nof the keys, and the spiritual jurisdiction. To make this more easily\nunderstood, let us divide the Church into two principal orders\u2014the\nclergy and the people. I use the word _clergy_ as the common, though\nimproper, appellation of those who execute the public ministry in the\nChurch. We shall, first, speak of the common discipline to which all\nought to be subject; and in the next place we shall proceed to the\nclergy, who, beside this common discipline, have a discipline peculiar\nto themselves. But as some have such a hatred of discipline, as to abhor\nthe very name, they should attend to the following consideration: That\nif no society, and even no house, though containing only a small family,\ncan be preserved in a proper state without discipline, this is far more\nnecessary in the Church, the state of which ought to be the most orderly\nof all. As the saving doctrine of Christ is the soul of the Church, so\ndiscipline forms the ligaments which connect the members together, and\nkeep each in its proper place. Whoever, therefore, either desire the\nabolition of all discipline, or obstruct its restoration, whether they\nact from design or inadvertency, they certainly promote the entire\ndissolution of the Church. For what will be the consequence, if every\nman be at liberty to follow his own inclinations? But such would be the\ncase, unless the preaching of the doctrine were accompanied with private\nadmonitions, reproofs, and other means to enforce the doctrine, and\nprevent it from being altogether ineffectual. Discipline, therefore,\nserves as a bridle to curb and restrain the refractory, who resist the\ndoctrine of Christ; or as a spur to stimulate the inactive; and\nsometimes as a father\u2019s rod, with which those who have grievously fallen\nmay be chastised in mercy, and with the gentleness of the Spirit of\nChrist. Now, when we see the approach of certain beginnings of a\ndreadful desolation in the Church, since there is no solicitude or means\nto keep the people in obedience to our Lord, necessity itself proclaims\nthe want of a remedy; and this is the only remedy which has been\ncommanded by Christ, or which has ever been adopted among believers.\n\nII. The first foundation of discipline consists in the use of private\nadmonitions; that is to say, that if any one be guilty of a voluntary\nomission of duty, or conduct himself in an insolent manner, or discover\na want of virtue in his life, or commit any act deserving of\nreprehension, he should suffer himself to be admonished; and that every\none should study to admonish his brother, whenever occasion shall\nrequire; but that pastors and presbyters, beyond all others, should be\nvigilant in the discharge of this duty, being called by their office,\nnot only to preach to the congregation, but also to admonish and exhort\nin private houses, if in any instances their public instructions may not\nhave been sufficiently efficacious; as Paul inculcates, when he says,\nthat he \u201ctaught publicly and from house to house,\u201d and protests himself\nto be \u201cpure from the blood of all men,\u201d having \u201cceased not to warn every\none night and day with tears.\u201d[1043] For the doctrine then obtains its\nfull authority, and produces its due effect, when the minister not only\ndeclares to all the people together what is their duty to Christ, but\nhas the right and means of enforcing it upon them whom he observes to be\ninattentive, or not obedient to the doctrine. If any one either\nobstinately reject such admonitions, or manifest his contempt of them by\npersisting in his misconduct; after he shall have been admonished a\nsecond time in the presence of witnesses, Christ directs him to be\nsummoned before the tribunal of the Church, that is, the assembly of the\nelders, and there to be more severely admonished by the public\nauthority, that if he reverence the Church, he may submit and obey; but\nif this do not overcome him, and he still persevere in his iniquity, our\nLord then commands him, as a despiser of the Church, to be excluded from\nthe society of believers.[1044]\n\nIII. But as Jesus Christ in this passage is speaking only of private\nfaults, it is necessary to make this distinction\u2014that some sins are\nprivate, and others public or notorious. With respect to the former,\nChrist says to every private individual, \u201cTell him his fault between\nthee and him alone.\u201d[1045] With respect to those which are notorious,\nPaul says to Timothy, \u201cThem that sin rebuke before all, that others also\nmay fear.\u201d[1046] For Christ has before said, \u201cIf thy brother shall\ntrespass against thee;\u201d which no person who is not contentious can\nunderstand in any other sense, than if our Lord had said, \u201cIf any one\nsin against thee, and thou alone know it, without any other persons\nbeing acquainted with it.\u201d But the direction given by the apostle to\nTimothy, to rebuke publicly those whose transgressions were public, he\nhimself exemplified in his conduct to Peter. For when Peter committed a\npublic offence, he did not admonish him in private, but brought him\nforward before all the Church.[1047] The legitimate course, then, will\nbe,\u2014in correcting secret faults, to adopt the different steps directed\nby Christ; and in the case of those which are notorious, to proceed at\nonce to the solemn correction of the Church, especially if they be\nattended with public offence.\n\nIV. It is also necessary to make another distinction between different\nsins; some are smaller delinquencies, others are flagitious or enormous\ncrimes. For the correction of atrocious crimes, it is not sufficient to\nemploy admonition or reproof; recourse must be had to a severer remedy;\nas Paul shows, when he does not content himself with censuring the\nincestuous Corinthian, but pronounces sentence of excommunication\nimmediately on being certified of his crime. Now, then, we begin to have\na clearer perception how the spiritual jurisdiction of the Church, which\ncorrects sins according to the word of the Lord, is a most excellent\npreservative of health, foundation of order, and bond of unity.\nTherefore when the Church excludes from its society all who are known to\nbe guilty of adultery, fornication, theft, robbery, sedition, perjury,\nfalse witness, and other similar crimes, together with obstinate\npersons, who, after having been admonished even of smaller faults,\ncontemn God and his judgment,\u2014it usurps no unreasonable authority, but\nonly exercises the jurisdiction which God has given it. And that no one\nmay despise this judgment of the Church, or consider it as of little\nimportance that he is condemned by the voice of the faithful, God has\ntestified that it is no other than a declaration of his sentence, and\nthat what they do on earth shall be ratified in heaven. For they have\nthe word of the Lord, to condemn the perverse; they have the word, to\nreceive the penitent into favour. Persons who believe that the Church\ncould not subsist without this bond of discipline, are mistaken in their\nopinion, unless we could safely dispense with that remedy which the Lord\nforesaw would be necessary for us; and how very necessary it is, will be\nbetter discovered from its various use.\n\nV. Now, there are three ends proposed by the Church in those\ncorrections, and in excommunication. The first is, that those who lead\nscandalous and flagitious lives, may not, to the dishonour of God, be\nnumbered among Christians; as if his holy Church were a conspiracy of\nwicked and abandoned men. For as the Church is the body of Christ, it\ncannot be contaminated with such foul and putrid members without some\nignominy being reflected upon the Head. That nothing may exist in the\nChurch, therefore, from which any disgrace may be thrown upon his\nvenerable name, it is necessary to expel from his family all those from\nwhose turpitude infamy would redound to the profession of Christianity.\nHere it is also necessary to have particular regard to the Lord\u2019s\nsupper, that it may not be profaned by a promiscuous administration. For\nit is certain that he who is intrusted with the dispensation of it, if\nhe knowingly and intentionally admit an unworthy person, whom he might\njustly reject, is as guilty of sacrilege as if he were to give the\nLord\u2019s body to dogs. Wherefore, Chrysostom severely inveighs against\npriests, who, from a fear of the great and the powerful, did not dare to\nreject any persons who presented themselves. \u201cBlood,\u201d says he, \u201cshall be\nrequired at your hands. If you fear man, he will deride you; if you fear\nGod, you will also be honoured among men. Let us not be afraid of\nsceptres, or diadems, or imperial robes; we have here a great power. As\nfor myself, I will rather give up my body to death, and suffer my blood\nto be shed, than I will be partaker of this pollution.\u201d To guard this\nmost sacred mystery, therefore, from being reproached, there is need of\ngreat discretion in the administration of it, and this requires the\njurisdiction of the Church. The second end is, that the good may not be\ncorrupted, as is often the case, by constant association with the\nwicked. For, such is our propensity to error, nothing is more easy than\nfor evil examples to seduce us from rectitude of conduct. This use of\ndiscipline was remarked by the apostle, when he directed the Corinthians\nto expel from their society a person who had been guilty of incest. \u201cA\nlittle leaven,\u201d says he, \u201cleaveneth the whole lump.\u201d[1048] And the\napostle perceived such great danger from this quarter, that he even\ninterdicted believers from all social intercourse with the wicked. \u201cI\nhave written unto you, not to keep company, if any man that is called a\nbrother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a\ndrunkard, or an extortioner; with such a one, no, not to eat.\u201d[1049] The\nthird end is, that those who are censured or excommunicated, confounded\nwith the shame of their turpitude, may be led to repentance. Thus it is\neven conducive to their own benefit for their iniquity to be punished,\nthat the stroke of the rod may arouse to a confession of their guilt,\nthose who would only be rendered more obstinate by indulgence. The\napostle intends the same when he says, \u201cIf any man obey not our word,\nnote that man, and have no company with him, that he may be\nashamed.\u201d[1050] Again, when he says of the incestuous Corinthian, \u201cI\nhave judged to deliver such a one unto Satan, that the spirit may be\nsaved in the day of the Lord;\u201d[1051] that is, as I understand it, that\nhe had consigned him to a temporal condemnation, that the spirit might\nbe eternally saved. He therefore calls it _delivering to Satan_, because\nthe devil is _without_ the Church, as Christ is in the Church. For the\nopinion of some persons, that it relates to a certain torment of the\nbody in the present life, inflicted by the agency of Satan, appears to\nme extremely doubtful.\n\nVI. Having stated these ends, it remains for us to examine how the\nChurch exercises this branch of discipline, which consists in\njurisdiction. In the first place, let us keep in view the distinction\nbefore mentioned, that some sins are public, and others private, or more\nconcealed. Public sins are those which are not only known to one or two\nwitnesses, but are committed openly, and to the scandal of the whole\nChurch. By private sins, I mean, not such as are entirely unknown to\nmen, like those of hypocrites,\u2014for these never come under the cognizance\nof the Church,\u2014but those of an intermediate class, which are not without\nthe knowledge of some witnesses, and yet are not public. The first sort\nrequires not the adoption of the gradual measures enumerated by Christ;\nbut it is the duty of the Church, on the occurrence of any notorious\nscandal, immediately to summon the offender, and to punish him in\nproportion to his crime. Sins of the second class, according to the rule\nof Christ, are not to be brought before the Church, unless they are\nattended with contumacy, in rejecting private admonition. When they are\nsubmitted to the cognizance of the Church, then attention is to be paid\nto the other distinction, between smaller delinquencies and more\natrocious crimes. For slighter offences require not the exertion of\nextreme severity; it is sufficient to administer verbal castigation, and\nthat with paternal gentleness, not calculated to exasperate or confound\nthe offender, but to bring him to himself, that his correction may be an\noccasion of joy rather than of sorrow. But it is proper that flagitious\ncrimes should receive severer punishment; for it is not enough for him\nwho has grievously offended the Church by the bad example of an\natrocious crime, merely to receive verbal castigation; he ought to be\ndeprived of the communion of the Lord\u2019s supper for a time, till he shall\nhave given satisfactory evidence of repentance. For Paul not only\nemploys verbal reproof against the Corinthian transgressor, but excludes\nhim from the Church, and blames the Corinthians for having tolerated him\nso long. This order was retained in the ancient and purer Church, while\nany legitimate government continued. For if any one had perpetrated a\ncrime which was productive of offence, he was commanded, in the first\nplace, to abstain from the Lord\u2019s supper, and, in the next place, to\nhumble himself before God, and to testify his repentance before the\nChurch. There were, likewise, certain solemn rites which it was\ncustomary to enjoin upon those who had fallen, as signs of their\nrepentance. When the sinner had performed these for the satisfaction of\nthe Church, he was then, by imposition of hands, readmitted to the\ncommunion. This readmission is frequently called _peace_ by Cyprian, who\nbriefly describes the ceremony. \u201cThey do penance,\u201d he says, \u201cfor a\nsufficient time; then they come to confession, and by the imposition of\nthe hands of the bishop and clergy, are restored to the privilege of\ncommunion.\u201d But though the bishop and clergy presided in the\nreconciliation of offenders, yet they required the consent of the\npeople; as Cyprian elsewhere states.\n\nVII. From this discipline none were exempted; so that princes and\nplebeians yielded the same submission to it; and that with the greatest\npropriety, since it is evidently the discipline of Christ, to whom it is\nreasonable that all the sceptres and diadems of kings should be subject.\nThus Theodosius, when Ambrose excluded him from the privilege of\ncommunion, on account of a massacre perpetrated at Thessalonica, laid\naside the ensigns of royalty with which he was invested, publicly in the\nChurch bewailed his sin, which the deceitful suggestions of others had\ntempted him to commit, and implored pardon with groans and tears. For\ngreat kings ought not to think it any dishonour to prostrate themselves\nas suppliants before Christ the King of kings, nor ought they to be\ndispleased at being judged by the Church. As they hear scarcely any\nthing in their courts but mere flatteries, it is the more highly\nnecessary for them to receive correction from the Lord by the mouth of\nhis _ministers_; they ought even to wish not to be spared by the\n_pastors_, that they may be spared by the Lord. I forbear to mention\nhere by whom this jurisdiction is to be exercised, having spoken of this\nin another place. I will only add, that the legitimate process in\nexcommunicating an offender, which is pointed out by Paul, requires it\nto be done, not by the elders alone, but with the knowledge and\napprobation of the Church: in such a manner, however, that the multitude\nof the people may not direct the proceeding, but may watch over it as\nwitnesses and guardians, that nothing may be done by a few persons from\nany improper motive. Beside the invocation of the name of God, the whole\nof the proceeding ought to be conducted with a gravity declarative of\nthe presence of Christ, that there may be no doubt of his presiding over\nthe sentence.\n\nVIII. But it ought not to be forgotten, that the severity becoming the\nChurch must be tempered with a spirit of gentleness. For there is\nconstant need of the greatest caution, according to the injunction of\nPaul respecting a person who may have been censured, \u201clest perhaps such\na one should be swallowed up with overmuch sorrow;\u201d[1052] for thus a\nremedy would become a poison. But the rule of moderation may be better\ndeduced from the end intended to be accomplished; for as the design of\nexcommunication is, that the sinner may be brought to repentance, and\nevil examples taken away, to prevent the name of Christ from being\nblasphemed and other persons being tempted to imitation,\u2014if we keep\nthese things in view, it will be easy to judge how far severity ought to\nproceed, and where it ought to stop. Therefore, when the sinner gives\nthe Church a testimony of his repentance, and by this testimony, as far\nas in him lies, obliterates the offence, he is by no means to be pressed\nany further; and if he be pressed any further, the rigour is carried\nbeyond its proper limits. In this respect, it is impossible to excuse\nthe excessive austerity of the ancients, which was utterly at variance\nwith the directions of the Lord, and led to the most dangerous\nconsequences. For when they sentenced an offender to solemn repentance,\nand exclusion from the holy communion, sometimes for three, sometimes\nfor four, sometimes for seven years, and sometimes for the remainder of\nlife,\u2014what other consequence could result from it, but either great\nhypocrisy or extreme despair? In like manner, when any one had fallen a\nsecond time, the refusal to admit him to a second repentance, and his\nexclusion from the Church to the end of his life, was neither useful nor\nreasonable. Whoever considers the subject with sound judgment,\ntherefore, will discover their want of prudence in this instance. But I\nwould rather reprobate the general custom, than accuse all those who\npractised it; among whom it is certain that some were not satisfied, but\nthey complied with it because it was not in their power to effect a\nreformation. Cyprian declares that it was not from his own choice that\nhe was so rigorous. \u201cOur patience,\u201d he says, \u201cand kindness and\ntenderness, is ready for all who come. I wish all to return into the\nChurch: I wish all our fellow-soldiers to be assembled in the camp of\nChrist, and all our brethren to be received into the house of God our\nFather. I forgive every thing; I conceal much; from a zealous wish to\ncollect all the brotherhood together, even the sins committed against\nGod I examine not with rigid severity; and am scarcely free from fault\nmyself, in forgiving faults more easily than I ought. With ready and\nentire affection I embrace those who return with penitence, confessing\ntheir sin with humble and sincere satisfaction.\u201d Chrysostom is rather\nmore severe; yet he expresses himself thus: \u201cIf God is so kind, why is\nhis priest determined to be so austere?\u201d We know, likewise, what\nkindness Augustine exercised towards the Donatists, so that he hesitated\nnot to receive into the bishoprics those who renounced their error; and\nthat immediately after their repentance. But because a contrary system\nhad prevailed, they were obliged to relinquish their own judgment, in\norder to follow the established custom.\n\nIX. Now, as it is required of the whole body of the Church, in\nchastising any one who has fallen, to manifest such gentleness and\nclemency as not to proceed to the extremity of rigour, but rather,\naccording to the injunction of Paul, to \u201cconfirm their love toward\nhim,\u201d[1053] so it is the duty of every individual to moderate himself to\nthe like tenderness and clemency. Such as are expelled from the Church,\ntherefore, it is not for us to expunge from the number of the elect, or\nto despair of them as already lost. It is proper to consider them as\nstrangers to the Church, and consequently from Christ, but this only as\nlong as they remain in a state of exclusion. And even then, if they\nexhibit more appearance of obstinacy than of humility, still let us\nleave them to the judgment of God, hoping better things of them for the\nfuture than we discover at present, and not ceasing to pray to God on\ntheir behalf. And to comprehend all in a word, let us not condemn to\neternal death the person himself, who is in the hand and power of God\nalone, but let us content ourselves with judging of the nature of his\nworks according to the law of the Lord. While we follow this rule, we\nrather adhere to the judgment of God than pronounce our own. Let us not\narrogate to ourselves any greater latitude of judging, unless we would\nlimit the power and prescribe laws to the mercy of God; for, whenever it\nseems good to him, the worst of men are changed into the best, strangers\nare introduced, and foreigners are admitted into the Church. And this\nthe Lord does, to frustrate the opinion and repress the presumption of\nmen, which would usurp the most unwarrantable liberty of judging, if it\nwere left without any restraint.\n\nX. When Christ promises that what his ministers bind on earth shall be\nbound in heaven, he limits the power of binding to the censure of the\nChurch; by which those who are excommunicated are not cast into eternal\nruin and condemnation, but, by hearing their life and conduct condemned,\nare also certified of their final condemnation, unless they repent. For\nexcommunication differs from anathema; the latter, which ought to be\nvery rarely or never resorted to, precluding all pardon, execrates a\nperson, and devotes him to eternal perdition; whereas excommunication\nrather censures and punishes his conduct. And though it does, at the\nsame time, punish the person, yet it is in such a manner, that, by\nwarning him of his future condemnation, it recalls him to salvation. If\nhe obey, the Church is ready to re-admit him to its friendship, and to\nrestore him to its communion. Therefore, though the discipline of the\nChurch admits not of our friendly association and familiar intercourse\nwith excommunicated persons, yet we ought to exert all the means in our\npower to promote their reformation, and their return to the society and\ncommunion of the Church; as we are taught by the apostle, who says, \u201cYet\ncount him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.\u201d[1054] Unless\nthis tenderness be observed by the individual members, as well as by the\nChurch collectively, our discipline will be in danger of speedily\ndegenerating into cruelty.\n\nXI. It is also particularly requisite to the moderation of discipline,\nas Augustine observes in disputing with the Donatists, that private\npersons, if they see faults corrected with too little diligence by the\ncouncil of elders, should not on that account immediately withdraw from\nthe Church; and that the pastors themselves, if they cannot succeed\naccording to the wishes of their hearts in reforming every thing that\nneeds correction, should not, in consequence of this, desert the\nministry, or disturb the whole Church with unaccustomed asperity. For\nthere is much truth in his observation, that \u201cwhoever either corrects\nwhat he can by reproof; or what he cannot correct, excludes, without\nbreaking the bond of peace; or what he cannot exclude, without breaking\nthe bond of peace, censures with moderation and bears with firmness; he\nis free from the curse, and chargeable with no blame.\u201d In another\npassage he assigns the reason; because \u201call the pious order and method\nof ecclesiastical discipline ought constantly to regard the unity of the\nSpirit in the bond of peace; which the apostle commands to be kept by\nmutual forbearance; and without the preservation of which, the medicine\nof chastisement is not only superfluous, but even becomes pernicious,\nand consequently is no longer a medicine.\u201d Again: \u201cHe who attentively\nconsiders these things neither neglects severity of discipline for the\npreservation of unity, nor breaks the bond of fellowship by an\nintemperance of correction.\u201d He acknowledges indeed that it is not only\nthe duty of the pastors to endeavour to purify the Church from every\nfault, but that it is likewise incumbent on every individual to exert\nall his influence for the same purpose; and he fully admits, that a\nperson who neglects to admonish, reprove, and correct the wicked, though\nhe neither favours them nor unites in their sins, is nevertheless\nculpable in the sight of the Lord; but that he who sustains such an\noffice as to have power to exclude them from a participation of the\nsacraments, and does it not, is chargeable, in that case, not with the\nguilt of another, but with a sin of his own; he only recommends it to be\ndone with the prudence required by our Lord, \u201clest while\u201d they \u201cgather\nup the tares,\u201d they \u201croot up also the wheat with them.\u201d[1055] Hence he\nconcludes with Cyprian, \u201cLet a man, therefore, in mercy correct what he\ncan; what he cannot, let him patiently bear and affectionately lament.\u201d\n\nXII. These remarks of Augustine were made in consequence of the rigour\nof the Donatists, who, seeing vices in the Church, which the bishops\ncondemned by verbal reproofs, but did not punish with excommunication,\nwhich they thought not adapted to produce any good effects, inveighed in\na most outrageous manner against the bishops, as betrayers of\ndiscipline, and by an impious schism separated themselves from the flock\nof Christ. The same conduct is pursued in the present day by the\nAnabaptists, who, acknowledging no congregation to belong to Christ,\nunless it be, in all respects, conspicuous for angelic perfection, under\nthe pretext of zeal, destroy all edification. \u201cSuch persons,\u201d says\nAugustine, \u201cnot actuated by hatred against the iniquity of others, but\nstimulated by fondness for their own disputes, desire either wholly to\npervert, or at least to divide the weak multitude by insnaring them with\ntheir boastful pretensions; inflated with pride, infuriated with\nobstinacy, insidious with calumnies, turbulent with seditions, that\ntheir destitution of the light of truth may not be detected, they\nconceal themselves under the covert of a rigorous severity; and those\nthings which the Scripture commands to be done for the correction of the\nfaults of our brethren, without violating the sincerity of love, or\ndisturbing the unity of peace, but with the moderation of a remedial\nprocess, they abuse, to an occasion of dissension and to the sacrilege\nof schism. Thus Satan transforms himself into an angel of light, when\nfrom just severity he takes occasion to persuade men to inhuman cruelty,\nwith no other object than to corrupt and break the bond of peace and\nunity; by the preservation of which among Christians, all his power to\ninjure them is weakened, his insidious snares are broken, and his\nschemes for their ruin come to nothing.\u201d\n\nXIII. There is one thing which this father particularly recommends\u2014that\nif the contagion of any sin has infected a whole people, there is a\nnecessity for the severity and mercy which are combined in strict\ndiscipline. \u201cFor schemes of separation,\u201d he says, \u201care pernicious and\nsacrilegious, because they proceed from pride and impiety, and disturb\nthe good who are weak, more than they correct the wicked who are bold.\u201d\nAnd what he here prescribes to others, he faithfully followed himself.\nFor writing to Aurelius, bishop of Carthage, he complained that\ndrunkenness, which is so severely condemned in the Scripture, prevailed\nwith impunity in Africa, and persuaded him to endeavour to remedy it by\ncalling a provincial council. He immediately adds, \u201cI believe these\nthings are suppressed not by harshness, severity, or imperiousness, but\nby teaching rather than commanding, by admonitions rather than by\nmenaces. For this is the conduct to be pursued with a multitude of\noffenders; but severity is to be exercised against the sins of a few.\u201d\nYet he does not mean that bishops should connive or be silent, because\nthey cannot inflict severe punishments for public crimes, as he\nafterwards explains; but he means that the correction should be tempered\nwith such moderation, as to be salutary rather than injurious to the\nbody. And therefore he at length concludes in the following manner:\n\u201cWherefore, also, that command of the apostle, to put away the\nwicked,[1056] ought by no means to be neglected, when it can be done\nwithout danger of disturbing the peace; for in this case alone did he\nintend that it should be enforced; and we are also to observe his other\ninjunction, to forbear one another in love, endeavouring to keep the\nunity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.\u201d[1057]\n\nXIV. The remaining part of discipline, which is not strictly included in\nthe power of the keys, consists in this\u2014that the pastors, according to\nthe necessity of the times, should exhort the people either to fastings\nor solemn supplications, or to other exercises of humility, repentance,\nand faith, of which the word of God prescribes neither the time, the\nextent, nor the form, but leaves all this to the judgment of the Church.\nThe observation of these things, also, which are highly useful, was\nalways practised by the ancient Church from the days of the apostles;\nthough the apostles themselves were not the first authors of them, but\nderived the example from the law and the prophets. For there we find,\nthat whenever any important business occurred, the people were\nassembled, supplications commanded, and fasting enjoined. The apostles,\ntherefore, followed what was not new to the people of God, and what they\nforesaw would be useful. The same reasoning is applicable to other\nexercises by which the people may be excited to duty, or preserved in\nobedience. Examples abound in the sacred history, which it is\nunnecessary to enumerate. The conclusion to be deduced from the whole\nis, that whenever a controversy arises respecting religion, which\nrequires to be decided by a council or ecclesiastical judgment; whenever\na minister is to be chosen; in short, whenever any thing of difficulty\nor great importance is transacting; and also when any tokens of the\nDivine wrath are discovered, such as famine, pestilence, or war;\u2014it is a\npious custom, and beneficial in all ages, for the pastors to exhort the\npeople to public fasts and extraordinary prayers. If the testimonies\nwhich may be adduced from the Old Testament be rejected, as inapplicable\nto the Christian church, it is evident that the apostles practised the\nsame. Respecting prayers, however, I suppose scarcely a person will be\nfound disposed to raise any dispute. Therefore let us say something of\nfasting; because many, for want of knowing its usefulness, undervalue\nits necessity, and some reject it as altogether superfluous; while, on\nthe other hand, where the use of it is not well understood, it easily\ndegenerates into superstition.\n\nXV. Holy and legitimate fasting is directed to three ends. For we\npractise it, either as a restraint on the flesh, to preserve it from\nlicentiousness, or as a preparation for prayers and pious meditations,\nor as a testimony of our humiliation in the presence of God, when we are\ndesirous of confessing our guilt before him. The first is not often\ncontemplated in public fasting, because all men have not the same\nconstitution or health of body; therefore it is rather more applicable\nto private fasting. The second end is common to both, such preparation\nfor prayer being necessary to the whole Church, as well as to every one\nof the faithful in particular. The same may be said of the third. For it\nwill sometimes happen that God will afflict a whole nation with war,\npestilence, or some other calamity; under such a common scourge, it\nbehoves all the people to make a confession of their guilt. When the\nhand of the Lord chastises an individual, he ought to make a similar\nconfession, either alone or with his family. It is true that this\nacknowledgment lies principally in the disposition of the heart; but\nwhen the heart is affected as it ought to be, it can scarcely avoid\nbreaking out into the external expression, and most especially when it\npromotes the general edification; in order that all, by a public\nconfession of their sin, may unitedly acknowledge the justice of God,\nand may mutually animate each other by the influence of example.\n\nXVI. Wherefore fasting, as it is a sign of humiliation, is of more\nfrequent use in public, than among individuals in private; though it is\ncommon to both, as we have already observed. With regard to the\ndiscipline, therefore, of which we are now treating, whenever\nsupplications are to be presented to God on any important occasion, it\nwould be right to enjoin the union of fasting with prayer. Thus when the\nbelievers at Antioch \u201claid their hands on Paul and Barnabas,\u201d the better\nto recommend their very important ministry to God, they \u201cfasted\u201d as well\nas \u201cprayed.\u201d[1058] So also when Paul and Barnabas afterwards \u201cordained\nelders in every Church,\u201d they used to \u201cpray with fasting.\u201d[1059] In this\nkind of fasting, their only object was, that they might be more lively\nand unembarrassed in prayer. And we find by experience, that after a\nfull meal, the mind does not aspire towards God so as to be able to\nenter on prayer, and to continue in it with seriousness and ardour of\naffection. So we are to understand what Luke says of Anna, that she\n\u201cserved God with fastings and prayers.\u201d[1060] For he does not place the\nworship of God in fasting, but signifies that by such means that holy\nwoman habituated herself to a constancy in prayer. Such was the fasting\nof Nehemiah, when he prayed to God with more than common fervour for the\ndeliverance of his people.[1061] For this cause Paul declares it to be\nexpedient for believers to practise a temporary abstinence from lawful\nenjoyments, that they may be more at liberty to \u201cgive themselves to\nfasting and prayer.\u201d[1062] For by connecting fasting with prayer as an\nassistance to it, he signifies that fasting is of no importance in\nitself, any further than as it is directed to this end. Besides, from\nthe direction which he gives in that place to husbands and wives, to\n\u201crender to\u201d each other \u201cdue benevolence,\u201d it is clear that he is not\nspeaking of daily prayers, but of such as require peculiar earnestness\nof attention.\n\nXVII. In like manner, when war, pestilence, or famine begins to rage, or\nwhen any other calamity appears to threaten a country and people, then\nalso it is the duty of pastors to exhort the Church to fasting, that\nwith humble supplications they may deprecate the wrath of the Lord; for\nwhen he causes danger to appear, he announces himself as prepared and\narmed for vengeance. Therefore, as it was anciently the custom for\ncriminals to appear with long beards, dishevelled hair, and mourning\napparel, in order to excite the pity of the judge; so when we stand as\ncriminals before the tribunal of God, it is conducive to his glory and\nthe general edification, as well as expedient and salutary for\nourselves, to deprecate his severity by external demonstrations of\nsorrow. That this was customary among the people of Israel, it is easy\nto infer from the language of Joel; for when he commands to \u201cblow the\ntrumpet, sanctify a fast, and call a solemn assembly,\u201d[1063] and\nproceeds to give other directions, he speaks as of things commonly\npractised. He had just before said that inquisition was made respecting\nthe crimes of the people, had announced that the day of the Lord was at\nhand, and had cited them, as criminals, to appear and answer for\nthemselves; afterwards, he warns them to have recourse to sackcloth and\nashes, to weeping and fasting, that is, to prostrate themselves before\nthe Lord with external demonstrations of humility. Sackcloth and ashes,\nperhaps, were more suitable to those times; but there is no doubt that\nassembling, and weeping, and fastings, and similar acts, are equally\nproper for us in the present age, whenever the state of our affairs\nrequires them. For as it is a holy exercise, adapted both to humble men\nand to confess their humility, why should it be less used by us than by\nthe ancients in similar necessities? We read that fasting in token of\nsorrow was not only practised by the Israelitish Church, which was\nformed and regulated by the word of God, but also by the inhabitants of\nNineveh, who had no instruction except the preaching of Jonah.[1064]\nWhat cause, then, is there, why we should not practise the same? But, it\nwill be said, it is an external ceremony, which, with all the rest,\nterminated in Christ. I reply, that even at this day it is, as it always\nhas been, a most excellent assistance and useful admonition to believers\nto stimulate them, and guard them against further provocations of God by\ntheir carelessness and inattention, when they are chastised by his\nscourges. Therefore, when Christ excuses his apostles for not fasting,\nhe does not say that fasting is abolished, but appoints it for seasons\nof calamity, and connects it with sorrow. \u201cThe days will come,\u201d says he,\n\u201cwhen the bridegroom shall be taken away from them.\u201d[1065]\n\nXVIII. That there may be no mistake respecting the term, let us define\nwhat fasting is. For we do not understand it to denote mere temperance\nand abstinence in eating and drinking, but something more. The life of\nbelievers, indeed, ought to be so regulated by frugality and sobriety,\nas to exhibit, as far as possible, the appearance of a perpetual fast.\nBut beside this, there is another temporary fast, when we retrench any\nthing from our customary mode of living, either for a day or for any\ncertain time, and prescribe to ourselves a more than commonly rigid and\nsevere abstinence in food. This restriction consists in three things,\u2014in\ntime, in quality, and in quantity of food. By time, I mean that we\nshould perform, while fasting, those exercises on account of which fasts\nare instituted. As, for example, if any one fast for solemn prayer, he\nshould not break his fast till he has attended to it. The quality\nconsists in an entire abstinence from dainties, and contentment with\nsimpler and humbler fare, that our appetite may not be stimulated by\ndelicacies. The rule of quantity is, that we eat more sparingly and\nslightly than usual, only for necessity, and not for pleasure.\n\nXIX. But it is necessary for us, above all things, to be particularly on\nour guard against the approaches of superstition, which has heretofore\nbeen a source of great injury to the Church. For it were far better that\nfasting should be entirely disused, than that the practice should be\ndiligently observed, and at the same time corrupted with false and\npernicious opinions, into which the world is continually falling, unless\nit be prevented by the greatest fidelity and prudence of the pastors.\nThe first caution necessary, and which they should be constantly urging,\nis that suggested by Joel: \u201cRend your heart, and not your\ngarments;\u201d[1066] that is, they should admonish the people, that God sets\nno value on fasting, unless it be accompanied with a correspondent\ndisposition of heart, a real displeasure against sin, sincere\nself-abhorrence, true humiliation, and unfeigned grief arising from a\nfear of God; and that fasting is of no use on any other account than as\nan additional and subordinate assistance to these things. For nothing is\nmore abominable to God, than when men attempt to impose upon him by the\npresentation of signs and external appearances instead of purity of\nheart. Therefore he severely reprobates this hypocrisy in the Jews, who\nimagined they had satisfied God merely by having fasted, while they\ncherished impious and impure thoughts in their hearts. \u201cIs it such a\nfast, saith the Lord, that I have chosen?\u201d[1067] The fasting of\nhypocrites, therefore, is not only superfluous and useless fatigue, but\nthe greatest abomination. Allied to this is another evil, which requires\nthe most vigilant caution, lest it be considered as a meritorious act,\nor a species of divine service. For as it is a thing indifferent in\nitself, and possesses no other value than it derives from those ends to\nwhich it ought to be directed, it is most pernicious superstition to\nconfound it with works commanded by God, and necessary in themselves,\nwithout reference to any ulterior object. Such was formerly the folly of\nthe Manich\u00e6ans, in the refutation of whom Augustine most clearly shows,\nthat fasting is to be held in no other estimation than on account of\nthose ends which I here mention, and that it receives no approbation\nfrom God, unless it be practised for their sake. The third error is not\nso impious, indeed, yet it is pregnant with danger, to enforce it with\nextreme rigour as one of the principal duties, and to extol it with\nextravagant encomiums, so that men imagine themselves to have performed\na work of peculiar excellence when they have fasted. In this respect, I\ndare not wholly excuse the ancient fathers from having sown some seeds\nof superstition, and given occasion to the tyranny which afterwards\narose. Their writings contain some sound and judicious sentiments on the\nsubject of fasting; but they also contain extravagant praises, which\nelevate it to a rank among the principal virtues.\n\nXX. And the superstitious observance of Lent had at that time generally\nprevailed, because the common people considered themselves as performing\nan eminent act of obedience to God, and the pastors commended it as a\nholy imitation of Christ; whereas it is plain that Christ fasted, not to\nset an example to others, but in order that by such an introduction to\nthe preaching of the gospel, he might prove the doctrine not to be a\nhuman invention, but a revelation from heaven. And it is surprising that\nmen of acute discernment could ever entertain such a gross error, which\nis disproved by such numerous and satisfactory arguments. For Christ did\nnot fast often, which it was necessary for him to do, if he intended to\nestablish a law for anniversary fasts, but only once, while he was\npreparing to enter on the promulgation of the gospel. Nor did he fast in\nthe manner of men, as it behoved him to do, if he intended to stimulate\nmen to an imitation of him: on the contrary, he exhibited an example\ncalculated to attract the admiration of all, rather than to excite them\nto a desire of emulating his example. In short, there was no other\nreason for his fasting than for that of Moses, when he received the law\nfrom the hand of the Lord. For as that miracle was exhibited in Moses,\nto establish the authority of the law, it was necessary that it should\nnot be omitted in Christ, lest the gospel should seem to be inferior to\nthe law. But from that time, it never entered into any man\u2019s mind to\nintroduce such a form of fasting among the people of Israel, under the\npretext of imitating Moses; nor was it followed by any of the holy\nprophets and fathers, notwithstanding their inclination and zeal for all\npious exercises. For the account of Elijah, that he lived forty days\nwithout meat and drink, was only intended to teach the people that he\nwas raised up to be the restorer of the law, from which almost all\nIsrael had departed. It was nothing but a vain and superstitious\naffectation, therefore, to dignify the fasting of Lent with the title\nand pretext of an imitation of Christ. In the manner of fasting,\nhowever, there was at that time a great diversity, as Cassiodorus\nrelates from Socrates, in the ninth book of his history. \u201cFor the\nRomans,\u201d he says, \u201chad no more than three weeks; but during these there\nwas a continual fast, except on the Sunday and Saturday. The Illyrians\nand Greeks had six weeks, and others had seven; but they fasted at\nintervals. Nor did they differ less as to the nature of their food. Some\nmade use of nothing but bread and water; others added vegetables to\nfish; some did not abstain from fowl; others made no distinction at all\nbetween any kinds of food.\u201d This diversity is also mentioned by\nAugustine, in his second epistle to Januarius.\n\nXXI. The times which followed were still worse; to the preposterous zeal\nof the multitude was added the ignorance and stupidity of the bishops,\nwith their lust of dominion and tyrannical rigour. Impious laws were\nenacted to bind men\u2019s consciences with fatal chains. The eating of\nanimal food was interdicted, as though it would contaminate them.\nSacrilegious opinions were added one after another, till they arrived at\nan ocean of errors. And that no corruption might be omitted, they have\nbegun to trifle with God by the most ridiculous pretensions to\nabstinence. For in the midst of all the most exquisite delicacies, they\nseek the praise of fasting; no dainties are then sufficient; they never\nhave food in greater plenty, or variety, or deliciousness. Such splendid\nprovision they call fasting, and imagine it to be the legitimate service\nof God. I say nothing of the base gluttony practised at that season,\nmore than at any other time, by those who wish to pass for the greatest\nsaints. In short they esteem it the highest worship of God to abstain\nfrom animal food, and with this exception, to indulge themselves in\nevery kind of dainties. On the other hand, to taste the least morsel of\nbacon or salted meat and brown bread, they deem an act of the vilest\nimpiety, and deserving of worse than death. Jerome relates, that there\nwere some persons, even in his time, who trifled with God by such\nfooleries; who, to avoid making use of oil, procured the most delicate\nkinds of food to be brought from every country; and who, to do violence\nto nature, abstained from drinking water, but procured delicious and\ncostly liquors to be made for them, which they drank, not from a cup,\nbut from a shell. What was then the vice of a few, is now become common\namong all wealthy persons; they fast for no other purpose than to feast\nwith more than common sumptuousness and delicacy. But I have no\ninclination to waste many words on a thing so notorious. I only assert,\nthat neither in their fastings, nor in any other parts of their\ndiscipline, have the Papists any thing so correct, sincere, or well\nregulated, as to have the least occasion to pride themselves upon any\nthing being left among them worthy of praise.\n\nXXII. There remains the second part of the discipline of the Church,\nwhich particularly relates to the clergy. It is contained in the canons\nwhich the ancient bishops imposed on themselves and their order; such as\nthese: That no ecclesiastic should employ his time in hunting, gambling,\nor feasting; that no one should engage in usury or commerce; that no one\nshould be present at dissolute dances; and other similar injunctions.\nPenalties were likewise annexed, to confirm the authority of the canons,\nand to prevent their being violated with impunity. For this end, to\nevery bishop was committed the government of his clergy, to rule them\naccording to the canons, and to oblige them to do their duty. For this\npurpose were instituted annual visitations and synods, that if any one\nwere negligent in his duty, he might be admonished, and that any one who\ncommitted a fault might be corrected according to his offence. The\nbishops also had their provincial councils, once every year, and\nanciently even twice a year, by which they were judged, if they had\ncommitted any breach of their duty. For if a bishop was too severe or\nviolent against his clergy, there was a right of appeal to the\nprovincial councils, even though there was only a single complainant.\nThe severest punishment was the deposition of the offender from his\noffice, and his exclusion for a time from the communion. And because\nthis was a perpetual regulation, they never used to dissolve a\nprovincial council without appointing a time and place for the next.\nFor, to summon a universal council, was the exclusive prerogative of the\nemperor, as all the ancient records testify. As long as this severity\ncontinued, the clergy required nothing more from the people than they\nexemplified in their own conduct. Indeed, they were far more severe to\nthemselves than to the laity; and it is reasonable that the people\nshould be ruled with a milder and less rigid discipline; and that the\nclergy should inflict heavier censures, and exercise far less indulgence\nto themselves than to other persons. How all this has become obsolete,\nit is unnecessary to relate, when nothing can be imagined more\nlicentious and dissolute than this order of men in the present day; and\ntheir profligacy has gone to such a length, that the whole world is\nexclaiming against them. That all antiquity may not appear to have been\nentirely forgotten by them, I confess, they deceive the eyes of the\nsimple with certain shadows, but these bear no more resemblance to the\nancient usages, than the mimicry of an ape to the rational and\nconsiderate conduct of men. There is a remarkable passage in Xenophon,\nwhere he states how shamefully the Persians had degenerated from the\nvirtues of their ancestors, and, from an austere course of life, had\nsunk into delicacy and effeminacy, but that, to conceal their shame,\nthey sedulously observed the ancient forms. For whereas, in the time of\nCyrus, sobriety and temperance were carried so far, that it was\nunnecessary, and was even considered as a disgrace for any one to blow\nhis nose, their posterity continued scrupulously to refrain from this\nact; but to absorb the mucus, and retain the fetid humours produced by\ntheir gluttony, even till they almost putrefied, was held quite\nallowable. So, according to the ancient rule, it was unlawful to bring\ncups to the table; but they had no objection to drink wine till they\nwere obliged to be carried away drunk. It had been an established custom\nto eat only one meal a day; these good successors had not abolished this\ncustom, but they had continued their banquets from noon to midnight.\nBecause their ancient law enjoined men to finish their day\u2019s journey\nfasting, it continued to be a permanent custom among them; but they were\nat liberty, and it was the general practice, for the sake of avoiding\nfatigue, to contract the journey to two hours. Whenever the Papists\nbring forward their degenerate rules, for the purpose of showing their\nresemblance to the holy fathers, this example will sufficiently expose\ntheir ridiculous imitation, of which no painter could draw a more\nstriking likeness.\n\nXXIII. In one instance, they are too rigorous and inflexible, that is,\nin not permitting priests to marry. With what impunity fornication rages\namong them, it is unnecessary to remark; imboldened by their polluted\ncelibacy, they have become hardened to every crime. Yet this prohibition\nclearly shows how pestilent are all their traditions; since it has not\nonly deprived the Church of upright and able pastors, but has formed a\nhorrible gulf of enormities, and precipitated many souls into the abyss\nof despair. The interdiction of marriage to priests was certainly an act\nof impious tyranny, not only contrary to the word of God, but at\nvariance with every principle of justice. In the first place, it was on\nno account lawful for men to prohibit that which the Lord had left free.\nSecondly, that God had expressly provided in his word that this liberty\nshould not be infringed, is too clear to require much proof. I say\nnothing of the direction, repeatedly given by Paul, that a bishop should\nbe \u201cthe husband of one wife;\u201d[1068] but what could be expressed with\ngreater force, than where he announces a revelation from the Holy\nSpirit, \u201cthat in the latter times some shall depart from the faith,\nforbidding to marry,\u201d and represents these not only as impostors, but as\ndisseminating \u201cdoctrines of devils.\u201d[1069] This, therefore, was a\nprophecy, a sacred oracle of the Holy Spirit, by which he intended from\nthe beginning to forearm the Church against dangers\u2014that the prohibition\nof marriage is a doctrine of devils. But our adversaries imagine\nthemselves to have admirably evaded this charge, when they misapply it\nto Montanus, the Tatianists, Encratites, and other ancient heretics. It\nrefers, say they, to those who have condemned marriage altogether; we by\nno means condemn it; we merely prohibit it to the clergy, from an\nopinion that it is not proper for them. As if, though this prophecy had\nonce been accomplished in those ancient heretics, it might not also be\napplicable to them; or as if this puerile cavil, that they do not\nprohibit marriage, because they do not prohibit it to all, were\ndeserving of the least attention. This is just as if a tyrant should\ncontend that there can be no injustice in a law, the injustice of which\nonly oppresses one part of a nation.\n\nXXIV. They object, that there ought to be some mark to distinguish the\nclergy from the laity. As though the Lord did not foresee what are the\ntrue ornaments in which priests ought to excel. By this plea, they\ncharge the apostle with disturbing the order and violating the decorum\nof the Church, who, in delineating the perfect model of a good bishop,\namong the other virtues which he required in him, dared to mention\nmarriage. I know that they interpret this to mean, that no one is chosen\na bishop who shall have had a second wife. And I grant that this\ninterpretation is not new; but that it is erroneous, is evident from the\ncontext itself; because he immediately after prescribes what characters\nthe wives of bishops and deacons ought to possess. Paul places marriage\namong the virtues of a bishop; these men teach that it is a vice not to\nbe tolerated in the clergy; and not content with this general censure,\nthey call it carnal pollution and impurity, which is the language of\nSyricius, one of the pontiffs, recited in their canons. Let every man\nreflect from what source these things can have proceeded. Christ has\nbeen pleased to put such honour upon marriage, as to make it an image of\nhis sacred union with the Church. What could be said more, in\ncommendation of the dignity of marriage? With what face can that be\ncalled impure and polluted, which exhibits a similitude of the spiritual\ngrace of Christ?\n\nXXV. Now, though their prohibition is so clearly repugnant to the word\nof God, yet they find something in the Scriptures to urge in its\ndefence. The Levitical priests, whenever it came to their turn to\nminister at the altar, were required not to cohabit with their wives,\nthat they might be pure and immaculate to perform the sacrifices; it\nwould therefore be exceedingly unbecoming for our sacraments, which are\nfar more excellent and of daily recurrence, to be administered by\nmarried men. As though the evangelical ministry and the Levitical\npriesthood were one and the same office. On the contrary, the Levitical\npriests were antitypes, representing Christ, who, as the Mediator\nbetween God and man, was to reconcile the Father to us by his perfect\npurity. Now, as it was impossible for sinners to exhibit in every\nrespect a type of his sanctity, yet in order to display some faint\nshadows of it, they were commanded to purify themselves in a manner\nbeyond what is common among men, whenever they approached the sanctuary;\nbecause on those occasions they properly represented Christ, in\nappearing at the tabernacle, which was a type of the heavenly tribunal,\nas mediators to reconcile the people to God. As the pastors of the\nChurch now sustain no such office, the comparison is nothing to the\npurpose. Wherefore the apostle, without any exception, confidently\npronounces, that \u201cmarriage is honourable in all; but whoremongers and\nadulterers God will judge.\u201d[1070] And the apostles themselves have\nproved by their own example that marriage is not unbecoming the sanctity\nof any office, however excellent; for Paul testifies that they not only\nretained their wives, but took them about with them.[1071]\n\nXXVI. It has also betrayed egregious impudence, to insist on this\nappearance of chastity as a necessary thing, to the great disgrace of\nthe ancient Church, which abounded with such peculiar Divine knowledge,\nbut was still more eminent for sanctity. For if they pay no regard to\nthe apostles, whom they often have the hardihood to treat with contempt,\nwhat will they say of all the ancient fathers, who, it is certain, not\nonly tolerated marriage in bishops, but likewise approved of it? It\nwould follow that they must have practised a foul profanation of sacred\nthings, since, according to the notion we are opposing, they did not\ncelebrate the mysteries of the Lord with the requisite purity. The\ninjunction of celibacy was agitated in the council of Nice; for there\nare never wanting little minds, absorbed in superstition, who endeavour\nto make themselves admired by the invention of some novelty. But what\nwas the decision? The council coincided in the opinion of Paphnutius,\nwho pronounced that \u201ca man\u2019s cohabitation with his own wife is\nchastity.\u201d Therefore marriage continued to be held sacred among them,\nnor was it esteemed any disgrace to them, or considered as casting any\nblemish on the ministry.\n\nXXVII. Afterwards followed times distinguished by a too superstitious\nadmiration of celibacy. Hence those frequent and extravagant encomiums\non virginity, with which scarcely any other virtue was in general deemed\nworthy to be compared. And though marriage was not condemned as impure,\nyet its dignity was so diminished, and its sanctity obscured, that he\nwho did not refrain from it was not considered as aspiring to perfection\nwith sufficient fortitude of mind. Hence those canons, which prohibited\nthe contraction of marriage by those who had already entered on the\noffice of priests; and succeeding ones, which prohibited the admission\nto that office of any but those who had never been married, or who had\nabjured all cohabitation with their wives. Because these things seemed\nto add respectability to the priesthood, they were received, I confess,\neven in early times, with great applause. But our adversaries object\nantiquity against us. I answer, In the first place, in the days of the\napostles, and for several ages after, the bishops were at liberty to\nmarry; and the apostles themselves, as well as other pastors of the\nhighest reputation who succeeded them, made use of this liberty without\nany difficulty. The example of the primitive Church we ought to hold in\nhigher estimation than to deem that unlawful or unbecoming which was\nthen received and practised with approbation. Secondly; even that age,\nwhich, from a superstitious attachment to virginity, began to be more\nunfavourable to marriage, did not impose the law of celibacy upon the\npriests as if it were absolutely necessary, but because they preferred\ncelibacy to marriage. Lastly; this law did not require the compulsion of\ncontinence in those who were not able to keep it; for while the severest\npunishments were denounced on priests who were guilty of fornication,\nthose who married were merely dismissed from their office.\n\nXXVIII. Therefore, whenever the advocates of this modern tyranny attempt\nto defend their celibacy with the pretext of antiquity, we shall not\nfail to reply, that they ought to restore the ancient chastity in their\npriests, to remove all adulterers and fornicators, not to suffer those,\nwhom they forbid the virtuous and chaste society of a wife, to abandon\nthemselves with impunity to every kind of debauchery, to revive the\nobsolete discipline by which all indecencies may be repressed, to\ndeliver the Church from this flagitious turpitude, by which it has been\nso long deformed. When they shall have granted this, it will still be\nnecessary to admonish them not to impose that as necessary, which, being\nfree in itself, depends on the convenience of the Church. Yet I have not\nmade these observations from an opinion that we ought on any condition\nto admit those canons which impose the obligation of celibacy on the\nclergy, but to enable the more judicious to perceive the effrontery of\nour adversaries in alleging the authority of antiquity to bring disgrace\non holy marriage in priests. With respect to the fathers, whose writings\nare extant, with the exception of Jerome, they have not so malignantly\ndetracted from the virtue of marriage, when they have been expressing\ntheir own sentiments. We shall content ourselves with one testimony of\nChrysostom, because he, who was a principal admirer of virginity, cannot\nbe supposed to have been more lavish than others in commendation of\nmarriage. He says, \u201cThe first degree of chastity is pure virginity; the\nsecond is faithful marriage. Therefore the second species of virginity\nis the chaste love of matrimony.\u201d\n\nFootnote 1043:\n\n  Acts xx. 20, 26, 31.\n\nFootnote 1044:\n\n  Matt. xviii. 15-17.\n\nFootnote 1045:\n\n  Matt. xviii. 15.\n\nFootnote 1046:\n\n  1 Tim. v. 20.\n\nFootnote 1047:\n\n  Gal. ii. 11, 14.\n\nFootnote 1048:\n\n  1 Cor. v. 6.\n\nFootnote 1049:\n\n  1 Cor. v. 11.\n\nFootnote 1050:\n\n  2 Thess. iii. 14.\n\nFootnote 1051:\n\n  1 Cor. v. 3, 5.\n\nFootnote 1052:\n\n  2 Cor. ii. 7.\n\nFootnote 1053:\n\n  2 Cor. ii. 8.\n\nFootnote 1054:\n\n  2 Thess. iii. 15.\n\nFootnote 1055:\n\n  Matt. xiii. 29.\n\nFootnote 1056:\n\n  1 Cor. v. 13.\n\nFootnote 1057:\n\n  Eph. iv. 2, 3.\n\nFootnote 1058:\n\n  Acts xiii. 2, 3.\n\nFootnote 1059:\n\n  Acts xiv. 23.\n\nFootnote 1060:\n\n  Luke ii. 37.\n\nFootnote 1061:\n\n  Neh. i. 4.\n\nFootnote 1062:\n\n  1 Cor. vii. 5.\n\nFootnote 1063:\n\n  Joel ii. 15.\n\nFootnote 1064:\n\n  Jonah iii. 5.\n\nFootnote 1065:\n\n  Matt. ix. 15. Luke v. 34, 35.\n\nFootnote 1066:\n\n  Joel ii. 13.\n\nFootnote 1067:\n\n  Isaiah lviii. 5.\n\nFootnote 1068:\n\n  1 Tim. iii. 2. Titus i. 6.\n\nFootnote 1069:\n\n  1 Tim. iv. 1, 3.\n\nFootnote 1070:\n\n  Heb. xiii. 4.\n\nFootnote 1071:\n\n  1 Cor. ix. 5.\n\n\n\n\n                             CHAPTER XIII.\n                VOWS: THE MISERY OF RASHLY MAKING THEM.\n\n\nIt is a thing truly to be deplored, that the Church, after its liberty\nhad been purchased by the inestimable price of the blood of Christ,\nshould have been so oppressed with a cruel tyranny, and almost\noverwhelmed with an immense mass of traditions; but the general frenzy\nof individuals shows that it has not been without the justest cause,\nthat God has permitted so much to be done by Satan and his ministers.\nFor it was not sufficient for them to neglect the command of Christ, and\nto endure every burden imposed on them by false teachers, unless they\nrespectively added some of their own, and so sunk themselves deeper in\npits of their own digging. This was the consequence of their rivalling\neach other in the contrivance of vows to add a stronger and stricter\nobligation to the common bonds. As we have shown that the service of God\nwas corrupted by the audacity of those who domineered over the Church\nunder the title of pastors, insnaring unhappy consciences with their\nunjust laws; it will not be irrelevant here to expose a kindred evil, in\norder to show that men, in the depravity of their hearts, have opposed\nevery possible obstacle to those means by which they ought to have been\nconducted to God. Now, to make it more evident that vows have been\nproductive of the most serious mischiefs, it is necessary to remind the\nreaders of the principles already stated. In the first place, we have\nshown that every thing necessary to the regulation of a pious and holy\nlife is comprehended in the law. We have also shown, that the Lord, in\norder to call us off more effectually from the contrivance of new works,\nhas included all the praise of righteousness in simple obedience to his\nwill. If these things be true, the conclusion is obvious, that all the\nservices which we invent for the purpose of gaining the favour of God,\nare not at all acceptable to him, whatever pleasure they may afford to\nourselves; and, in fact, the Lord himself, in various places, not only\nopenly rejects them, but declares them to be objects of his utter\nabomination. Hence arises a doubt respecting vows which are made without\nthe authority of the express word of God, in what light they are to be\nconsidered; whether they may be rightly made by Christian men, and how\nfar they are obligatory upon them. For what is styled a _promise_ among\nmen, in reference to God is called a _vow_. Now, we promise to men\neither such things as we think will be agreeable to them, or such as we\nowe them on the ground of duty. There is need, therefore, of far greater\ncare respecting vows, which are addressed to God himself, towards whom\nwe ought to act with the utmost seriousness. But here superstition has\nprevailed, in all ages, to a wonderful degree, so that, without judgment\nor discretion, men have precipitately vowed to God whatever was\nuppermost in their minds, or even on their lips. Hence those fooleries,\nand even monstrous absurdities of vows, by which the heathen insolently\ntrifled with their gods. And I sincerely wish that Christians had not\nimitated them in such audacity. This ought never to have been the case;\nbut we see, that for several ages nothing has been more common than this\npresumption; amidst the general contempt of the law of God, people have\nbeen all inflamed with a mad passion for vowing whatever had delighted\nthem in their dreams. I have no wish to proceed to an odious\nexaggeration, or a particular enumeration of the enormity and varieties\nof this offence; but I have thought it proper to make these remarks by\nthe way, to show that we are not instituting an unnecessary discussion,\nwhen we treat of vows.\n\nII. If we would avoid any error in judging what vows are legitimate, and\nwhat are preposterous, it is necessary to consider three things\u2014first,\nto whom vows are to be addressed; secondly, who we are that make vows;\nlastly, with what intention vows are made. The first consideration calls\nus to reflect, that we have to do with God; who takes such pleasure in\nour obedience, that he pronounces a curse on all acts of will-worship,\nhowever specious and splendid they may be in the eyes of men. If God\nabominates all voluntary services invented by us without his command, it\nfollows, that nothing can be acceptable to him, except what is approved\nby his word. Let us not, therefore, assume to ourselves such a great\nliberty, as to presume to vow to God any thing that has no testimony of\nhis approbation. For the maxim of Paul, that \u201cwhatsoever is not of faith\nis sin,\u201d[1072] while it extends to every action, is without doubt\nprincipally applicable when a man addresses his thoughts directly to\nGod. Paul is there arguing respecting the difference of meats; and if we\nerr and fall even in things of the least moment, where we are not\nenlightened by the certainty of faith, how much greater modesty is\nrequisite when we are undertaking a business of the greatest importance!\nFor nothing ought to be of greater importance to us than the duties of\nreligion. Let this, then, be our first rule in regard to vows\u2014never to\nattempt vowing any thing without a previous conviction of conscience,\nthat we are attempting nothing rashly. And our conscience will be secure\nfrom all danger of rashness, when it shall have God for its guide,\ndictating, as it were, by his word, what it is proper or useless to do.\n\nIII. The second consideration which we have mentioned, calls us to\nmeasure our strength, to contemplate our calling, and not to neglect the\nliberty which God has conferred on us. For he who vows what is not in\nhis power, or is repugnant to his calling, is chargeable with rashness;\nand he who despises the favour of God, by which he is constituted lord\nof all things, is guilty of ingratitude. By this remark, I do not intend\nthat we have any thing in our power, so as to enable us to promise it to\nGod in a reliance on our own strength. For, with the strictest regard to\ntruth, it was decreed in the council of Arausium, that nothing is\nrightly vowed to God but what we have received from his hand, seeing\nthat all the things which are presented to him are merely gifts which he\nhas imparted. But as some things are given to us by the goodness of God,\nand other things are denied to us by his justice, let every man follow\nthe admonition of Paul, and consider the measure of grace which he has\nreceived.[1073] My only meaning here, therefore, is, that vows ought to\nbe regulated by that measure which the Lord prescribes to us, by what he\nhas given us; lest, by attempting more than he permits, we precipitate\nourselves into danger, by arrogating too much to ourselves. Luke gives\nus an example in those assassins who vowed \u201cthat they would neither eat\nnor drink till they had killed Paul:\u201d[1074] even though the design\nitself had not been criminal, yet it would have betrayed intolerable\nrashness, to make a man\u2019s life and death subject to their power. So\nJephthah suffered the punishment of his folly, when, in the fervour of\nprecipitation, he made an inconsiderate vow.[1075] In vows of this\nclass, distinguished by mad presumption, that of celibacy holds the\npre\u00ebminence. Priests, monks, and nuns, forgetting their infirmity, think\nthemselves capable of celibacy. But by what revelation have they been\ntaught that they shall preserve their chastity all their lifetime, to\nthe end of which their vow reaches? They hear the declaration of God\nconcerning the universal condition of man; \u201cIt is not good for man to be\nalone.\u201d[1076] They understand, and I wish they did not feel, that sin\nremaining in us is attended with the most powerful stimulants. With what\nconfidence can they dare to reject that general calling for their whole\nlife-time, whereas the gift of continence is frequently bestowed for a\ncertain time, as opportunity requires? In such obstinacy let them not\nexpect God to assist them, but rather let them remember what is written:\n\u201cThou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.\u201d[1077] Now, it is tempting God,\nto strive against the nature which he has implanted in us, and to\ndespise the gifts which he presents, as though they were not at all\nsuitable for us. And they not only do this, but even marriage itself,\nwhich God has deemed it no degradation of his majesty to institute,\nwhich he has pronounced to be \u201chonourable in all,\u201d which our Lord Jesus\nChrist sanctified with his presence, which he deigned to dignify with\nhis first miracle, they are not ashamed to stigmatize as pollution, for\nthe mere purpose of extolling celibacy, however it may be spent, with\nthe most extravagant encomiums. As though they did not exhibit a\nstriking proof in their own lives, that celibacy is one thing, and that\nvirginity is another; and yet they have the consummate impudence to call\nsuch a life angelic. This is certainly doing a great injury to the\nangels of God, to whom they compare persons guilty of fornication,\nadultery, and other crimes far more atrocious and impure. And there is\nnot the least need of arguments, when they are clearly convicted by the\nfact itself. For it is very evident what dreadful punishments the Lord\ngenerally inflicts on such arrogance, self-confidence, and contempt of\nhis gifts. Modesty forbids me to animadvert on those things which are\nmore secret, of which too much is already known. That we are not at\nliberty to vow any thing which may hinder us from serving God in our\nvocation, is beyond all controversy; as if a father of a family should\nvow that he will desert his wife and children, to undertake some other\ncharge; or as if a person qualified to fill the office of magistrate, on\nbeing chosen to it, should vow that he would remain in a private\nstation. But the observation we have made, that our liberty ought not to\nbe despised, has some difficulty, which requires a further explication.\nNow, the meaning may be briefly explained in the following manner: As\nGod has constituted us lords of all things, and has placed them in\nsubjection to us, in order that we might use them all for our\naccommodation, we have no reason to hope that we should perform a\nservice acceptable to God, by making ourselves slaves to external\nthings, which ought to be subservient to our assistance. I say this,\nbecause some persons consider themselves entitled to the praise of\nhumility, if they entangle themselves with many observances, from which\nthe Lord, for the best of reasons, intended we should be exempt.\nTherefore, if we would escape this danger, let us always remember, that\nwe are never to depart from that economy which the Lord has instituted\nin the Christian Church.\n\nIV. I proceed now to the third consideration which I mentioned; that it\nis of great importance with what intention a vow is made, if we wish it\nto be approved by God. For as the Lord regards the heart, and not the\nexternal appearance, it happens that the same action, performed with\ndifferent designs, is sometimes acceptable to him, and sometimes highly\ndispleasing. If any one vow abstinence from wine, as if there were any\nholiness in such abstinence, he is chargeable with superstition; if this\nbe done for any other end which is not improper, no one can disapprove\nof it. Now, as far as I am able to judge, there are four ends to which\nour vows may be rightly directed. For the sake of further elucidation, I\nrefer two of them to the time past, and the other two to the future. To\nthe time past belong those vows by which we either testify our gratitude\nto God for benefits received, or, in order to deprecate his wrath,\ninflict punishment on ourselves for sins that we have committed. The\nformer may be called vows of thanksgiving; the latter, vows of\npenitence. Of the former we have an example in Jacob, who vowed to give\nto God the tenth of all he should acquire, if the Lord would bring him\nagain from his exile to his father\u2019s house in peace.[1078] We have other\nexamples of the same kind in the ancient peace-offerings, which used to\nbe vowed by pious kings and generals, entering on just wars, to be\noffered in case they should obtain the victory; or by persons labouring\nunder more than common difficulty, in case the Lord would deliver them.\nThus we are to understand all those places in the Psalms which speak of\nvows.[1079] Vows of this kind may also be now used among us, whenever\nGod delivers us from any great calamity, from a severe disease, or from\nany other danger. For on such occasions, it is not inconsistent with the\nduty of a pious man to consecrate to God some oblation that he has\nvowed, merely as a solemn token of grateful acknowledgment, that he may\nnot appear unthankful for his goodness. The nature of the second species\nof vows will sufficiently appear from only one familiar example. If a\nperson has fallen into any crime through the vice of intemperance,\nnothing prevents him from correcting that vice by a temporary\nrenunciation of all delicacies, and enforcing this abstinence by a vow,\nto lay himself under the stronger obligation. Yet I impose no perpetual\nlaw on those who have been guilty of such an offence; I only point out\nwhat they are at liberty to do, if they think that such a vow would be\nuseful to them. I consider a vow of this kind, therefore, as lawful,\nbut, at the same time, as left to the free choice of every individual.\n\nV. Vows which regard the future, as I have observed, have for their\nobject, partly to render us more cautious of danger, partly to stimulate\nus to the performance of duty. For example; a person perceives himself\nto be so prone to a certain vice, that, in something not otherwise evil,\nhe cannot restrain himself from falling into sin; he will commit no\nabsurdity, if he should deny himself the use of that thing for a season\nby a vow. If any one be convinced that this or the other ornament of\ndress is dangerous to him, and yet feel excessive desire for it, he\ncannot do better than restrain himself by imposing a necessity of\nabstinence, in order to free himself from all hesitation. So, if any one\nbe forgetful or negligent of the necessary duties of piety, why may he\nnot arouse his memory, and shake off his negligence by the imposition of\na vow? In both cases, I confess, there is an appearance of pupilage;\nbut, considered as helps of infirmity, such vows may be used with\nadvantage by the inexperienced and imperfect. Vows, therefore, which\nrespect one of these ends, especially those relating to external things,\nwe shall affirm to be lawful, if they be supported by the approbation of\nGod, if they be suitable to our calling, and if they be limited by the\nability of grace which God has given us.\n\nVI. It will not now be difficult to conclude what ideas ought to be\nentertained of vows universally. There is one vow common to all\nbelievers, which is made in baptism, and confirmed and established by us\nin the profession of our faith in the Catechism, and in the reception of\nthe Lord\u2019s supper. For the sacraments resemble covenants, or instruments\nof agreement, by which God conveys his mercy to us, and in it eternal\nlife; and we, on the other hand, promise him obedience. Now, the form,\nor at least the sum of the vow is, that, renouncing Satan, we devote\nourselves to the service of God, to obey his holy commands, and not to\nfollow the corrupt inclinations of the flesh. This vow being sanctioned\nby the Scripture, and even required of all the children of God, it ought\nnot to be doubted that it is holy and useful. It is no objection to\nthis, that no man in the present life performs the perfect obedience\nwhich God requires of us; for as this stipulation is included in the\ncovenant of grace, which contains both remission of sins and the spirit\nof sanctification, the promise which we then make is connected with, and\npresupposes our supplication for mercy, and our solicitation for\nassistance. In judging of particular vows, it is necessary to remember\nthe three rules which we have given, which will enable us to form a\ncorrect estimate of the nature of every vow. Yet I would not be thought\nto carry my recommendation, even of those vows which I maintain to be\nholy, so far as to wish their daily use. For though I venture to\ndetermine nothing respecting the number or time, yet, if any person\nwould follow my advice, he will make none but such as are sober, and of\nshort duration. For if any one often recur to the making of many vows,\nall religion will be injured by their frequency, and there will be great\ndanger of falling into superstition. If any one bind himself by a\nperpetual vow, he will not discharge it without great trouble and\ndifficulty; or, wearied by its long continuance, he will at length\nviolate it altogether.\n\nVII. Now, it is evident what great superstition has for some ages\nprevailed in the world on this subject. One person vowed that he would\ndrink no wine; as though abstinence from wine were a service in itself\nacceptable to God. Another obliged himself to fast; another to abstain\nfrom meat on certain days, which he had falsely imagined to possess some\npeculiar sanctity beyond others. There were some vows far more puerile,\nthough not made by children. For it was esteemed great wisdom to vow\npilgrimages to places of more than common holiness, and to perform the\njourney either on foot, or with the body half naked, that the merit\nmight be augmented by the fatigue. These, and similar vows, with an\nincredible rage for which the world has long been inflamed, examined\naccording to the rules which we have laid down, will not only be found\nto be vain and nugatory, but replete with manifest impiety. For whatever\nmay be the judgment of the flesh, God holds nothing in greater\nabomination than services of human invention. The following pernicious\nand execrable opinions are also entertained; hypocrites, when they have\nperformed these fooleries, suppose themselves to have attained a high\ndegree of righteousness; they place the whole substance of piety in\nexternal observances; and they despise all who discover less concern\nabout these things than themselves.\n\nVIII. To enumerate all the particular kinds of vows, would answer no\ngood purpose. But, because monastic vows are held in very high\nveneration, as they seemed to be sanctioned by the public authority of\nthe Church, it is proper to make a few brief remarks respecting them. In\nthe first place, that no one may defend monachism, as it exists in the\npresent day, under the pretence of ancient and long-continued\nprescription, it must be observed, that the mode of life in monasteries,\nin ancient times, was very different from what it is now. They were the\nretreats of those who wished to habituate themselves to the greatest\nausterity and patience; for the discipline attributed to the\nLaced\u00e6monians, under the laws of Lycurgus, was equalled, and even\nconsiderably exceeded in rigour, by that which was then practised among\nthe monks. They slept on the ground without any beds or couches; they\ndrank nothing but water; their food consisted entirely of bread, herbs,\nand roots; their principal dainties were oil, pease, and beans. They\nabstained from all delicacy of victuals and ornaments of the body. These\nthings might be thought incredible, if they were not attested by persons\nwho saw and experienced them, Gregory of Nazianzum, Basil, and\nChrysostom. But it was by such probationary discipline that they\nprepared themselves for higher offices. For that the monastic colleges\nwere at that time the seminaries, from which the Church was furnished\nwith ministers, is sufficiently evident from the examples of those whom\nwe have mentioned, who were all educated in monasteries, and from that\nsituation were called to the episcopal office, as well as of many other\ngreat and excellent men of their age. And Augustine shows that the same\ncustom of supplying ministers for the Church from the monasteries\ncontinued in his time; for the monks of the Island of Capraria are\naddressed by him in the following manner: \u201cWe exhort you in the Lord,\nbrethren, that you keep your purpose, and persevere to the end; and\nthat, if at any time your mother the Church shall have need of your\nlabour, you neither undertake the charge with eager pride, nor refuse it\nwith flattering indolence; but that you obey God with gentleness of\nheart; not preferring your leisure to the necessities of the Church,\nwhom, if no good men had been disposed to assist in the production of\nher children, you cannot discover how you could yourselves have been\nborn.\u201d He here speaks of the ministry, which is the means of the\nregeneration of believers. Again, in an epistle to Aurelius, he says:\n\u201cIt causes an occasion of falling to themselves, and a most injurious\nindignity to the ecclesiastical order, if the deserters of monasteries\nare chosen to clerical offices; while of those who remain in the\nmonastery, we are accustomed to promote to such offices only the best\nand most approved. Unless, perhaps, as the common people say, A bad\ndancer is a good musician, so it should be jocularly said of us, A bad\nmonk will be a good minister. It is too much to be lamented, if we\nstimulate monks to such ruinous pride, and think the clergy deserving of\nsuch heavy disgrace; whereas, sometimes even a good monk will hardly\nmake a good priest, if he has sufficient continence, and yet is\ndeficient in necessary learning.\u201d From these passages it appears that\npious men were accustomed to prepare themselves, by monastic discipline,\nfor the government of the Church, that they might be the better\nqualified to undertake such an important office. Not that all monks\nattained this end; or even aimed at it; for they were in general\nilliterate men, but those who were qualified were selected.\n\nIX. But Augustine has given us a portraiture of the ancient monachism,\nprincipally in two places; in his treatise On the Manners of the\nCatholic Church, in which he defends the sanctity of that profession\nagainst the calumnies of the Manich\u00e6ans; and in another book, On the\nLabour of Monks, in which he inveighs against some degenerate monks, who\nhad begun to corrupt that order. The different things which he states, I\nshall here collect in a brief summary, using, as far as possible, his\nown words. \u201cDespising the allurements of this world, united in a common\nlife of the strictest chastity and holiness, they spend their time\ntogether, living in prayers, in readings, and in conferences, neither\ninflated with pride, nor turbulent with obstinacy, nor pale with envy.\nNo one possesses any thing of his own; no one is burdensome to another.\nBy the labour of their hands, they procure those things which are\nsufficient to support the body, without hindering the mind from devotion\nto God. Their work they deliver to those who are called Deans. These\nDeans dispose of every thing with great care, and render an account to\none, whom they call Father. Most holy in their manners, pre\u00ebminent in\ndivine learning, and excelling in every virtue, these Fathers, without\nany pride, consult the welfare of those whom they call children,\ncommanding them with great authority, and obeyed by them with great\ncheerfulness. At the close of the day, while yet fasting, every one\ncomes forth from his cell, and they all assemble to hear the Father; and\neach of these Fathers is surrounded by at least three thousand men,\u201d (he\nis speaking chiefly of Egypt and the East;) \u201cthere they take some bodily\nrefreshment, as much as is sufficient for life and health; every one\nrestraining his appetite that he may make but a sparing use even of the\nprovisions placed before him, which are in small quantities, and of the\nplainest description. That they not only abstain from animal food and\nfrom wine, in order to repress libidinous desires, but from such things\nas stimulate the appetite with greater power, in proportion to the\nopinion entertained by some persons of their purity; under which\npretence a vile longing after exquisite meats, with the exception of\nanimal food, is wont to be ridiculously and shamefully defended.\nWhatever remains beyond their necessary food, (and the surplus is\nconsiderable, both from the diligence of their hands, and from the\nabstemiousness of their meals,) is distributed to the poor, with greater\ncare than if it had been earned by those who distribute it. For they are\nnot anxious to have an abundance of these things, but all their concern\nis, that none of their abundance may remain with them.\u201d Afterwards,\nhaving mentioned their austerity, of which he had seen examples at Milan\nand other places, he says, \u201cIn these circumstances, no one is urged to\nausterities which he is unable to bear; there is no imposition on any\none, of that which he refuses; nor is he condemned by the rest, because\nhe confesses himself too weak to imitate them; for they remember the\nhigh commendations given of charity; they remember that to the pure, all\nthings are pure.[1080] Therefore all their industry is exerted, not in\nrejecting certain kinds of food as polluted, but in subduing\nconcupiscence and preserving the love of the brethren. They remember\nthat it is said, Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats; but God\nshall destroy both it and them.[1081] Yet many strong persons abstain on\naccount of the weak. Many have a different reason for doing it; they are\nfond of living on meaner and less sumptuous food. These persons,\ntherefore, who are abstemious when in perfect health, if a state of\nindisposition requires, partake, without any fear, when they are sick.\nMany drink no wine; but this is not from an apprehension of being\ndefiled with it; for they most humanely cause it to be given to those\nwho are languid, and cannot obtain health of body without it; and some,\nwho foolishly refuse it, they admonish, with brotherly affection, to\nbeware lest their vain superstition debilitate them rather than promote\ntheir holiness. Thus they diligently exercise themselves in piety: but\nthey know that the exercise of the body extends only to a short time.\nCharity is principally observed; to charity the food, the conversation,\nthe apparel, the countenance, are subservient. They all assemble and\ncombine into one charity; to violate this, is accounted unlawful, and a\nsin against God; if any one resist charity, he is expelled and shunned;\nif any one offend against it, he is not suffered to remain a single\nday.\u201d As Augustine appears, in these passages, to have exhibited a\nportraiture of the true character of ancient monachism, I have thought\nproper, notwithstanding their length, to insert them here; for I saw\nthat, however I might study brevity, yet I should go into still greater\nlength, if I were to collect the same things from different authors.\n\nX. My design here is not to pursue the whole argument, but merely to\npoint out, by the way, the characters of the monks who belonged to the\nancient Church, and the nature of the monastic profession at that\nperiod, that the judicious readers may be able, from a comparison, to\njudge of the effrontery of those who plead antiquity in support of the\nmonachism of the present day. When Augustine gives us a description of\nholy and legitimate monachism, he excludes from it all rigid exaction or\nimposition of those things which the Lord in his word has left free. But\nthere is nothing at the present day more severely enforced. For they\nconsider it a crime, never to be expiated, for any one to deviate in the\nminutest particular from the rules prescribed in the colour or shape of\ntheir apparel, the kind of food, or other frivolous and uninteresting\nceremonies. Augustine strenuously contends, that it is not lawful for\nmonks to live in idleness at the expense of others. He denies that there\nwas such an example to be found in his time in any well regulated\nmonastery. The present monks place the principal part of their sanctity\nin idleness. For if they were divested of idleness, what would become of\nthat contemplative life, in which they boast of excelling other men, and\nof making near approaches to the life of angels? In fine, Augustine\nrequires a monachism which would be no other than an exercise and\nassistance in the duties of piety, which are enjoined on all Christians.\nWhat! when he represents charity as the principal and almost only rule\nof it, can we suppose him to be commending a conspiracy, by which a few\nmen are closely united to each other, and separated from the whole body\nof the Church? On the contrary, he would have them to enlighten others\nby their example, in order to the preservation of the unity of the\nChurch. In both these respects, the nature of modern monachism is so\ndifferent, that it is scarcely possible to find any thing more\ndissimilar or opposite. For, not content with that piety, to the study\nof which Jesus Christ commands his servants constantly to devote\nthemselves, our present monks imagine I know not what new kind of piety,\nin the meditation of which they are become more perfect than all others.\n\nXI. If they deny this, I would wish them to inform me why they dignify\ntheir order alone with the title of _perfection_, and deny this\ncharacter to all the callings appointed by God. I am not unacquainted\nwith their sophistical solution, that it is so called, not as containing\nperfection in it, but because it is the best calculated of all callings\nfor the attainment of perfection. When they wish to elevate themselves\nin the estimation of the people, to entrap inexperienced and ignorant\nyouths, to assert their privileges, to extol their own dignity to the\ndegradation of others, they boast of being in a state of perfection.\nWhen they are so closely pressed, that they cannot defend such empty\narrogance, they have recourse to this subterfuge\u2014that they have not yet\nattained perfection, but that they are in a condition more favourable\nthan any others for aspiring towards it. In the mean time they retain\nthe admiration of the people, as though the monastic life, and that\nalone, were angelic, perfect, and purified from every blemish. Under\nthis pretext they carry on a most lucrative traffic; but their\nmoderation lies buried in a few books. Who does not see that this is an\nintolerable mockery? But let us argue the case as if they really\nattributed no higher honour to their profession, than to call it a state\nadapted to the attainment of perfection. Still, by giving it this\ndesignation, they distinguish it, as by a peculiar mark, from all other\nmodes of life. And who can bear that such honour should be transferred\nto an institution, which has never received from God even a single\nsyllable of approbation, and that such indignity should be cast on all\nthe other callings of God, which have not only been enjoined, but\nadorned with signal commendations by his most holy word? And what an\noutrageous insult is offered to God, when a mere human invention is\npreferred beyond all the kinds of life which he has appointed and\ncelebrated by his own testimony!\n\nXII. Now, let them charge me with a calumny in what I have already\nalleged, that they are not content with the rule which God has\nprescribed to his servants. Though I were silent on the subject, they\nfurnish more than sufficient ground for their own accusation; for they\nopenly teach that they take upon themselves a greater burden than Christ\nlaid upon his disciples, because they promise to keep the evangelical\ncounsels, which inculcate the love of our enemies, and prohibit the\ndesire of revenge and profane swearing, and which, they say, are not\nbinding on Christians at large. What antiquity will they plead here?\nThis notion never entered into the mind of one of the ancients. They\nall, with one consent, declare that there was not a syllable uttered by\nChrist which we are not bound to obey; and without any hesitation they\nuniformly and expressly represent the passages in question as commands,\nwhich these sagacious interpreters pretend to have been delivered by\nChrist merely as counsels. But as we have already shown that this is a\nmost pestilent error, it may suffice to have briefly remarked here, that\nthe monachism which exists at present, is founded on the opinion, which\njustly deserves to be execrated by all believers, that some rule of life\nmay be imagined more perfect than the common one given by God to all the\nChurch. Whatever superstructure is raised on this foundation, cannot but\nbe abominable.\n\nXIII. But they adduce another argument in proof of their perfection,\nwhich they consider as most conclusive; our Lord said to the young man\nwho inquired what was the perfection of righteousness, \u201cIf thou wilt\nbe perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor.\u201d[1082]\nWhether they do this, I shall not now dispute; let us at present put\nthe case that they do. They boast, therefore, that they have been made\nperfect by forsaking all that they have. If the whole of perfection\nconsist in this, what does Paul mean, when he says, \u201cThough I bestow\nall my goods to feed the poor, and have not charity, I am\nnothing?\u201d[1083] What kind of perfection is that which is reduced to\nnothing by the absence of charity? Here they will be obliged to\nanswer, that though this is the principal, yet it is not the only work\nof perfection. But here also they are contradicted by Paul, who\nhesitates not to make \u201ccharity,\u201d without any such renunciation, \u201cthe\nbond of perfection.\u201d[1084] If it is certain, that there is no\ndiscordance between the Master and the disciple,\u2014and Paul explicitly\ndenies the perfection of a man to consist in the renunciation of his\nproperty, and, on the other hand, asserts that it may exist without\nthat relinquishment,\u2014it is necessary to examine in what sense we are\nto understand the declaration of Christ, \u201cIf thou wilt be perfect, go\nand sell that thou hast.\u201d Now, there will be no obscurity in the\nsense, if we consider, what ought always to be considered in all the\ndiscourses of Christ, to whom the words are addressed. A young man\ninquires, \u201cWhat good thing shall I do, that I may inherit eternal\nlife?\u201d[1085] As the question related to works, Christ refers him to\nthe law; and that justly; for, considered in itself, it is the way of\neternal life, and is not otherwise insufficient to conduct us to\nsalvation, than in consequence of our depravity. By this answer Christ\ndeclared, that he taught no other system of life than that which had\nanciently been delivered in the law of God. Thus he at the same time\ngave a testimony to the divine law as the doctrine of perfect\nrighteousness, and precluded all calumnies, that he might not appear,\nby inculcating a new rule of life, to incite the people to a departure\nfrom the law. The young man, not indeed from badness of heart, but\ninfected with vain confidence, replies respecting the precepts of the\nlaw, \u201cAll these things have I kept from my youth up.\u201d[1086] It is\ncertain beyond all doubt, that he was at an immense distance from that\nwhich he boasted of having attained; and had his boast been true, he\nwould have wanted nothing necessary to complete perfection. For it has\nbeen already proved that the law contains in itself a perfect\nrighteousness; and it appears from this passage that the observance of\nit is called _the entrance_ into eternal life. To teach him how little\nproficiency he had made in that righteousness, which he too\nconfidently replied that he had fulfilled, it was necessary to\ninvestigate and expose a vice which lay concealed in his heart. He\nabounded in riches, and his heart was fixed on them. Because he was\nnot sensible of this secret wound, therefore, Christ probes it. \u201cGo,\u201d\nsays he, \u201csell all that thou hast.\u201d If he had been so good an observer\nof the law as he imagined, he would not have gone away sorrowful on\nhearing this answer. For he who loves God with all his heart, not only\nesteems as worthless whatever is inconsistent with his love, but also\nabominates it as pernicious. Therefore, when Christ commands a rich\nand avaricious man to relinquish all his wealth, it is just the same\nas if he commanded an ambitious man to renounce all his honours, a\nvoluptuous man to abandon all his delicacies, and an unchaste man to\nforsake all the instruments of temptation. Thus consciences, which\nreceive no impression from general admonitions, require to be recalled\nto a particular sense of their own guilt. It is in vain, therefore, to\nextend this particular argument to a general maxim, as though Christ\nplaced all the perfection of man in the renunciation of his\npossessions, whereas he only meant by this direction to drive this\nyoung man, who betrayed such excessive self-complacency, into a sense\nof his malady, that he might perceive himself to be still very far\nfrom the perfect obedience of the law, to which he arrogantly and\nfalsely pretended. I confess that this passage was misunderstood by\nsome of the fathers, and that their misconstruction gave rise to an\naffectation of voluntary poverty; so that they were supposed to be the\nonly happy persons, who renounced all earthly things, and devoted\nthemselves entirely to Christ. But I trust that the explication which\nI have given will be satisfactory to all good and peaceable persons,\nso as to leave them in no doubt of the true meaning of Christ.\n\nXIV. Nothing, however, was further from the intention of the fathers,\nthan to establish such a perfection as has since been fabricated by\nthese hooded sophisters, which goes to set up two kinds of Christianity.\nFor no one had then given birth to that sacrilegious dogma, which\ncompares the monastic profession to baptism, and even openly asserts it\nto be a species of second baptism. Who can doubt that the fathers would\nhave sincerely abhorred such blasphemy? As to the concluding observation\nof Augustine, respecting the ancient monks, that they devoted themselves\nwholly to charity, what need is there for a word to be said to\ndemonstrate it to be altogether inapplicable to this modern profession?\nThe fact itself declares, that all who retire into monasteries separate\nthemselves from the Church. For do they not separate themselves from the\nlegitimate society of believers, by taking to themselves a peculiar\nministry and a private administration of the sacraments? What is a\ndisruption of the communion of the Church, if this be not? And to pursue\nthe comparison which I have commenced, and to conclude it at once, what\nresemblance have they in this respect to the monks of ancient times?\nThough they lived in a state of seclusion from other men, they had no\nseparate Church; they received the sacraments with others; they attended\nthe solemn assemblies to hear preaching, and to unite in prayers with\nthe company of believers; and there they formed a part of the people. In\nerecting a private altar for themselves, what have the present monks\ndone, but broken the bond of unity? For they have excommunicated\nthemselves from the general body of the Church, and have shown contempt\nof the ordinary ministry, by which it has pleased God that peace and\ncharity should be preserved among his servants. All the present\nmonasteries, therefore, I maintain to be so many conventicles of\nschismatics, who disturb the order of the Church, and have been cut off\nfrom the legitimate society of believers. And to place this division\nbeyond all doubt, they have assumed various names of sects; and have not\nbeen ashamed to glory in that which Paul execrates beyond all\npossibility of exaggeration. Unless we suppose that Christ was divided\nby the Corinthians, when every one boasted of his particular\nteacher;[1087] and that it is now no derogation from the honour of\nChrist, when, instead of the name of Christians, some are called\nBenedictines, others Franciscans, others Dominicans; and when they\nhaughtily assume these titles to themselves as the badges of their\nreligious profession, from an affectation of being distinguished from\nthe general body of Christians.\n\nXV. The differences which I have stated, between the ancient monks and\nthose of the present age, relate not to manners, but to the profession\nitself. Let it, therefore, be remembered by the readers, that I have\nspoken of monachism rather than of monks, and have censured those faults\nwhich are not merely chargeable on the lives of a few, but which are\ninseparable from the life itself. The great dissimilarity of their\nmanners can hardly require a particular representation. It is obvious,\nthat there is no order of men more polluted with all the turpitude of\nvice; none more disgraced by factions, animosities, cabals, and\nintrigues. In some few convents, indeed, they live in chastity; if\nchastity it must be called, where concupiscence is so far restrained as\nnot to be publicly infamous; but it is scarcely possible to find one\nconvent in ten, which is not rather a brothel than a sanctuary of\nchastity. What frugality is there in their food? They are exactly like\nso many swine fattening in a sty. But lest they should complain that I\nhandle them too roughly, I proceed no further; though in the few\nparticulars upon which I have touched, whoever knows the matter of fact\nwill acknowledge that I have confined myself to the simple truth.\nAugustine, at a time when, according to his own testimony, monks were so\neminent for the strictest chastity, yet complains that there were many\nvagabonds among them, who, by wicked arts and impostures, extorted money\nfrom the unwary, who exercised a scandalous traffic by carrying about\nthe relics of martyrs, and even sold the bones of any dead men as the\nbones of martyrs, and who brought disgrace on the order by a great\nnumber of similar crimes. As he declares that he had seen no better men\nthan those who had been improved in monasteries, so he complains that he\nhad seen no worse men than those who had been corrupted in monasteries.\nWhat would he say, at the present day, to see almost all monasteries,\nnot only filled, but overflowing, with so many and such desperate vices?\nI say nothing but what is notorious to every person; though this censure\nis not applicable to all without any exception. For as the rule and\ndiscipline of holy living has never been so well established in\nmonasteries, but that there were always some drones very different from\nthe rest, so I do not say that the monks of the present day have so far\ndegenerated from that holy antiquity, that there are not still some good\nmen among their body; but they are few, dispersed and concealed among a\nvast multitude of the wicked and abandoned; and they are not only held\nin contempt, but insulted and molested, and sometimes even treated with\ncruelty by the rest; who, according to a proverb of the Milesians, think\nthat no good man ought to be suffered to remain among them.\n\nXVI. By this comparison of ancient and modern monachism I trust I have\nsucceeded in my design of evincing the fallacy of the plea, which the\npresent men of the hood allege in defence of their profession, from the\nexample of the primitive Church; as they differ from the early monks\njust as apes do from men. At the same time, I admit that even in the\nancient system which Augustine commends, there is something which I\ncannot altogether approve. I grant, they discovered no superstition in\nthe external exercises of a too rigid discipline; but I maintain that\nthey were not free from excessive affectation and misguided zeal. It\nseemed a good thing to forsake their property in order to exempt\nthemselves from all earthly solicitude; but God sets a higher value on\npious exertions for the government of a family, when a holy father of a\nfamily, free from all avarice, ambition, and other corrupt passions,\ndevotes himself to this object, that he may serve God in a particular\ncalling. It is a beautiful thing to live the life of a philosopher in\nretirement, at a distance from the society of men; but it is not the\npart of Christian charity for a man to act as if he hated all mankind,\nwithdrawing to the solitude of a desert, and abandoning the principal\nduties which the Lord has commanded. Though we should grant that there\nwas no other evil in this profession, yet certainly this was not a small\none, that it introduced a useless and pernicious example into the\nChurch.\n\nXVII. Let us now examine the nature of the vows by which monks in the\npresent day are initiated into this celebrated order. In the first\nplace, their design is to institute a new service, in order to merit the\nfavour of God; therefore I conclude, from the principles already\nestablished, that whatever they vow is an abomination in the sight of\nGod. Secondly, without any regard to the calling of God, and without any\napprobation from him, they invent for themselves a new mode of life, in\nconformity with their own inclinations; therefore I maintain it to be a\nrash and unlawful attempt, because their consciences have nothing to\nrest upon before God, and \u201cwhatsoever is not of faith, is sin.\u201d[1088]\nThirdly, they bind themselves to many corrupt and impious services,\ncomprehended in the monachism of the present day; therefore I contend,\nthat they are not consecrated to God, but to the devil. For why was it\nlawful for the prophet to say of the Israelites, that \u201cthey sacrificed\nunto devils, not to God,\u201d[1089] only because they had corrupted the true\nworship of God with profane ceremonies; and why shall it not be lawful\nfor us to say the same of the monks, whose assumption of the hood is\naccompanied with the yoke of a thousand impious superstitions? Now, what\nis the nature of their vows? They promise to God to maintain perpetual\nvirginity, as if they had previously stipulated with him that he should\nexempt them from the necessity of marriage. They have no room to plead,\nthat they make this vow merely in a reliance on the grace of God; for as\nhe declares that it is not given to all men,[1090] we have no right to\nentertain a confidence that we shall receive the special gift. Let those\nwho possess it use it: if they experience disquietude from the\nstimulations of passion, let them have recourse to his aid by whom alone\nthey can be strengthened to resist. If they are unsuccessful, let them\nnot despise the remedy which is offered to them. For those who are\ndenied the gift of continence, are undoubtedly called to marriage by the\nvoice of God. By continence I mean, not a mere abstinence of the body\nfrom fornication, but an unpolluted chastity of mind. For Paul enjoins\nthe avoidance not only of external impurity, but also of the internal\nburning of libidinous desire.[1091] It has been a custom, they say, from\ntime immemorial, for persons who intended to devote themselves entirely\nto the Lord, to bind themselves by a vow of continence. I confess that\nthis custom was practised in the early ages; but I cannot admit those\nages to have been so free from every fault, that whatever was done then\nmust be received as a rule. And it was only by degrees that in process\nof time things were carried to such an extreme of rigour that no one,\nafter having made the vow, was permitted to recall it. This is evident\nfrom Cyprian. \u201cIf virgins have faithfully dedicated themselves to God,\nlet them persevere in modesty and chastity without any disguise. Thus,\nbeing firm and constant, they may expect the reward of virginity. But if\nthey will not, or cannot persevere, it is better for them to be married,\nthan with their pleasure to fall into the fire.\u201d With what reproaches\nwould they now hesitate to stigmatize a person who would wish to\nintroduce such a reasonable limitation of the vow of continence? They\nhave widely departed, therefore, from the ancient custom, in refusing to\nadmit the least moderation or relaxation, if any one be found incapable\nof performing the vow; and not only so, but they are not ashamed to\npronounce that he commits a greater sin, if he remedies his intemperance\nby taking a wife, than if he contaminates his body and soul with\nfornication.\n\nXVIII. But they still pursue the argument, and endeavour to show that\nvows of this kind were in use in the times of the apostles; because Paul\nsays that widows who, after having been received into the public service\nof the church, married, had \u201ccast off their first faith.\u201d[1092] I do not\ndeny that widows who dedicated themselves and their services to the\nChurch, thereby entered into a tacit obligation never to marry again;\nnot because they placed any religion in such abstinence, as began to be\nthe case afterwards; but because they could not discharge that office\nwithout being at their own disposal, free from the restraint of\nmarriage. But if, after having pledged their faith, they contemplated a\nsecond marriage, what was this but renouncing the calling of God? It is\nno wonder, therefore, if he says that with such desires \u201cthey wax wanton\nagainst Christ.\u201d Afterwards, by way of amplification, he subjoins, that\nthey failed of performing what they had promised to the Church, so that\nthey even violated and annulled their first faith pledged in baptism;\nwhich includes an engagement from every one to fulfil the duties of his\ncalling. Unless it be thought better to understand the meaning to be,\nthat having, as it were, lost all shame, they would thenceforward have\nno longer any regard for virtue, but would abandon themselves to every\nkind of profligacy, and in a licentious and dissolute life exhibit the\ngreatest contrariety to the character of Christian women\u2014an\ninterpretation which I much approve. We reply, therefore, that those\nwidows, who were then received into the service of the Church, imposed\non themselves the condition of perpetual widowhood; if they afterwards\nmarried, we easily understand their situation to have been as Paul\nstates, that, casting off shame, they betrayed an insolence unbecoming\nChristian women; and that thus they not only sinned in breaking their\nfaith pledged to the Church, but in departing from the common\nobligations of pious females. But first, I deny that they engaged to\nremain in a state of widowhood for any other reason than because\nmarriage would be altogether incompatible with the office which they\nundertook; or that they bound themselves to widowhood at all, except as\nfar as the necessity of their vocation should require. Secondly, I do\nnot admit that their profession was so binding, but that even then it\nwas better for them to marry than to be inflamed with concupiscence, or\nto be guilty of any impurity of conduct. Thirdly, I observe that Paul\nprescribes that age which is generally beyond all danger, forbidding any\nto be received under threescore years old; and especially when he\ndirects that the choice shall be limited to those who have been content\nwith one marriage, and have thus already given proof of their\ncontinence. And we condemn the vow of celibacy for no other reason, but\nbecause it is unjustly considered as a service acceptable to God, and is\nrashly made by those who have not the power to keep it.\n\nXIX. But how was it possible to apply this passage of Paul to nuns? For\nwidows were appointed deaconesses, not to charm God by songs or\nunintelligible murmurs, and to spend the rest of their time in idleness;\nbut to serve the poor on behalf of the whole Church, and to employ\nthemselves with all attention, earnestness, and diligence, in the duties\nof charity. They made a vow of widowhood, not with a view of performing\nany service to God in abstaining from marriage, but merely that they\nmight be more at liberty for the discharge of their office. Lastly, they\nmade this vow, not in their youth, nor in the flower of their age, to\nlearn afterwards, by late experience, over what a precipice they had\nthrown themselves; but, when they appeared to have passed all danger,\nthey made a vow equally consistent with safety and with piety. But, not\nto urge the two former considerations, it is sufficient to observe, that\nit was not allowable for women to be admitted to make vows of continence\nbefore the age of sixty years; since the apostle says, \u201cLet not a widow\nbe taken into the number under threescore years old.\u201d \u201cI will that the\nyounger women marry and bear children.\u201d[1093] The subsequent admission\nof this vow at the age of forty-eight years, then forty years, and then\nthirty, can by no means be excused; and it is still more intolerable\nthat unhappy girls, before they are old enough to be capable of knowing\nor having any experience of themselves, should be inveigled by fraud and\ncompelled by threats to entangle themselves in those execrable snares. I\nshall not stay to oppose the other two vows, made by monks and nuns, of\npoverty and obedience. I will only observe, that beside the many\nsuperstitions with which, under existing circumstances, they are\ninterwoven, they appear to be framed for the purpose of mocking both God\nand men. But that we may not seem too severe in agitating every\nparticular point, we shall content ourselves with the general repetition\nalready given.\n\nXX. The nature of those vows which are legitimate and acceptable to God,\nI think, has been sufficiently declared. Yet as timid and inexperienced\nconsciences, even after they are dissatisfied with a vow, and convinced\nof its impropriety, nevertheless feel doubts respecting the obligation,\nand are grievously distressed, on the one hand, from a dread of\nviolating their promise to God, and, on the other, from a fear of\nincurring greater guilt by observing it, it is necessary here to offer\nthem some assistance to enable them to extricate themselves from this\ndifficulty. Now, to remove every scruple at once, I remark, that all\nvows, not legitimate or rightly made, as they are of no value with God,\nso they ought to have no force with us. For if in human contracts no\npromises are obligatory upon us, but those to which the party with whom\nwe contract wishes to bind us, it is absurd to consider ourselves\nconstrained to the performance of those things which God never requires\nof us; especially as our works cannot be good unless they please God,\nand are accompanied with the testimony of our conscience that he accepts\nthem. For this remains a fixed principle, that \u201cwhatsoever is not of\nfaith, is sin;\u201d[1094] by which Paul intends, that whatever work is\nundertaken with doubts, is consequently sinful, because all good works\nspring from faith, by which we are assured of their acceptance with God.\nTherefore, if it be not lawful for a Christian man to attempt any thing\nwithout this assurance, and if any one through ignorance has made a rash\nvow, and afterwards discovered his error, why should he not desist from\nthe performance of it? since vows inconsiderately made, not only are not\nbinding, but ought of necessity to be cancelled; and, also, as they are\nnot only of no value in the sight of God, but are an abomination to him,\nas we have already demonstrated. It is useless to argue any longer on a\nsubject which does not require it. This one argument appears to me\nsufficient to tranquillize pious consciences, and to liberate them from\nevery scruple\u2014That all works not proceeding from a pure source, and\ndirected to a legitimate end, are rejected by God, and rejected in such\na manner that he forbids our continuance, as much as our commencement,\nof them. Hence we may conclude, that vows which have originated in error\nand superstition, are of no value with God, and ought to be relinquished\nby us.\n\nXXI. This solution will furnish an answer to the calumnies of the\nwicked, in defence of those who leave monachism for some honourable way\nof life. They are heavily accused of breach of faith and perjury; having\nbroken, as it is commonly supposed, the indissoluble bond which held\nthem to God and the Church. But I maintain that there is no bond, where\nthat which man confirms is abrogated by God. Besides, though we should\ngrant that they were bound while they were involved in error and\nignorance of God,\u2014now, since they have been enlightened with the\nknowledge of the truth, I maintain that the grace of Christ has\ndelivered them from the obligation. For if the cross of Christ possesses\nsuch efficacy as to deliver us from the curse, under which we were held\nby the law of God, how much more, then, shall it extricate us from other\nbonds, which are nothing but delusive snares of Satan! Whomsoever,\ntherefore, Christ illuminates with the light of his gospel, there is no\ndoubt that he liberates them from all the snares in which they had\nentangled themselves by superstition. Though they are not at a loss for\nanother defence, if they are not qualified to live in celibacy. For if\nan impossible vow be the ruin of souls, which it is the will of the Lord\nto save and not to destroy,\u2014it follows that it is not right to persevere\nin it. But the impossibility of an observance of the vow of continence\nby those who are not endued with a special gift, we have already shown,\nand without my saying a word, experience itself declares; for it is\nnotorious what extreme impurity prevails in almost all monasteries; and\nif any of them appear more virtuous and modest than the rest, it does\nnot follow that they are really more chaste, because they conceal the\nvice of unchastity. Thus God inflicts awful punishments on the audacity\nof men, when, forgetting their weakness, they covet, in opposition to\nnature, that which is denied them, and, despising the remedies which God\nhad put into their hands, indulge a contumacious and obstinate\npresumption that they are able to overcome the vice of incontinence. For\nwhat shall we call it but contumacy, when any one who is admonished that\nhe stands in need of marriage, and that it has been given to him by the\nLord as a remedy, not only contemns it, but binds himself by an oath to\npersevere in that contempt?\n\nFootnote 1072:\n\n  Rom. xiv. 23.\n\nFootnote 1073:\n\n  Rom. xii. 3. 1 Cor. xii. 11.\n\nFootnote 1074:\n\n  Acts xxiii. 12.\n\nFootnote 1075:\n\n  Judges xi. 30-40.\n\nFootnote 1076:\n\n  Gen. ii. 18.\n\nFootnote 1077:\n\n  Deut. vi. 16. Matt. iv. 7.\n\nFootnote 1078:\n\n  Gen. xxviii. 20-22.\n\nFootnote 1079:\n\n  Psalm xxii. 25; lvi. 12; cxvi. 14, 18.\n\nFootnote 1080:\n\n  Titus i. 15.\n\nFootnote 1081:\n\n  1 Cor. vi. 13.\n\nFootnote 1082:\n\n  Matt. xix. 21.\n\nFootnote 1083:\n\n  1 Cor. xiii. 3.\n\nFootnote 1084:\n\n  Col. iii. 14.\n\nFootnote 1085:\n\n  Matt. xix. 16.\n\nFootnote 1086:\n\n  Matt. xix. 20.\n\nFootnote 1087:\n\n  1 Cor. i. 12, 13; iii. 4.\n\nFootnote 1088:\n\n  Rom. xiv. 23.\n\nFootnote 1089:\n\n  Deut. xxxii. 17.\n\nFootnote 1090:\n\n  Matt. xix. 11.\n\nFootnote 1091:\n\n  1 Cor. vii. 9.\n\nFootnote 1092:\n\n  1 Tim. v. 12.\n\nFootnote 1093:\n\n  1 Tim. v. 9, 14.\n\nFootnote 1094:\n\n  Rom. xiv. 23.\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER XIV.\n                            THE SACRAMENTS.\n\n\nConnected with the preaching of the gospel, another assistance and\nsupport for our faith is presented to us in the sacraments; on the\nsubject of which it is highly important to lay down some certain\ndoctrine, that we may learn for what end they were instituted, and how\nthey ought to be used. In the first place, it is necessary to consider\nwhat a sacrament is. Now, I think it will be a simple and appropriate\ndefinition, if we say that it is an outward sign, by which the Lord\nseals in our consciences the promises of his good-will towards us, to\nsupport the weakness of our faith; and we on our part testify our piety\ntowards him, in his presence and that of angels, as well as before men.\nIt may, however, be more briefly defined, in other words, by calling it\na testimony of the grace of God towards us, confirmed by an outward\nsign, with a reciprocal attestation of our piety towards him. Whichever\nof these definitions be chosen, it conveys exactly the same meaning as\nthat of Augustine, which states a sacrament to be \u201ca visible sign of a\nsacred thing,\u201d or \u201ca visible form of invisible grace;\u201d but it expresses\nthe thing itself with more clearness and precision; for as his\nconciseness leaves some obscurity, by which many inexperienced persons\nmay be misled, I have endeavoured to render the subject plainer by more\nwords, that no room might be left for any doubt.\n\nII. The reason why the ancient fathers used this word in such a sense is\nvery evident. For whenever the author of the old common version of the\nNew Testament wanted to render the Greek word \u03bc\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, _mystery_, into\nLatin, especially where it related to Divine things, he used the word\n_sacramentum_, \u201csacrament.\u201d Thus, in the Epistle to the Ephesians,\n\u201cHaving made known unto us the _mystery_ of his will.\u201d[1095] Again: \u201cIf\nye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me\nto you-ward; how that by revelation he made known unto me the\n_mystery_.\u201d[1096] In the Epistle to the Colossians: \u201cThe _mystery_ which\nhath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest\nto his saints; to whom God would make known what is the riches of the\nglory of this _mystery_.\u201d[1097] Again, to Timothy: \u201cGreat is the\n_mystery_ of godliness; God was manifest in the flesh.\u201d[1098] In all\nthese places, where the word _mystery_ is used, the author of that\nversion has rendered it _sacrament_. He would not say _arcanum_, or\n_secret_, lest he should appear to degrade the majesty of the subject.\nTherefore he has used the word _sacrament_ for a sacred or Divine\nsecret. In this signification it frequently occurs in the writings of\nthe fathers. And it is well known, that baptism and the Lord\u2019s supper,\nwhich the Latins denominate _sacraments_, are called _mysteries_ by the\nGreeks; a synonymous use of the terms, which removes every doubt. And\nhence the word _sacrament_ came to be applied to those signs which\ncontained a representation of sublime and spiritual things; which is\nalso remarked by Augustine, who says, \u201cIt would be tedious to dispute\nrespecting the diversity of signs, which, when they pertain to Divine\nthings, are called _sacraments_.\u201d\n\nIII. Now, from the definition which we have established, we see that\nthere is never any sacrament without an antecedent promise of God, to\nwhich it is subjoined as an appendix, in order to confirm and seal the\npromise itself, and to certify and ratify it to us; which means God\nforesees to be necessary, in the first place on account of our ignorance\nand dulness, and in the next place on account of our weakness; and yet,\nstrictly speaking, not so much for the confirmation of his sacred word,\nas for our establishment in the faith of it. For the truth of God is\nsufficiently solid and certain in itself, and can receive no better\nconfirmation from any other quarter than from itself; but our faith\nbeing slender and weak, unless it be supported on every side, and\nsustained by every assistance, immediately shakes, fluctuates, totters,\nand falls. And as we are corporeal, always creeping on the ground,\ncleaving to terrestrial and carnal objects, and incapable of\nunderstanding or conceiving of any thing of a spiritual nature, our\nmerciful Lord, in his infinite indulgence, accommodates himself to our\ncapacity, condescending to lead us to himself even by these earthly\nelements, and in the flesh itself to present to us a mirror of spiritual\nblessings. \u201cFor if we were incorporeal,\u201d as Chrysostom says, \u201che would\nhave given us these things pure and incorporeal. Now because we have\nsouls enclosed in bodies, he gives us spiritual things under visible\nemblems; not because there are such qualities in the nature of the\nthings presented to us in the sacraments, but because they have been\ndesignated by God to this signification.\u201d\n\nIV. This is what is commonly said, that a sacrament consists of the word\nand the outward sign. For we ought to understand the _word_, not of a\nmurmur uttered without any meaning or faith, a mere whisper like a\nmagical incantation, supposed to possess the power of consecrating the\nelements, but of the gospel preached, which instructs us in the\nsignification of the visible sign. That which is commonly practised\nunder the tyranny of the pope, therefore, involves a gross profanation\nof the mysteries; for they have thought it sufficient for the priest to\nmutter over the form of consecration, while the people are gazing in\nignorance. Indeed, they have taken effectual care that it should be all\nunintelligible to the people; for they have pronounced the consecration\nin Latin, before illiterate men; and have at length carried superstition\nto such a pitch, as to consider it not rightly performed, unless it be\ndone in a hoarse murmur, which few could hear. But Augustine speaks in a\nvery different manner of the sacramental word. \u201cLet the word,\u201d says he,\n\u201cbe added to the element, and it will become a sacrament. For whence\ndoes the water derive such great virtue, as at once to touch the body\nand purify the heart, except from the word? not because it is spoken,\nbut because it is believed. For in the word itself the transient sound\nis one thing, the permanent virtue is another. \u2018This is the word of\nfaith which we preach,\u2019[1099] says the apostle. Whence it is said of the\nGentiles, in the Acts of the Apostles, that \u2018God purifies their hearts\nby faith.\u2019[1100] And the apostle Peter says, \u2018Baptism doth also now save\nus, (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a\ngood conscience towards God.)\u2019[1101] \u2018This is the word of faith which we\npreach,\u2019 by which baptism is consecrated to endue it with a purifying\nvirtue.\u201d We see how he makes the preaching of the word necessary to the\nproduction of faith. And we need not labour much to prove this, because\nit is very plain what Christ did, what he commanded us to do, what the\napostles followed, and what the purer Church observed. Even from the\nbeginning of the world, whenever God gave the holy fathers any sign, it\nis well known to have been inseparably connected with some doctrine,\nwithout which our senses would only be astonished with the mere view of\nit. Therefore, when we hear mention made of the sacramental word, let us\nunderstand it of the promise, which, being audibly and intelligibly\npreached by the minister, instructs the people in the meaning and\ntendency of the sign.\n\nV. Nor ought any attention to be paid to some, who endeavour to oppose\nthis by a dilemma which discovers more subtlety than solidity. They say,\nEither we know that the word of God which precedes the sacrament is the\ntrue will of God, or we do not know it. If we know it, then we learn\nnothing new from the sacrament which follows. If we do not know it,\nneither shall we learn it from the sacrament, the virtue of which lies\nentirely in the word. Let it be concisely replied, that the seals\nappended to charters, patents, and other public instruments, are\nnothing, taken by themselves; because they would be appended to no\npurpose, if the parchment had nothing written upon it; and yet they\nnevertheless confirm and authenticate what is written on the instruments\nto which they are annexed. Nor can it be objected that this similitude\nhas been recently invented by us; for it has been used by Paul himself,\nwho calls circumcision a _seal_,[1102] \u03c3\u03c6\u03c1\u03b1\u03b3\u03b9\u03b4\u03b1, in a passage where he\nis professedly contending that circumcision did not constitute the\nrighteousness of Abraham, but was a seal of that covenant, in the faith\nof which he had already been justified. And what is there that ought to\ngive any man much offence, if we teach that the promise is sealed by the\nsacraments, while it is evident that among the promises themselves one\nis confirmed by another? For in proportion to its superior clearness, it\nis the better calculated for the support of faith. Now, the sacraments\nbring us the clearest promises, and have this peculiarity beyond the\nword, that they give us a lively representation of them, as in a\npicture. Nor ought we to regard the objection, frequently urged, from\nthe distinction between sacraments and seals of civil instruments, that\nwhile they both consist of the carnal elements of this world, the former\ncannot be fit to seal the promises of God, which are spiritual and\neternal, as the latter are accustomed to be appended to seal the edicts\nof princes relative to frail and transitory things. For the believer,\nwhen the sacraments are placed before his eyes, does not confine himself\nto that carnal spectacle; but by those steps of analogy which I have\nindicated, rises in pious contemplation to the sublime mysteries which\nare concealed under the sacramental symbols.\n\nVI. And since the Lord calls his promises _covenants_, and the\nsacraments _seals of covenants_, we may draw a similitude from the\ncovenants of men. The ancients, in confirmation of their engagements,\nwere accustomed to kill a sow. But what would have been the slaughter of\na sow, if it had not been accompanied, and even preceded, by some words?\nFor sows were often slaughtered without any latent or sublime mystery.\nWhat is the contact of one man\u2019s right hand with that of another, since\nhands are not unfrequently joined in hostility? But when words of\nfriendship and compact have preceded, the obligations of covenants are\nconfirmed by such signs, notwithstanding they have been previously\nconceived, proposed, and determined in words. Sacraments, therefore, are\nexercises, which increase and strengthen our faith in the word of God;\nand because we are corporeal, they are exhibited under corporeal\nsymbols, to instruct us according to our dull capacities, and to lead us\nby the hand as so many young children. For this reason Augustine calls a\nsacrament \u201ca visible word;\u201d because it represents the promises of God\nportrayed as in a picture, and places before our eyes an image of them,\nin which every lineament is strikingly expressed. Other similitudes may\nalso be adduced for the better elucidation of the nature of sacraments;\nas if we call them _pillars of our faith_; for as an edifice rests on\nits foundation, and yet, from the addition of pillars placed under it,\nreceives an increase of stability, so faith rests on the word of God as\nits foundation; but when the sacraments are added to it as pillars, they\nbring with them an accession of strength. Or if we call them _mirrors_,\nin which we may contemplate the riches of grace which God imparts to us;\nfor in the sacraments, as we have already observed, he manifests himself\nto us as far as our dulness is capable of knowing him, and testifies his\nbenevolence and love towards us more expressly than he does by his word.\n\nVII. Nor is there any force in their reasoning, when they contend that\nthe sacraments are not testimonies of the grace of God, because they are\noften administered to the wicked, who yet do not, in consequence of\nthis, experience God to be more propitious to them, but rather procure\nto themselves more grievous condemnation. For, by the same argument,\nneither would the gospel be a testimony of the grace of God, because it\nis heard by many who despise it, nor even Christ himself, who was seen\nand known by multitudes, of whom very few received him. A similar\nobservation may be applied to royal edicts; for great numbers of people\ndespise and deride that seal of authentication, notwithstanding they\nknow that it proceeded from the monarch to confirm his will; some\nutterly disregard it, as a thing not relating to them; others even hold\nit in execration; so that a survey of the correspondence of the two\ncases ought to produce greater approbation of the similitude which I\nhave before used. Therefore it is certain that the Lord offers us his\nmercy, and a pledge of his grace, both in his holy word and in the\nsacraments; but it is not apprehended except by those who receive the\nword and sacraments with a certain faith; as the Father has offered and\npresented Christ to all for salvation, but he is not known and received\nby all. Augustine, intending to express this sentiment, somewhere says,\nthat the efficacy of the word is displayed in the sacrament, \u201cnot\nbecause it is spoken, but because it is believed.\u201d Therefore Paul, when\nhe is addressing believers, speaks of the sacraments so as to include in\nthem the communion of Christ; as when he says, \u201cAs many of you as have\nbeen baptized into Christ, have put on Christ.\u201d[1103] Again: \u201cBy one\nSpirit are we all baptized into one body.\u201d[1104] But when he speaks of\nthe improper use of the sacraments, he attributes no more to them than\nto vain and useless figures; by which he signifies that, however impious\npersons and hypocrites, by their perversion of the sacraments, may\ndestroy or obscure the effect of Divine grace in them, yet that,\nnotwithstanding this, whenever and wherever God pleases, they afford a\ntrue testimony of the communion of Christ, and the Spirit of God himself\nexhibits and performs the very thing which they promise. We conclude,\ntherefore, that sacraments are truly called testimonies of the grace of\nGod, and are, as it were, seals of the benevolence he bears to us,\nwhich, by confirming it to our minds, sustain, cherish, strengthen, and\nincrease our faith. The reasons which some are in the habit of objecting\nagainst this sentiment are exceedingly weak and frivolous. They allege,\nthat if our faith be good, it cannot be made better; for that there is\nno real faith except that which rests on the mercy of God, without any\nwavering, instability, or distraction. It would have been better for\nsuch persons to pray, with the apostles, that the Lord would increase\ntheir faith,[1105] than confidently to boast of such a perfection of\nfaith, as no one of the sons of men ever yet attained, or ever will\nattain, in this life. Let them answer what kind of faith they suppose\nhim to have possessed, who said, \u201cLord, I believe; help thou mine\nunbelief.\u201d[1106] For even that, though yet only in its commencement, was\na good faith, and capable of being improved by the removal of unbelief.\nBut there is no argument which more fully refutes them than their own\nconscience; for if they confess themselves sinners, which, whatever they\nmay wish, they cannot deny, they must be obliged to impute it to the\nimperfection of their faith.\n\nVIII. But they say, Philip answered the eunuch, that he might be\nbaptized \u201cif\u201d he \u201cbelieved with all\u201d his \u201cheart.\u201d[1107] And what room,\nthey ask, is there here for the confirmation of baptism, where faith\nfills the whole heart? On the other hand, I ask them, whether they do\nnot feel a large part of their heart destitute of faith, and whether\nthey do not daily know some fresh increase of it. A heathen gloried that\nhe grew old in learning. We Christians are miserable indeed if we grow\nold in making no improvement, whose faith ought to be advancing from one\nstage to another till its attainment of perfect manhood. \u201cTo believe\nwith all the heart,\u201d therefore, in this passage, is not to believe\nChrist in a perfect manner, but only signifies embracing him with\nsincerity of soul and firmness of mind; not to be filled with him, but\nto hunger, thirst, and sigh after him with ardent affection. It is the\ncustom of the Scriptures to say that any thing is done with the whole\nheart which is done with sincerity of mind, as in these and other\npassages: \u201cWith my whole heart have I sought thee;\u201d \u201cI will praise the\nLord with my whole heart.\u201d[1108] On the contrary, when it rebukes the\nfraudulent and deceitful, it reproaches them with \u201ca double\nheart.\u201d[1109] Our adversaries further allege, that if faith be increased\nby the sacraments, the Holy Spirit must have been given in vain, whose\nwork and influence it is to commence, to confirm, and to consummate\nfaith. I confess that faith is the peculiar and entire work of the Holy\nSpirit, by whose illumination we know God and the treasures of his\ngoodness, and without whose light our mind is too blind to be capable of\nany sight, and too stupid to be capable of the least relish of spiritual\nthings. But instead of one favour of God, which they mention, we\nacknowledge three. For, first, the Lord teaches and instructs us by his\nword; secondly, he confirms us by his sacraments; lastly, he illuminates\nour minds by the light of his Holy Spirit, and opens an entrance into\nour hearts for the word and sacraments; which otherwise would only\nstrike the ears and present themselves to the eyes, without producing\nthe least effect upon the mind.\n\nIX. With respect to the confirmation and increase of faith, therefore, I\nwish the reader to be apprized, and I conceive I have already expressed,\nin language too plain to be misunderstood, that I assign this office to\nthe sacraments; not from an opinion of their possessing a perpetual\ninherent virtue, efficacious of itself to the advancement or\nconfirmation of faith; but because they have been instituted by the Lord\nfor the express purpose of promoting its establishment and augmentation.\nBut they only perform their office aright when they are accompanied by\nthe Spirit, that internal Teacher, by whose energy alone our hearts are\npenetrated, our affections are moved, and an entrance is opened for the\nsacraments into our souls. If he be absent, the sacraments can produce\nno more effect upon our minds than the splendour of the sun on blind\neyes, or the sound of a voice on deaf ears. I make such a distinction\nand distribution, therefore, between the Spirit and the sacraments, that\nI consider all the energy of operation as belonging to the Spirit, and\nthe sacraments as mere instruments, which, without his agency, are vain\nand useless, but which, when he acts and exerts his power in the heart,\nare fraught with surprising efficacy. Now, it is evident how, according\nto this opinion, the faith of a pious mind is confirmed by the\nsacraments; namely, as the eyes see by the light of the sun, and the\nears hear by the sound of a voice: the light would have no effect upon\nthe eyes, unless they had a natural faculty capable of being\nenlightened; and it would be in vain for the ears to be struck with any\nsound, if they had not been naturally formed for hearing. But if it be\ntrue, as we ought at once to conclude, that what the visive faculty is\nin our eyes towards our beholding the light, and the faculty of hearing\nis in our ears towards our perception of sound, such is the work of the\nHoly Spirit in our hearts for the formation, support, preservation, and\nestablishment of our faith; then these two consequences immediately\nfollow\u2014that the sacraments are attended with no benefit without the\ninfluence of the Holy Spirit; and that, in hearts already instructed by\nthat Teacher, they still subserve the confirmation and increase of\nfaith. There is only this difference, that our eyes and ears are\nnaturally endued with the faculties of seeing and hearing, but Christ\naccomplishes this in our hearts by special and preternatural grace.\n\nX. This reasoning will also serve for a solution of the objections with\nwhich some persons are greatly disturbed; that if we attribute to\ncreatures either the increase or confirmation of faith, we derogate from\nthe Spirit of God, whom we ought to acknowledge as its sole Author. For\nwe do not, at the same time, deny him the praise of its confirmation and\nincrease; but we assert that the way in which he increases and confirms\nour faith is by preparing our minds, by his inward illumination, to\nreceive that confirmation which is proposed in the sacraments. If the\nway in which this has been expressed be too obscure, it shall be\nelucidated by the following similitude. If you intend to persuade a\nperson to do a certain act, you will consider all the reasons calculated\nto draw him over to your opinion, and to constrain him to submit to your\nadvice. But you will make no impression upon him, unless he possess a\nperspicuous and acute judgment, to be able to determine what force there\nis in your reasons; unless his mind also be docile, and prepared to\nlisten to instruction; and lastly, unless he have conceived such an\nopinion of your fidelity and prudence as may prepossess him in favour of\nyour sentiments. For there are many obstinate spirits, never to be moved\nby any reasons; and where a person\u2019s fidelity is suspected, and his\nauthority despised, little effect will be produced, even with those who\nare disposed to learn. On the contrary, let all these things be present,\nand they will insure the acquiescence of the person advised, in those\ncounsels which he would otherwise have derided. This work also the\nSpirit effects within us. Lest the word should assail our ears in\nvain,\u2014lest the sacraments should in vain strike our eyes,\u2014he shows us\nthat it is God who addresses us in them; he softens the hardness of our\nhearts, and forms them to that obedience which is due to the word of the\nLord; in fine, he conveys those external words and sacraments from the\nears into the soul. Our faith is confirmed, therefore, both by the word\nand by the sacraments, when they place before our eyes the good-will of\nour heavenly Father towards us, in the knowledge of which all the\nfirmness of our faith consists, and by which its strength is augmented;\nthe Spirit confirms it, when he makes this confirmation effectual by\nengraving it on our minds. In the mean time, the Father of lights cannot\nbe prohibited from illuminating our minds by means of the lustre of the\nsacraments, as he enlightens our bodily eyes with the rays of the sun.\n\nXI. That there is this property in the external word, our Lord has shown\nin a parable, by calling it \u201cseed.\u201d[1110] For as seed, if it fall on a\ndesert and neglected spot of ground, will die without producing any\ncrop, but if it be cast upon a well manured and cultivated field, it\nbrings forth its fruit with an abundant increase,\u2014so the word of God, if\nit fall upon some stiff neck, will be as unproductive as seed dropped\nupon the sea-shore; but if it light upon a soul cultivated by the agency\nof the heavenly Spirit, it will be abundantly fruitful. Now, if the word\nbe justly compared to seed,\u2014as we say that from seed, corn grows,\nincreases, and comes to maturity,\u2014why may we not say that faith derives\nits commencement, increase, and perfection, from the word of God? Paul,\nin different places, excellently expresses both these things. For, with\na view to recall to the recollection of the Corinthians with what\nefficacy God had attended his labours, he glories in having the ministry\nof the Spirit, as if there were an indissoluble connection between his\npreaching and the power of the Holy Spirit operating to the illumination\nof their minds, and the excitement of their hearts.[1111] But in another\nplace, with a view to apprize them how far the power of the word of God\nextends, merely as preached by man, he compares ministers to husbandmen;\nwho, when they have employed their labour and industry in cultivating\nthe ground, have nothing more that they can do. But what would\nploughing, and sowing, and watering, avail, unless heavenly goodness\ncaused the seed to vegetate? Therefore he concludes, \u201cNeither is he that\nplanteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God, that giveth the\nincrease.\u201d[1112] The apostles, then, in their preaching, exerted the\npower of the Spirit, as far as God made use of the instruments appointed\nby himself for the exhibition of his spiritual grace. But we must always\nkeep in view this distinction, that we may remember how far the power of\nman extends, and what is exclusively the work of God.\n\nXII. Now, it is so true that the sacraments are confirmations of our\nfaith, that sometimes, when the Lord intends to take away the confidence\nof those things which had been promised in the sacraments, he removes\nthe sacraments themselves. When he deprived Adam of the gift of\nimmortality, he expelled him from the garden of Eden, saying, \u201cLest he\nput forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live\nfor ever.\u201d[1113] What can be the meaning of this language? Could the\nfruit restore to Adam the incorruption from which he had now fallen?\nCertainly not. But it was the same as if the Lord had said, Lest he\nshould cherish a vain confidence, if he retain the symbol of my promise,\nlet him be deprived of that which might give him some hope of\nimmortality. For the same reason, when the apostle exhorts the Ephesians\nto \u201cremember that\u201d they \u201cwere without Christ, being aliens from the\ncommonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenant of promise,\nhaving no hope, and without God in the world,\u201d he states that they were\nnot partakers of circumcision;[1114] thereby signifying that not having\nreceived the sign of the promise, they were excluded from the promise\nitself. To the other objection which they make, that the glory of God is\ntransferred to creatures to whom so much power is attributed, and\nthereby sustains a proportionate diminution, it is easy to answer, that\nwe place no power in creatures; we only maintain that God uses such\nmeans and instruments as he sees will be suitable, in order that all\nthings may be subservient to his glory, as he is the Lord and Ruler of\nall. Therefore, as by bread and other aliments he feeds our bodies, as\nby the sun he enlightens the world, as by fire he produces warmth,\u2014yet\nbread, the sun, and fire, are nothing but instruments by which he\ndispenses his blessings to us,\u2014so he nourishes our faith in a spiritual\nmanner by the sacraments, which are instituted for the purpose of\nplacing his promises before our eyes for our contemplation, and of\nserving us as pledges of them. And as we ought not to place any\nconfidence in the other creatures, which, by the liberality and\nbeneficence of God, have been destined to our uses, and by whose\ninstrumentality he communicates to us the bounties of his goodness, nor\nto admire and celebrate them as the causes of our enjoyments,\u2014so neither\nought our confidence to rest in the sacraments, or the glory of God to\nbe transferred to them; but, forsaking all other things, both our faith\nand confession ought to rise to him, the Author of the sacraments and of\nevery other blessing.\n\nXIII. The argument which some persons adduce from the very name of\n_sacrament_ is destitute of any force;\u2014though the word _sacrament_ has\nvarious significations in authors of the first authority, yet it has but\none which has any agreement or connection with _signs_ or _standards_,\n(signa;) that is, when it denotes the solemn oath taken by a soldier to\nhis commander when he enters on a military life. For as by the military\noath new soldiers bind themselves to their commander, and assume the\nmilitary profession, so by our signs we profess Christ to be our Leader,\nand declare that we fight under his banners. They add similitudes for\nthe further elucidation of their opinion. As the dress of the Romans,\nwho wore gowns, distinguished them from the Greeks, who wore cloaks; as\nthe different orders among the Romans were distinguished from each other\nby their respective badges, the senatorial order from the equestrian by\npurple habits and round shoes, and the equestrian from the plebeian by a\nring; as French and English ships of war are known by flags of different\ncolours, the French flags being white and the English red; so we have\nour signs or badges to distinguish us from unbelievers. But from the\nobservations already made, it is evident that the ancient fathers, who\ngave our signs the name of sacraments, were not at all guided by the\nprevious use of this word in Latin writers; but that they gave it a new\nsense for their own convenience, simply denoting sacred signs. And if we\nwish to carry our researches any further, it may be found that they\ntransferred this name to the signification now given, on the same\nprinciple of analogy which induced them to transfer the word _faith_ to\nthe sense in which it is now used. For as faith properly signifies truth\nin the fulfilment of promises, yet they have applied it to the assurance\nor certain persuasion which a person has of the truth itself; so, as a\nsacrament is an oath by which a soldier binds himself to his leader,\nthey have applied it to the sign by which the leader receives soldiers\ninto his army. For by the sacraments the Lord promises that he will be\nour God, and that we shall be his people. But we pass over such\nsubtleties, as I think I have proved by sufficient arguments that the\nancients had no other view, in their application of the word\n_sacrament_, than to signify that the ceremonies to which they applied\nit were signs of holy and spiritual things. We admit the comparison\ndeduced from external badges, but we cannot bear that the last and least\nuse of the sacraments should be represented as their principal and even\nsole object. The first object of them is, to assist our faith towards\nGod; the second, to testify our confession before men. The similitudes\nwhich have been mentioned are applicable to this secondary design, but\nthe primary one ought never to be forgotten; for otherwise, as we have\nseen, these mysteries would cease to interest us, unless they were aids\nof our faith, and appendices of doctrine, destined to the same use and\nend.\n\nXIV. On the other hand, we require to be apprized, that as these persons\nweaken the force of the sacraments, and entirely subvert their use, so\nthere are others of a contrary party, who attribute to the sacraments I\nknow not what latent virtues, which are nowhere represented as\ncommunicated to them by the word of God. By this error the simple and\ninexperienced are dangerously deceived, being taught to seek the gifts\nof God where they can never be found, and being gradually drawn away\nfrom God to embrace mere vanity instead of his truth. For the\nsophistical schools have maintained, with one consent, that the\nsacraments of the new law, or those now used in the Christian Church,\njustify and confer grace, provided we do not obstruct their operation by\nany mortal sin. It is impossible to express the pestilent and fatal\nnature of this opinion, and especially as it has prevailed over a large\npart of the world, to the great detriment of the Church, for many ages\npast. Indeed, it is evidently diabolical; for by promising justification\nwithout faith, it precipitates souls into destruction: in the next\nplace, by representing the sacraments as the cause of justification, it\nenvelops the minds of men, naturally too much inclined to the earth, in\ngross superstition, leading them to rest in the exhibition of a\ncorporeal object rather than in God himself. Of these two evils I wish\nwe had not had such ample experience as to supersede the necessity of\nmuch proof. What is a sacrament, taken without faith, but the most\ncertain ruin of the Church? For as nothing is to be expected from it,\nbut in consequence of the promise, which denotes God\u2019s wrath against\nunbelievers as much as it offers his grace to believers,\u2014the person who\nsupposes that the sacraments confer any more upon him than that which is\noffered by the word of God, and which he receives by a true faith, is\ngreatly deceived. Hence also it may be concluded, that confidence of\nsalvation does not depend on the participation of the sacraments, as\nthough that constituted our justification, which we know to be placed in\nChrist alone, and to be communicated to us no less by the preaching of\nthe gospel than by the sealing of the sacraments, and that it may be\ncompletely enjoyed without this participation. So true is the\nobservation, which has also been made by Augustine, that invisible\nsanctification may exist without the visible sign, and, on the contrary,\nthat the visible sign may be used without real sanctification. For, as\nhe also writes in another place, \u201cMen put on Christ, sometimes by the\nreception of a sacrament, sometimes by sanctification of life.\u201d The\nfirst case may be common to the good and the bad; the second is peculiar\nto believers.\n\nXV. Hence that distinction, if it be well understood, which is\nfrequently stated by Augustine, between a sacrament and the matter of a\nsacrament. For his meaning is, not only that a sacrament contains a\nfigure, and some truth signified by that figure, but that their\nconnection is not such as to render them inseparable from each other;\nand even when they are united, the thing signified ought always to be\ndistinguished from the sign, that what belongs to the one may not be\ntransferred to the other. He speaks of their separation, when he\nobserves, that \u201cthe sacraments produce the effect which they represent,\nin the elect alone.\u201d Again, when he is speaking of the Jews: \u201cThough the\nsacraments were common to all, the grace which is the power of the\nsacrament was not common; so now, also, the washing of regeneration is\ncommon to all; but the grace itself, by which the members of Christ are\nregenerated with their Head, is not common to all.\u201d Again, in another\nplace, speaking of the Lord\u2019s supper: \u201cWe also in the present day\nreceive visible meat; but the sacrament is one thing, and the power of\nthe sacrament is another. How is it that many receive of the altar and\ndie, and die in consequence of receiving? For the morsel of bread given\nby the Lord to Judas was poison; not because Judas received an evil\nthing, but because, being a wicked man, he received a good thing in a\nsinful manner.\u201d A little after: \u201cThe sacrament of this thing, that is,\nof the unity of the body and blood of Christ, is prepared on the table\nof the Lord, in some places daily, in other places on appointed days, at\nstated intervals of time; and is thence received, by some to life, by\nothers to destruction. But the thing signified by this sacrament is\nreceived, not to destruction, but to life, by every one who partakes of\nit.\u201d He had just before said, \u201cHe shall not die, who eats; I refer not\nto the visible sacrament, but to the power of the sacrament; who eats\ninternally, not externally; he who eats in his heart, not he who presses\nwith his teeth.\u201d In all these passages we find it maintained, that a\nsacrament is separated from the truth signified in it, by the\nunworthiness of a person who receives it amiss, so that there is nothing\nleft in it but a vain and useless figure. In order to enjoy the thing\nsignified together with the sign, and not a mere sign destitute of the\ntruth it was intended to convey, it is necessary to apprehend by faith\nthe word which is contained in it. Thus, in proportion to the communion\nwe have with Christ by means of the sacraments, will be the advantage\nwhich we shall derive from them.\n\nXVI. If this be obscure in consequence of its brevity, I will explain it\nmore at large. I affirm that Christ is the matter, or substance, of all\nthe sacraments; since they have all their solidity in him, and promise\nnothing out of him. So much more intolerable is the error of Peter\nLombard, who expressly makes them causes of righteousness and salvation,\nof which they are parts. Leaving all causes, therefore, of human\ninvention, we ought to adhere to this one cause. As far as we are\nassisted by their instrumentality, to nourish, confirm, and increase our\nfaith in Christ, to obtain a more perfect possession of him and an\nenjoyment of his riches, so far they are efficacious to us; and this is\nthe case when we receive by true faith that which is offered in them. Do\nthe impious, then, it will be said, by their ingratitude, frustrate the\nordinance of God, and cause it to come to nothing? I reply, that what I\nhave said is not to be understood as implying, that the virtue and truth\nof a sacrament depends on the condition or choice of him who receives\nit. For what God has instituted continues unshaken, and retains its\nnature, however men may vary; but as it is one thing to offer, and\nanother to receive, there is no incongruity in maintaining, that a\nsymbol, consecrated by the word of the Lord, is in reality what it is\ndeclared to be, and preserves its virtue, and yet that it confers no\nbenefit on a wicked and impious person. But Augustine happily solves\nthis question in a few words: he says, \u201cIf thou receive it carnally,\nstill it ceases not to be spiritual; but it is not so to thee.\u201d And, as\nin the passages already cited, this father shows that the symbol used in\na sacrament is of no value, if it be separated from the truth signified\nby it, so, on the other hand, he states that it is necessary to\ndistinguish them, even where they are united, lest our attention be\nconfined too much to the external sign. \u201cAs to follow the letter,\u201d says\nhe, \u201cand to take the signs instead of the things signified, betrays\nservile weakness, so it is the part of unsteadiness and error to\ninterpret the signs in such a manner as to derive no advantage from\nthem.\u201d He mentions two faults, against which it is necessary to guard.\nOne is, when we take the signs as if they were given in vain, and\ndisparaging or diminishing their secret significations by our perverse\nmisconstruction, exclude ourselves from the advantage which we ought to\nderive from them. The other is, when, not elevating our minds beyond the\nvisible sign, we transfer to the sacraments the praise of those\nbenefits, which are only conferred upon us by Christ alone, and that by\nthe agency of the Holy Spirit, who makes us partakers of Christ himself,\nby the instrumentality of the external signs which invite us to Christ,\nbut which cannot be perverted to any other use, without a shameful\nsubversion of all their utility.\n\nXVII. Wherefore let us abide by this conclusion, that the office of the\nsacraments is precisely the same as that of the word of God; which is to\noffer and present Christ to us, and in him the treasures of his heavenly\ngrace; but they confer no advantage or profit without being received by\nfaith; just as wine, or oil, or any other liquor, though it be poured\nplentifully on a vessel, yet will it overflow and be lost, unless the\nmouth of the vessel be open; and the vessel itself, though wet on the\noutside, will remain dry and empty within. It is also necessary to guard\nagainst being drawn into an error allied to this, from reading the\nextravagant language used by the fathers with a view to exalt the\ndignity of the sacraments; lest we should suppose there is some secret\npower annexed and attached to the sacraments, so that they communicate\nthe grace of the Holy Spirit, just as wine is given in the cup; whereas\nthe only office assigned to them by God, is to testify and confirm his\nbenevolence towards us; nor do they impart any benefit, unless they are\naccompanied by the Holy Spirit to open our minds and hearts, and render\nus capable of receiving this testimony: and here, also, several distinct\nfavours of God are eminently displayed. For the sacraments, as we have\nbefore hinted, fulfil to us, on the part of God, the same office as\nmessengers of joyful intelligence, or earnests for the confirmation of\ncovenants on the part of men; they communicate no grace from themselves,\nbut announce and show, and, as earnests and pledges, ratify, the things\nwhich are given to us by the goodness of God. The Holy Spirit, whom the\nsacraments do not promiscuously impart to all, but whom God, by a\npeculiar privilege, confers upon his servants, is he who brings with him\nthe graces of God, who gives the sacraments admission into our hearts,\nand causes them to bring forth fruit in us. Now, though we do not deny\nthat God himself accompanies his institution by the very present power\nof his Spirit, that the administration of the sacraments which he has\nordained may not be vain and unfruitful, yet we assert the necessity of\na separate consideration and contemplation of the internal grace of the\nSpirit, as it is distinguished from the external ministry. Whatever God\npromises and adumbrates in signs, therefore, he really performs; and the\nsigns are not without their effect, to prove the veracity and fidelity\nof their Author. The only question here is, whether God works by a\nproper and intrinsic power, as it is expressed, or resigns the office to\nexternal symbols. Now, we contend, that whatever instruments he employs,\nthis derogates nothing from his supreme operation. When this doctrine is\nmaintained respecting the sacraments, their dignity is sufficiently\nannounced, their use plainly signified, their utility abundantly\ndeclared, and a proper moderation is preserved in all these particulars,\nso that nothing is attributed, which ought not to be attributed to them,\nand nothing that belongs to them is denied; while there is no admission\nof that figment, which places the cause of justification and the power\nof the Spirit in the sacramental elements, as in so many vehicles; and\nthat peculiar power which has been omitted by others is clearly\nexpressed. Here, also, it must be remarked, that God accomplishes\nwithin, that which the minister represents and testifies by the external\nact; that we may not attribute to a mortal man what God challenges\nexclusively to himself. Augustine has judiciously suggested the same\nsentiment. \u201cHow,\u201d says he, \u201cdo Moses and God both sanctify? Not Moses\ninstead of God. Moses does it with visible signs, by his ministry. God\ndoes it with invisible grace, by his Holy Spirit. Here also lies all the\nefficacy of visible sacraments. For what avail those visible sacraments\nwithout that sanctification of invisible grace?\u201d\n\nXVIII. The term _sacrament_, as we have hitherto treated of its nature,\ncomprehends generally all the signs which God has ever given to men, to\ncertify and assure them of the truth of his promises. These he has been\npleased to place in natural things, and sometimes to exhibit in\nmiracles. Examples of the former kind are such as these: when he gave\nAdam and Eve the tree of life, as a pledge of immortality, which they\nmight assure themselves of enjoying as long as they should eat of the\nfruit of that tree;[1115] and when he \u201cset\u201d his \u201cbow in the cloud,\u201d as a\ntoken to Noah and his posterity, that there should \u201cno more be a flood\nto destroy the earth.\u201d[1116] These Adam and Noah had as sacraments. Not\nthat the tree would actually communicate immortality to them, which it\ncould not give to itself; or that the rainbow, which is merely a\nrefraction of the rays of the sun on the opposite clouds, would have any\nefficacy in restraining the waters; but because they had a mark\nimpressed upon them by the word of God, constituting them signs and\nseals of his covenants. The tree and the rainbow both existed before,\nbut when they were inscribed with the word of God, they were endued with\na new form, so that they began to be something that they were not\nbefore. And that no one may suppose this to be spoken in vain, the bow\nitself continues to be a witness to us in the present age, of that\ncovenant which God made with Noah: whenever we behold it, we read this\npromise of God in it, that he would never more destroy the earth with a\nflood. Therefore, if any smatterer in philosophy, with a view to\nridicule the simplicity of our faith, contend that such a variety of\ncolours is the natural result of the refraction of the solar rays on an\nopposite cloud, we must immediately acknowledge it, but we may smile at\nhis stupidity in not acknowledging God as the Lord and Governor of\nnature, who uses all the elements according to his will for the\npromotion of his own glory. And if he had impressed similar characters\non the sun, on the stars, on the earth, and on stones, they would all\nhave been sacraments to us. Why is not silver of as much value before it\nis coined, as it is after, since the metal is the very same? The reason\nis, that it has nothing added to its natural state; stamped with a\npublic impression, it becomes money, and receives a new valuation. And\nshall not God be able to mark his creatures with his word, that they may\nbecome sacraments, though before they were mere elements? Examples of\nthe second kind were exhibited, when God showed Abraham \u201ca smoking\nfurnace and a burning lamp;\u201d[1117] when he watered the fleece with dew\nwhile the earth remained dry, and afterwards bedewed the earth without\nwetting the fleece, to promise victory to Gideon;[1118] when \u201che brought\nthe shadow ten degrees backward in the dial,\u201d[1119] to promise recovery\nto Hezekiah. As these things were done to support and establish the\nweakness of their faith, they also were sacraments.\n\nXIX. But our present design is to treat particularly of those sacraments\nwhich the Lord has appointed to be ordinarily used in his Church, to\nkeep his worshippers and servants in one faith and in the confession of\nthe same. \u201cFor,\u201d to use the language of Augustine, \u201cmen cannot be united\nin any profession of religion, whether true or false, unless they are\nconnected by some communion of visible signs or sacraments.\u201d Our most\nmerciful Father, therefore, foreseeing this necessity, did, from the\nbeginning, institute for his servants certain exercises of piety, which\nSatan afterwards depraved and corrupted in a variety of ways,\ntransferring them to impious and idolatrous worship. Hence those\ninitiations of the heathen into their mysteries, and the rest of their\ndegenerate rites, which, though fraught with error and superstition, at\nthe same time furnish an evidence that such external signs are\nindispensable to a profession of religion. But as they were neither\nfounded on the word of God, nor referred to that truth which ought to be\nthe object of all religious emblems, they are unworthy of notice, where\nmention is made of the sacred symbols which have been instituted by God,\nand which have never been perverted from their original principle, which\nconstitutes them aids of true piety. Now, they consist not of mere\nsigns, like the rainbow and the tree of life, but in ceremonies; or,\nrather, the signs which are here given are ceremonies. And, as we have\nbefore observed, as they are testimonies of grace and salvation on the\npart of the Lord, so on our part they are badges of our profession, by\nwhich we publicly devote ourselves to God, and swear obedience and\nfidelity to him. Chrysostom, therefore, somewhere properly calls them\n_compacts_, by which God covenants with us, and we bind ourselves to\npurity and sanctity of life; because a mutual stipulation is made in\nthem between God and us. For as the Lord promises to obliterate and\nefface all the guilt and punishment that we have incurred by sin, and\nreconciles us to himself in his only begotten Son, so we, on our parts,\nby this profession, bind ourselves to him, to serve him in piety and\ninnocence of life; so that such sacraments may justly be described as\nceremonies by which God is pleased to exercise his people, in the first\nplace, to nourish, excite, and confirm faith in their hearts; and in the\nnext place, to testify their religion before men.\n\nXX. And even the sacraments have been different according to the\nvarieties of different periods, and corresponding to the dispensation by\nwhich it has pleased the Lord to manifest himself in different ways to\nmankind. For to Abraham and his posterity circumcision was commanded; to\nwhich the law of Moses afterwards added ablutions, sacrifices, and other\nrites. These were the sacraments of the Jews till the coming of Christ;\nwhich was followed by the abrogation of these, and the institution of\ntwo others, which are now used in the Christian Church; namely, baptism\nand the supper of the Lord. I speak of those which were instituted for\nthe use of the whole Church; for as to the imposition of hands, by which\nthe ministers of the Church are introduced into their office, while I\nmake no objection to its being called a sacrament, I do not class it\namong the ordinary sacraments. What opinion ought to be entertained\nrespecting those which are commonly reputed the five other sacraments,\nwe shall see in a subsequent chapter. Those ancient sacrifices, however,\nreferred to the same object towards which ours are now directed, their\ndesign being to point and lead to Christ, or rather, as images, to\nrepresent and make him known. For as we have already shown that they are\nseals to confirm the promises of God, and it is very certain that no\npromise of God was ever offered to man except in Christ,\u2014in order to\nteach us any thing respecting the promises of God, they must of\nnecessity make a discovery of Christ. This was the design of that\nheavenly pattern of the tabernacle and model of the legal worship, which\nwas exhibited to Moses in the mount. There is only one difference\nbetween those sacraments and ours: they prefigured Christ as promised\nand still expected; ours represent him as already come and manifested.\n\nXXI. All these things will be considerably elucidated by a particular\ndetail. In the first place, circumcision was a sign to the Jews to teach\nthem that whatever is produced from human seed\u2014that is, the whole nature\nof man\u2014is corrupt, and requires to be pruned: it was likewise a\ntestification and memorial to confirm them in the promise given to\nAbraham respecting the blessed seed, in whom all the nations of the\nearth were to be blessed, and from whom their own blessing was also to\nbe expected.[1120] Now, that blessed seed, as Paul informs us, was\nChrist, on whom alone they relied for recovering that which they had\nlost in Adam. Wherefore circumcision was the same to them as Paul\ndeclares it to have been to Abraham, even \u201ca seal of the righteousness\nof faith;\u201d[1121] that is, a seal for the further assurance that their\nfaith, with which they expected that seed, would be imputed by God to\nthem for righteousness. But the comparison between circumcision and\nbaptism we shall have more suitable occasion for pursuing in another\nplace. Ablutions and purifications placed before their eyes their\nuncleanness and pollution, by which they were naturally contaminated,\nand promised another ablution, by which they would be purified from all\ntheir defilement; and this ablution was Christ, washed in whose blood we\nbring his purity into the presence of God to cover all our\nimpurities.[1122] Their sacrifices accused and convicted them of their\niniquity, and, at the same time, taught the necessity of some\nsatisfaction to be made to the Divine justice, and that, therefore,\nthere would come a great High Priest, a Mediator between God and men,\nwho was to satisfy the justice of God by the effusion of blood and the\noblation of a sacrifice, which would be sufficient to obtain the\nremission of sins. This great High Priest was Christ; he shed his own\nblood, and was himself the victim; was obedient to his Father even unto\ndeath, and by his obedience obliterated the disobedience of man, which\nhad provoked the indignation of God.[1123]\n\nXXII. Our two sacraments present us with a clearer exhibition of Christ,\nin proportion to the nearer view of him which men have enjoyed since he\nwas really manifested by the Father in the manner in which he had been\npromised. For baptism testifies to us our purgation and ablution; the\neucharistic supper testifies our redemption. Water is a figure of\nablution, and blood of satisfaction. These things are both found in\nChrist, who, as John says, \u201ccame by water and blood;\u201d[1124] that is, to\npurify and redeem. Of this the Spirit of God is a witness; or, rather,\n\u201cthere are three that bear witness, the Spirit, the Water, and the\nBlood.\u201d[1125] In the water and the blood we have a testimony of\npurgation and redemption; and the Spirit, as the principal witness,\nconfirms and secures our reception and belief of this testimony. This\nsublime mystery was strikingly exhibited on the cross, when blood and\nwater issued from Christ\u2019s sacred side; which, on this account,\nAugustine has justly called \u201cthe fountain of our sacraments;\u201d of which\nwe are yet to treat more at large. And there is no doubt, if we compare\none time with another, but that the more abundant grace of the Spirit is\nalso here displayed. For that belongs to the glory of the kingdom of\nChrist; as we gather from various places, and especially from the\nseventh chapter of John. In this sense we must understand that passage\nwhere Paul, speaking of the legal institutions, says, \u201cwhich are a\nshadow of things to come, but the body is of Christ.\u201d[1126] His design\nin this declaration is, not to deny the efficacy of those testimonies of\ngrace, in which God was formerly pleased to attest his veracity to the\nfathers, as he does to us now in baptism and the sacred supper, but to\nrepresent the comparative superiority of what has been given to us, that\nno one might wonder at the ceremonies of the law having been abolished\nat the advent of Christ.\n\nXXIII. I will just observe by the way, that the doctrine of the schools,\nwhich asserts such a wide difference between the sacraments of the old\nand new law, as though the former merely prefigured the grace of God,\nand the latter actually communicated it, ought to be altogether\nexploded. For the apostle speaks in a manner equally as honourable of\nthe former as of the latter, when he states that the fathers, in the\ntime of Moses, \u201cdid all eat the same spiritual meat\u201d[1127] with us, and\nexplains that meat to be Christ. Who will dare to call that an empty\nsign, which exhibited to the Jews the real communion of Christ? And the\nstate of the case, which the apostle is there discussing, is clearly in\nfavour of our argument. For, that no man might dare to despise the\njudgment of God, in a reliance on a speculative knowledge of Christ, and\nthe mere name of Christianity, with its external signs, he exhibits the\nexamples of Divine severity displayed among the Jews, to teach us that\nthe same punishments which they suffered await us, if we indulge in the\nsame sins. Now, that the comparison might be pertinent, it was necessary\nto show that there was no inequality between us and them in those\nprivileges of which he forbids us to indulge unfounded boasts. First,\ntherefore, he shows them to have been equal to us in the sacraments, and\nleaves not a particle of superiority capable of exciting in our minds\nthe least hope of impunity. Nor is it right to attribute to our baptism\nany thing more than he attributes to circumcision, when he calls it \u201ca\nseal of the righteousness of faith.\u201d[1128] Whatever is presented to us\nin the present day in our sacraments, was anciently received by the Jews\nin theirs\u2014even Christ and his spiritual riches. Whatever power our\nsacraments have, they also experienced the same in theirs: they were\nseals of the Divine benevolence to them, confirming their hope of\neternal salvation. If the advocates of the opinion which we are opposing\nhad been skilful interpreters of the Epistle to the Hebrews, they would\nnot have been so deceived; but when they read there that sins were not\nexpiated by the legal ceremonies, and that the ancient shadows had no\npower to confer righteousness,\u2014neglecting the comparison intended to be\ndrawn, and confining their attention to this single consideration, that\nthe law in itself was unprofitable to its observers, they have simply\nconcluded that the figures were destitute of any truth. But the design\nof the apostle was to represent the ceremonial law as of no value till\nit was referred to Christ, on whom alone depended all its efficacy.\n\nXXIV. But they will allege what Paul says of the \u201ccircumcision in the\nletter,\u201d[1129] that it is in no estimation with God; that it confers no\nadvantage; that it is in vain; for such a representation they conceive\nto degrade it far below baptism. But this is not true; for all that he\nsays of circumcision might justly be affirmed of baptism. And it is\nactually asserted; first by Paul himself, where he shows that God\nregards not the external ablution by which we enter on the profession of\nreligion, unless the heart be purified within, and persevere in piety to\nthe end; and, secondly, by Peter, when he declares the truth of baptism\nto consist, not in \u201cthe putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the\nanswer of a good conscience.\u201d[1130] It will be objected, that Paul seems\nin another place utterly to despise \u201cthe circumcision made with hands,\u201d\nwhen he compares it with \u201cthe circumcision of Christ.\u201d[1131] I reply,\nthat that passage derogates nothing from its dignity. Paul is there\ndisputing against those who required it as still necessary, after it had\nbeen abrogated. He therefore admonishes believers to leave the ancient\nshadows, and adhere to the truth. These teachers, he says, urge you to\nbe circumcised in your bodies. But you have been spiritually circumcised\nboth in body and soul: you have the substance itself, therefore, which\nis better than the shadow. Some one might object to this, that the\nfigure was not to be despised in consequence of their having the\nsubstance; for that the fathers under the Old Testament had experienced\nthe circumcision of the heart, and the putting off of the old man, of\nwhich the apostle was speaking, and yet that external circumcision had\nnot been unnecessary or useless to them. He anticipates and supersedes\nthis objection, by immediately adding, that the Colossians had been\n\u201cburied with Christ in baptism;\u201d by which he signifies that baptism is\nto Christians what circumcision was to the ancient believers, and\nconsequently that circumcision cannot be imposed upon Christians without\ninjury to baptism.\n\nXXV. But our objectors proceed to allege, that a still stronger argument\nin their favour arises from what follows, which I have lately\nquoted,\u2014that all the Jewish ceremonies were \u201ca shadow of things to come,\nbut the body is of Christ;\u201d[1132] and that the strongest argument of all\nis what is contained in the Epistle to the Hebrews, that the blood of\nbeasts did not reach the conscience, that \u201cthe law\u201d had \u201ca shadow of\ngood things to come, and not the very image of the things, and that the\nworshippers could never attain perfection from the Mosaic\nceremonies.\u201d[1133] I repeat what I have already suggested, that Paul\ncalled the ceremonies _shadows_, not as if they had nothing solid in\nthem, but because their accomplishment had been deferred till the\nmanifestation of Christ. In the next place, I remark that this is to be\nunderstood, not of the efficacy of the ceremonies, but rather of the\nmode of representation. For till Christ was manifested in the flesh, all\nthe signs prefigured him as absent; however, he displayed his power, and\nconsequently himself, as present in the hearts of believers. But the\nprincipal thing to be observed is, that in all these places Paul is not\nspeaking of the subject, considered simply in itself, but with reference\nto those against whom he is contending. As he was combating the false\napostles, who maintained piety to consist in the ceremonies alone,\nwithout any regard to Christ,\u2014nothing more was necessary for their\nconfutation, than to discuss what value ceremonies possess of\nthemselves. This also was the object pursued by the author of the\nEpistle to the Hebrews. Let us remember, therefore, that the question\nhere does not respect ceremonies, taken in their true and natural\nsignification, but as distorted by a false and perverse interpretation;\nthe controversy is not about the legitimate use, but the superstitious\nabuse of them. What wonder, then, is it, if ceremonies, separated from\nChrist, are divested of all their virtue? For all signs are reduced to\nnothing, when the thing signified is taken away. So when Christ was\naddressing those who supposed the manna to have been mere food for the\nbody, he accommodated his discourse to their gross notion, and said that\nhe would give them better food, to nourish their souls with the hope of\nimmortality.[1134] If a clearer solution be required, all that has been\nsaid may be comprised in these three observations: first, that all the\nceremonies of the law of Moses, unless they were directed to Christ,\nwere vain and useless; secondly, that they had reference to Christ, so\nthat when he was manifested in the flesh, they received their\naccomplishment; lastly, that it was necessary for them to be abolished\nat his advent, as a shadow vanishes in the clear light of the sun. But\nas I defer the more extended discussion of this subject to the chapter\nin which I intend to compare baptism with circumcision, I touch the more\nbriefly upon it here.\n\nXXVI. It is possible that these miserable sophists have been led into\nthis error by the extravagant encomiums on the sacraments which are\nfound in the writings of the fathers; as when Augustine says, that \u201cthe\nsacraments of the old law only promised the Saviour, but ours give\nsalvation.\u201d Not observing that these and other similar forms of\nexpression were hyperbolical, they, also, on their part, have\npromulgated their hyperbolical dogmas, but in a sense altogether foreign\nfrom the writings of the fathers. For the meaning of Augustine in that\npassage was the same as in another, where he says, \u201cThe sacraments of\nthe Mosaic law announced Christ as afterwards to come; ours announce him\nas already come.\u201d Again: \u201cThey were promises of things to be fulfilled;\nthese are signs of things accomplished;\u201d as if he had said, that the old\nsacraments prefigured Christ while he was yet expected, but that ours\nexhibit him as present, since he has already come. Besides, he speaks of\nthe mode of representation, as he also shows in another place, where he\nsays, \u201cThe law and the prophets had sacraments announcing something\nfuture; but what they celebrated as about to come, the sacraments of our\ntime announce as already come.\u201d His sentiments respecting their truth\nand efficacy he declares in several places; as when he says, \u201cThe\nsacraments of the Jews were different from ours in the signs; in the\nthing signified, they were equal; different in visible form, equal in\nspiritual efficacy.\u201d Again: \u201cIn different signs, the same faith; in\ndifferent signs, just as in different words; because words change their\nsounds in different times, and words are no other than signs. The\nfathers drank the same spiritual drink as we; though their corporeal\ndrink was different. See, then, the signs have been varied without any\nchange in the faith. To them the Rock was Christ; to us, that which is\nplaced on the altar is Christ. And as a great sacrament, they drank the\nwater flowing from the Rock; what we drink, believers know. If we\nconsider the visible form, there was a difference; if we regard the\nintelligible signification, they drank the same spiritual drink.\u201d In\nanother place: \u201cIn the mystery their meat and drink were the same as\nours; but the same in signification, not in form; because the very same\nChrist was prefigured to them in the Rock, and has been manifested to us\nin the flesh.\u201d Yet in this respect, also, we admit that there is some\ndifference between their sacraments and ours. For both testify that the\npaternal benevolence of God is offered to us in Christ, together with\nthe graces of the Holy Spirit; but ours testify it in a more clear and\nevident manner. In both there is an exhibition of Christ, but the\nexhibition of him in ours is richer and fuller, corresponding to the\ndifference between the Old Testament and the New, of which we have\nalready treated. And this is what was intended by Augustine, whom I\nquote more frequently than any other, as the best and most faithful\nwriter of antiquity, when he states, that after the revelation of\nChrist, sacraments were instituted, \u201cfewer in number, more noble in\nsignification, and more excellent in efficacy.\u201d It is right, also, just\nto apprize the readers, that all the jargon of the sophists respecting\nthe _work wrought_ (_opus operatum_) is not only false, but repugnant to\nthe nature of the sacraments; which God has instituted, in order that\nbelievers, being poor and destitute of every good, may come to them\nsimply confessing their wants, and imploring him to supply them.\nConsequently, in receiving the sacraments, they perform nothing at all\nmeritorious, and the action itself being, as far as they are concerned,\nmerely passive, no _work_ can be attributed to them in it.\n\nFootnote 1095:\n\n  Eph. i. 9.\n\nFootnote 1096:\n\n  Eph. iii. 2, 3.\n\nFootnote 1097:\n\n  Col. i. 26, 27.\n\nFootnote 1098:\n\n  1 Tim. iii. 16.\n\nFootnote 1099:\n\n  Rom. x. 8.\n\nFootnote 1100:\n\n  Acts xv. 9.\n\nFootnote 1101:\n\n  1 Peter iii. 21.\n\nFootnote 1102:\n\n  Rom. iv. 11.\n\nFootnote 1103:\n\n  Gal. iii. 27.\n\nFootnote 1104:\n\n  1 Cor. xii. 13.\n\nFootnote 1105:\n\n  Luke xvii. 5.\n\nFootnote 1106:\n\n  Mark ix. 24.\n\nFootnote 1107:\n\n  Acts viii. 37.\n\nFootnote 1108:\n\n  Psalm cxix. 10; cxi. 1; cxxxviii. 1.\n\nFootnote 1109:\n\n  Psalm xii. 2.\n\nFootnote 1110:\n\n  Matt. xiii. 3-23. Like viii. 5-15.\n\nFootnote 1111:\n\n  1 Cor. ii. 4. 2 Cor. iii. 6, 8.\n\nFootnote 1112:\n\n  1 Cor. iii. 7.\n\nFootnote 1113:\n\n  Gen. iii. 22.\n\nFootnote 1114:\n\n  Eph. ii. 11, 12.\n\nFootnote 1115:\n\n  Gen. ii. 9, 16, 17.\n\nFootnote 1116:\n\n  Gen. ix. 12-17.\n\nFootnote 1117:\n\n  Gen. xv. 17.\n\nFootnote 1118:\n\n  Judges vi. 37-40.\n\nFootnote 1119:\n\n  2 Kings xx. 11.\n\nFootnote 1120:\n\n  Gen. xii. 3; xxii. 18. Gal. iii. 16.\n\nFootnote 1121:\n\n  Rom. iv. 11.\n\nFootnote 1122:\n\n  Heb. ix. 10-14. 1 John i. 7. Rev. i. 5.\n\nFootnote 1123:\n\n  Heb. iv. 14; ix. 11; x. 1-4. Phil. ii. 8. Rom. v. 19.\n\nFootnote 1124:\n\n  1 John v. 8.\n\nFootnote 1125:\n\n  1 John v. 8.\n\nFootnote 1126:\n\n  Col. ii. 17.\n\nFootnote 1127:\n\n  1 Cor. x. 3.\n\nFootnote 1128:\n\n  Rom. iv. 11.\n\nFootnote 1129:\n\n  Rom. ii. 25-29. 1 Cor. vii. 19. Gal. vi. 15.\n\nFootnote 1130:\n\n  1 Pet. iii. 21.\n\nFootnote 1131:\n\n  Col. ii. 11.\n\nFootnote 1132:\n\n  Col. ii. 17.\n\nFootnote 1133:\n\n  Heb. ix. 9; x. 1, 2.\n\nFootnote 1134:\n\n  John vi. 27.\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER XV.\n                                BAPTISM.\n\n\nBaptism is a sign of initiation, by which we are admitted into the\nsociety of the Church, in order that, being incorporated into Christ, we\nmay be numbered among the children of God. Now, it has been given to us\nby God for these ends, which I have shown to be common to all\nsacraments: first, to promote our faith towards him; secondly, to\ntestify our confession before men. We shall treat of both these ends of\nits institution in order. To begin with the first: from baptism our\nfaith derives three advantages, which require to be distinctly\nconsidered. The first is, that it is proposed to us by the Lord, as a\nsymbol and token of our purification; or, to express my meaning more\nfully, it resembles a legal instrument properly attested, by which he\nassures us that all our sins are cancelled, effaced, and obliterated, so\nthat they will never appear in his sight, or come into his remembrance,\nor be imputed to us. For he commands all who believe to be baptized for\nthe remission of their sins. Therefore those who have imagined that\nbaptism is nothing more than a mark or sign by which we profess our\nreligion before men, as soldiers wear the insignia of their sovereign as\na mark of their profession, have not considered that which was the\nprincipal thing in baptism; which is, that we ought to receive it with\nthis promise, \u201cHe that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.\u201d[1135]\n\nII. In this sense we are to understand what is said by Paul, that Christ\nsanctifies and cleanses the Church \u201cwith the washing of water by the\nword;\u201d[1136] and in another place, that \u201caccording to his mercy he saved\nus, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy\nGhost;\u201d[1137] and by Peter, that \u201cbaptism doth save us.\u201d[1138] For it\nwas not the intention of Paul to signify that our ablution and salvation\nare completed by the water, or that water contains in itself the virtue\nto purify, regenerate, and renew; nor did Peter mean that it was the\ncause of salvation, but only that the knowledge and assurance of it is\nreceived in this sacrament; which is sufficiently evident from the words\nthey have used. For Paul connects together the \u201cword of life\u201d and \u201cthe\nbaptism of water;\u201d as if he had said that our ablution and\nsanctification are announced to us by the gospel, and by baptism this\nmessage is confirmed. And Peter, after having said that \u201cbaptism doth\nsave us,\u201d immediately adds that it is \u201cnot the putting away of the filth\nof the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience towards God,\u201d which\nproceeds from faith. But, on the contrary, baptism promises us no other\npurification than by the sprinkling of the blood of Christ; which is\nemblematically represented by water, on account of its resemblance to\nwashing and cleansing. Who, then, can pretend that we are cleansed by\nthat water, which clearly testifies the blood of Christ to be our true\nand only ablution? So that, to refute the error of those who refer all\nto the virtue of the water, no better argument could be found, than in\nthe signification of baptism itself, which abstracts us, as well from\nthat visible element which is placed before our eyes, as from all other\nmeans of salvation, that it may fix our minds on Christ alone.\n\nIII. Nor must it be supposed that baptism is administered only for the\ntime past, so that for sins into which we fall after baptism it would be\nnecessary to seek other new remedies of expiation in I know not what\nother sacraments, as if the virtue of baptism were become obsolete. In\nconsequence of this error, it happened, in former ages, that some\npersons would not be baptized except at the close of their life, and\nalmost in the moment of their death, that so they might obtain pardon\nfor their whole life\u2014a preposterous caution, which is frequently\ncensured in the writings of the ancient bishops. But we ought to\nconclude, that at whatever time we are baptized, we are washed and\npurified for the whole of life. Whenever we have fallen, therefore, we\nmust recur to the remembrance of baptism, and arm our minds with the\nconsideration of it, that we may be always certified and assured of the\nremission of our sins. For though, when it has been once administered,\nit appears to be past, yet it is not abolished by subsequent sins. For\nthe purity of Christ is offered to us in it; and that always retains its\nvirtue, is never overcome by any blemishes, but purifies and obliterates\nall our defilements. Now, from this doctrine we ought not to take a\nlicense for the commission of future sins; for it is very far from\ninculcating such presumption; it is only delivered to those who, when\nthey have sinned, groan under the fatigue and oppression of their\ntransgressions; in order to afford them some relief and consolation, and\nto preserve them from sinking into confusion and despair. Thus Paul\nsays, that Christ was \u201cset forth to be a propitiation for the remission\nof sins that are past.\u201d[1139] He does not deny that we have a constant\nand perpetual remission of sins in Christ, but signifies that he has\nbeen given by the Father only to miserable sinners, who sigh for the\nphysician to heal the wounds of a guilty conscience. To such the mercy\nof God is offered; while those who, from a remission of punishment, seek\nto derive an occasion and license for sinning, do nothing but draw down\nupon themselves the wrath and vengeance of God.\n\nIV. I know the common opinion is, that remission of sins, which at our\nfirst regeneration we receive by baptism alone, is afterwards obtained\nby repentance and the benefit of the keys. But the advocates of this\nopinion have fallen into an error, for want of considering that the\npower of the keys, of which they speak, is so dependent on baptism that\nit cannot by any means be separated from it. It is true, that the sinner\nreceives remission by the ministry of the Church; but not without the\npreaching of the gospel. Now, what is the nature of that preaching? That\nwe are cleansed from our sins by the blood of Christ. What sign and\ntestimony of that ablution is there, except baptism? We see, then, how\nthis absolution is referred to baptism. This error has produced the\nimaginary sacrament of penance; on which I have touched a little\nalready, and shall finish what remains in its proper place. Now, it is\nno wonder if men, whose groveling minds were inordinately attached to\nexternal things, have betrayed that corrupt propensity, by a discontent\nwith the pure institution of God, and an introduction of new expedients\ninvented by themselves; as if baptism itself were not a sacrament of\nrepentance; but if repentance be enjoined upon us as long as we live,\nthe virtue of baptism ought to be extended to the same period. Wherefore\nit is evident that the pious, whenever, in any part of their lives, they\nare distressed with a consciousness of their sins, may justly have\nrecourse to the remembrance of baptism, in order to confirm themselves\nin the confidence of their interest in that one perpetual ablution which\nis enjoyed in the blood of Christ.\n\nV. Baptism is also attended with another advantage: it shows us our\nmortification in Christ, and our new life in him. For, as the apostle\nsays, \u201cSo many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized\ninto his death: therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death,\nthat we should walk in newness of life.\u201d[1140] In this passage he does\nnot merely exhort us to an imitation of Christ, as if he had said, that\nwe are admonished by baptism, that after the example of his death we\nshould die to sin, and that after the example of his resurrection we\nshould rise to righteousness; but he goes considerably further, and\nteaches us, that by baptism Christ has made us partakers of his death,\nin order that we may be ingrafted into it. And as the scion derives\nsubstance and nourishment from the root on which it is ingrafted, so\nthey, who receive baptism with the faith with which they ought to\nreceive it, truly experience the efficacy of Christ\u2019s death in the\nmortification of the flesh, and also the energy of his resurrection in\nthe vivification of the spirit. Hence he deduces matter of exhortation,\nthat, if we are Christians, we ought to be \u201cdead unto sin, but alive\nunto God.\u201d[1141] He uses the same argument in another place; that we\n\u201care circumcised, putting off the body of the sins of the flesh,\u201d after\nwe have been \u201cburied with\u201d Christ \u201cin baptism.\u201d[1142] And in this sense,\nin the passage already quoted, he calls it \u201cthe washing of regeneration\nand renewing.\u201d[1143] Thus we are promised, first, the gratuitous\nremission of sins, and imputation of righteousness; and, secondly, the\ngrace of the Holy Spirit to reform us to newness of life.\n\nVI. The last advantage which our faith receives from baptism, is the\ncertain testimony it affords us, that we are not only ingrafted into the\nlife and death of Christ, but are so united as to be partakers of all\nhis benefits. For this reason he dedicated and sanctified baptism in his\nown body, that he might have it in common with us, as a most firm bond\nof the union and society which he has condescended to form with us; so\nthat Paul proves from it, that we are the children of God, because we\nhave put on Christ in baptism.[1144] Thus we see that the accomplishment\nof baptism is in Christ; whom, on this account, we call the proper\nobject of baptism. Therefore it is no wonder if the apostles baptized in\nhis name,[1145] though they had also been commanded to baptize in the\nname of the Father and of the Spirit.[1146] For all the gifts of God,\nwhich are presented in baptism, are found in Christ alone. Yet it cannot\nbe but that he who baptizes into Christ, equally invokes the name of the\nFather and of the Spirit. For we have purification in his blood, because\nour merciful Father, in his incomparable goodness, being pleased to\nreceive us to his mercy, has appointed this Mediator between us, to\nconciliate his favour to us. But we receive regeneration from his death\nand resurrection, when we are endued with a new and spiritual nature by\nthe sanctification of the Spirit. Of our purification and regeneration,\ntherefore, we obtain, and distinctly perceive, the cause in the Father,\nthe matter in the Son, and the efficacy in the Spirit. Thus John first,\nand the apostles afterwards, baptized \u201cwith the baptism of repentance\nfor the remission of sins;\u201d[1147] by _repentance_, intending\nregeneration, and by _remission of sins_, ablution.\n\nVII. Hence also it is very certain that the ministry of John was\nprecisely the same as that which was afterwards committed to the\napostles. For their baptism was not different, though it was\nadministered by different hands; but the sameness of their doctrine\nshows their baptism to have been the same. John and the apostles agreed\nin the same doctrine; both baptized to repentance, both to remission of\nsins; both baptized in the name of Christ, from whom repentance and\nremission of sins proceed. John said of Christ, \u201cBehold the Lamb of God,\nwhich taketh away the sin of the world;\u201d[1148] thus acknowledging and\ndeclaring him to be the sacrifice acceptable to the Father, the procurer\nof righteousness, and the author of salvation. What could the apostles\nadd to this confession? Wherefore let no one be disturbed by the\nattempts of the ancient writers to distinguish and separate one baptism\nfrom the other; for their authority ought not to have weight enough to\nshake our confidence in the Scripture. For who will attend to\nChrysostom, who denies that remission of sins was included in the\nbaptism of John, rather than to Luke, who, on the contrary, affirms that\n\u201cJohn came preaching the baptism of repentance, for the remission of\nsins?\u201d[1149] Nor must we admit that subtlety of Augustine, \u201cthat in the\nbaptism of John sins were remitted in hope, but in the baptism of Christ\nthey were remitted in fact.\u201d For as the evangelist clearly testifies\nthat John, in his baptism, promised the remission of sins, why should we\ndiminish this commendation, when no necessity constrains us to it? But\nif any difference be sought for in the word of God, the only difference\nthat will be found is, that John baptized in the name of him who was to\ncome, the apostles in the name of him who had already manifested\nhimself.\n\nVIII. The more abundant effusion of the graces of the Spirit, after the\nresurrection of Christ, contributes nothing to establish a diversity of\nbaptisms. For the baptism administered by the apostles, during his life\non earth, was called his; yet it was attended with no greater abundance\nof the Spirit than the baptism of John. And even after his ascension,\nthe Samaritans, even though they had been baptized in the name of Jesus,\nreceived no other gifts of the Spirit than those which were common to\nall believers, till Peter and John were sent to lay their hands upon\nthem.[1150] I suppose that the fathers were misled into an opinion, that\nthe baptism of John was merely a preparation for that of Christ,[1151]\nentirely from an apprehension that some persons, who had previously\nreceived the baptism of John, were baptized again by Paul. But that they\nwere mistaken in this point, shall be very clearly shown in the proper\nplace. What is the meaning, then, of the declaration of John, that he\n\u201cbaptized with water,\u201d but that Christ would come to \u201cbaptize with the\nHoly Ghost and with fire?\u201d[1152] This may be explained in few words; for\nhe did not mean to distinguish between one baptism and the other, but\nwas comparing himself with the person of Christ; that he was a minister\nof water, but that Christ was the giver of the Holy Spirit, and would\ndisplay this power by a visible miracle, on that day when he would send\ndown the Holy Spirit upon the apostles in the form of fiery\ntongues.[1153] What could the apostles boast beyond this? What more can\nthey pretend to, who baptize in the present day? For they are merely\nministers of the outward sign, and Christ is the author of the inward\ngrace; as the same ancient writers invariably teach, and especially\nAugustine, whose principal argument against the Donatists is, that\nwhatever be the character of the person who administers baptism, yet\nChrist alone presides in it.\n\nIX. These things, which we have stated respecting mortification and\nablution, were adumbrated in the people of Israel, whom, on this\naccount, the apostle declares to have been \u201cbaptized in the cloud and in\nthe sea.\u201d[1154] Mortification was figuratively represented, when the\nLord, delivering them from the power and cruel servitude of Pharaoh,\nmade a way for them through the Red Sea, and drowned Pharaoh himself,\nand the Egyptians, their enemies, who pursued, and almost overtook them.\nFor in this manner, in baptism, he promises, and gives us a sign to\nassure us, that we are extricated and delivered by his power from the\ncaptivity of Egypt, that is, from the servitude of sin; that our\nPharaoh, that is, the devil, is drowned, though still he ceases not to\nharass and fatigue us. But as the Egyptians did not remain sunk to the\nbottom of the sea, but, being cast upon the shore, still terrified the\nIsraelites with the dreadful sight, though they were not able to injure\nthem, so this enemy of ours still threatens, displays his arms, and\nmakes himself felt, but cannot overcome. In the cloud there was an\nemblem of ablution. For as the Lord there covered them with a cloud,\naffording them refreshment, that they might not faint and be consumed by\nthe overpowering heat of the sun, so, in baptism, we acknowledge\nourselves to be covered and protected by the blood of Christ, that the\nseverity of God, which is indeed an intolerable flame, may not fall upon\nus. Though this mystery was then obscured, and known only to few\npersons, yet, as there is no other way of obtaining salvation but by\nthose two blessings of grace, the Lord, having adopted the ancient\nfathers as his heirs, was pleased to bestow upon them tokens of both.\n\nX. Now, we may clearly perceive the falsehood of the notion which some\nhave long ago disseminated, and which others persist in\nmaintaining,\u2014that by baptism we are delivered and exempted from original\nsin, and from the corruption which has descended from Adam to all his\nposterity, and are restored to the same righteousness and purity of\nnature which Adam would have obtained if he had continued in the\nintegrity in which he was first created. For teachers of this kind have\nnever understood the nature of original sin, or original righteousness,\nor the grace of baptism. Now, we have already proved that original sin\nis the pravity and corruption of our nature, which first renders us\nobnoxious to the wrath of God, and then produces in us those works which\nthe Scripture calls \u201cworks of the flesh.\u201d[1155] Therefore these two\nthings are to be distinctly observed: first, that our nature being so\nentirely depraved and vitiated, we are, on account of this very\ncorruption, considered as convicted and justly condemned in the sight of\nGod, to whom nothing is acceptable but righteousness, innocence, and\npurity. And therefore even infants themselves bring their own\ncondemnation into the world with them, who, though they have not yet\nproduced the fruits of their iniquity, yet have the seed of it within\nthem; even their whole nature is, as it were, a seed of sin, and\ntherefore cannot but be odious and abominable to God. By baptism,\nbelievers are certified that this condemnation is removed from them;\nsince, as we said, the Lord promises us by this sign, that a full and\nentire remission is granted both of the guilt which is to be imputed to\nus, and of the punishment to be inflicted on account of that guilt; they\nalso receive righteousness, such as the people of God may obtain in this\nlife; that is, only by imputation, because the Lord, in his mercy,\naccepts them as righteous and innocent.\n\nXI. The other thing to be remarked is, that this depravity never ceases\nin us, but is perpetually producing new fruits\u2014those works of the flesh\nwhich we have already described, like the emission of flame and sparks\nfrom a heated furnace, or like the streams of water from an unfailing\nspring. For concupiscence never dies, nor is altogether extinguished in\nmen, till by death they are delivered from the body of death, and\nentirely divested of themselves. Baptism, indeed, promises us the\nsubmersion of our Pharaoh, and the mortification of sin; yet not so that\nit no longer exists, or gives us no further trouble; but only that it\nmay never overcome us. For as long as we live immured in this prison of\nthe body, the relics of sin will dwell in us; but if we hold fast by\nfaith the promise which God has given us in baptism, they shall not\ndomineer or reign over us. But let no one deceive himself, let no one\nflatter himself in his guilt, when he hears that sin always dwells in\nus. These things are not said in order that those who are already too\nprone to do evil may securely sleep in their sins, but only that those\nwho are tempted by their corrupt propensities may not faint and sink\ninto despondency; but that they may rather reflect that they are yet in\nthe way, and may consider themselves as having made some progress, when\nthey experience their corruptions diminishing from day to day, till they\nshall attain the mark at which they are aiming, even the final\ndestruction of their depravity, which will be accomplished at the close\nof this mortal life. In the mean time, let them not cease to fight\nmanfully, to animate themselves to constant advances, and to press\nforward to complete victory. For it ought to give additional impulse to\ntheir exertions, to see that, after they have been striving so long, so\nmuch still remains for them to do. We conclude, therefore, that we are\nbaptized into the mortification of the flesh, which commences in us at\nbaptism, which we pursue from day to day, and which will be perfected\nwhen we shall pass out of this life to the Lord.\n\nXII. Here we say nothing different from what is most clearly stated by\nPaul in the sixth and seventh chapters of the Epistle to the Romans. For\nafter he had argued respecting gratuitous righteousness,\u2014because some\nimpious men concluded from that doctrine that they might live according\nto their own corrupt inclinations, as we are not accepted by God for the\nmerit of our works, he adds, that all who are clothed with the\nrighteousness of Christ are also regenerated by his Spirit, and that of\nthis regeneration we have an earnest in baptism. Hence he exhorts\nbelievers not to suffer sin to reign in their members. Because he knew\nthat there always remains some infirmity in them, that they might not be\ndejected on account of it, he adds for their consolation, that they are\nnot under the law. On the other hand, as it might seem to encourage\nlicentiousness in Christians, to say that they were not under the yoke\nof the law, he discusses the nature of that abrogation, and shows what\nis the use of the law\u2014a question which he had already determined. The\nsum of all that he says is, that we are delivered from the rigour of the\nlaw to adhere to Christ; and that the office of the law is to convince\nus of our depravity, and lead us to a confession of our impotence and\nmisery. Now, because the depravity of our nature is not so easily\ndiscovered in a profane man who indulges his corrupt passions without\nany fear of God, he gives an example in a regenerate man, that is, in\nhimself. He says, therefore, that he has a perpetual conflict with the\nrelics of his corruption, and that he is bound with a miserable\nservitude, which prevents his entire consecration of himself to an\nobedience of the Divine law; so that he is constrained to exclaim, \u201cO\nwretched man that I am! Who shall deliver me from the body of this\ndeath?\u201d If the children of God are captives detained in prison as long\nas they live, they cannot but feel great anxiety from reflection on\ntheir danger, unless there be something to obviate this fear. For this\npurpose, therefore, he has added a consolation, that \u201cthere is now no\ncondemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus;\u201d[1156] by which he\nteaches, that those whom the Lord has once received into his favour,\nincorporated into the communion of his Christ, and introduced by baptism\ninto the society of his Church, notwithstanding they are surrounded and\nassaulted with sin, and even carry sin about within them, yet while they\npersevere in the faith of Christ, are absolved from guilt and\ncondemnation. If this be the simple and genuine meaning of Paul, there\nis no reason why we should be considered as promulgating a new or\nstrange doctrine.\n\nXIII. Baptism also serves for our confession before men. For it is a\nmark by which we openly profess our desire to be numbered among the\npeople of God, by which we testify our agreement with all Christians in\nthe worship of one God, and in one religion, and by which we make a\npublic declaration of our faith; that the praises of God may not only be\nbreathed in the secret aspirations of our hearts, but may also be loudly\nproclaimed by our tongues, and by all the members of our body, in the\ndifferent modes in which they are capable of expressing them. For thus\nall that we have is devoted, as it ought to be, to the glory of God, to\nwhich every thing ought to be subservient, and by our example others are\nincited to the same pursuit. It was with this view that Paul inquired of\nthe Corinthians, whether they had not been baptized in the name of\nChrist; signifying that, in having been baptized in his name, they had\ndedicated themselves to him, had avowed him as their Lord and Master,\nand had bound themselves by a solemn obligation before men; so that they\ncould never again confess any other except him, unless they intended to\nrenounce the confession which they had made at their baptism.\n\nXIV. Now, as we have stated what was the design of our Lord in the\ninstitution of baptism, it is easy to judge in what manner we ought to\nuse and receive it. For as it is given for the support, consolation, and\nconfirmation of our faith, it requires to be received as from the hand\nof the Author himself: we ought to consider it as beyond all doubt, that\nit is he who speaks to us by this sign; that it is he who purifies and\ncleanses us, and obliterates the remembrance of our sins; that it is he\nwho makes us partakers of his death, who demolishes the kingdom of\nSatan, who weakens the power of our corrupt propensities, who even makes\nus one with himself, that, being clothed with him, we may be reckoned\nchildren of God; and that he as truly and certainly performs these\nthings internally on our souls, as we see that our bodies are externally\nwashed, immersed, and enclosed in water. For this analogy or similitude\nis a most certain rule of sacraments; that in corporeal things we\ncontemplate spiritual things, just as if they were placed before our\neyes, as it has pleased God to represent them to us by such figures: not\nthat such blessings are bound or enclosed in the sacrament, or that it\nhas the power to impart them to us; but only because it is a sign by\nwhich the Lord testifies his will, that he is determined to give us all\nthese things: nor does it merely feed our eyes with a bare prospect of\nthe symbols, but conducts us at the same time to the thing signified,\nand efficaciously accomplishes that which it represents.\n\nXV. We may see this exemplified in Cornelius the centurion, who, after\nhaving received the remission of his sins and the visible graces of the\nHoly Spirit, was baptized; not with a view to obtain by baptism a more\nample remission of sins, but a stronger exercise of faith, and an\nincrease of confidence from that pledge.[1157] Perhaps it may be\nobjected, \u201cWhy, then, did Ananias say to Paul, \u2018Arise, and be baptized,\nand wash away thy sins,\u2019[1158] if sins are not washed away by the\nefficacy of baptism itself?\u201d I answer, We are said to receive or obtain\nthat which our faith apprehends, as presented to us by the Lord, whether\nat the time that he first declares it to us, or when, by any subsequent\ntestimony, he affords us a more certain confirmation of it. Ananias,\ntherefore, only intended to say to Paul, \u201cThat thou mayest be assured\nthat thy sins are forgiven, be baptized. For in baptism the Lord\npromises remission of sins; receive this and be secure.\u201d It is not my\ndesign, however, to diminish the efficacy of baptism; but the substance\nand truth accompanies the sign, as God works by external means.\nNevertheless, from this sacrament, as from all others, we obtain nothing\nexcept what we receive by faith. If faith be wanting, it will be a\ntestimony of our ingratitude, to render us guilty before God, because we\nhave not believed the promise given in the sacrament; but as baptism is\na sign of our confession, we ought to testify by it, that our confidence\nis in the mercy of God, and our purity in the remission of sins, which\nis obtained for us by Jesus Christ; and that we enter into the Church of\nGod in order to live in the same harmony of faith and charity, of one\nmind with all the faithful. This is what Paul meant when he said, that\n\u201cby one Spirit we are all baptized into one body.\u201d[1159]\n\nXVI. Now, if it be true, as we have stated, that a sacrament is to be\nconsidered as received, not so much from the hand of him by whom it is\nadministered, as from the hand of God himself, from whom, without doubt,\nit proceeded, we may conclude that it is not capable of any addition or\ndiminution from the dignity of the person by whose hand it is delivered.\nAnd as, among men, if a letter be sent, provided the hand and seal of\nthe writer be known, it is of very little importance who and what the\ncarrier of it may be, so it ought to be sufficient for us to know the\nhand and seal of our Lord in his sacraments, by whatever messenger they\nmay be conveyed. This fully refutes the error of the Donatists, who\nmeasured the virtue and value of the sacrament by the worthiness of the\nminister. Such, in the present day, are our Anabaptists, who positively\ndeny that we are rightly baptized, because we were baptized by impious\nand idolatrous ministers in the kingdom of the pope, and therefore\nviolently urge us to be baptized again; against whose follies we shall\nbe fortified with an argument of sufficient strength, if we consider\nthat we are baptized not in the name of any man, but in the name of the\nFather, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and consequently that it\nis not the baptism of man, but of God, by whomsoever it is administered.\nThough those who baptized us were chargeable with the grossest ignorance\nor contempt of God and of all religion, yet they did not baptize us into\nthe fellowship of their own ignorance or sacrilege, but into the faith\nof Jesus Christ; because they invoked, not their own name, but the name\nof God, and baptized in no other name but his. Now, if it was the\nbaptism of God, it certainly contained the promise of remission of sins,\nmortification of the flesh, spiritual vivification, and participation of\nChrist. Thus it was no injury to the Jews to have been circumcised by\nimpure and apostate priests; nor was the sign on that account useless,\nso as to render it necessary to be repeated, but it was sufficient to\nrecur to the genuine original. They object, that baptism ought to be\ncelebrated in the congregation of the godly; but this does not prove\nthat it loses all its value in consequence of being partially wrong. For\nwhen we teach what ought to be done to preserve baptism pure and free\nfrom every blemish, we do not abolish the institution of God, however\nidolaters corrupt it. For when circumcision was anciently corrupted with\nmany superstitions, yet it ceased not to be considered as a sign of\ngrace; nor, when Hezekiah and Josiah assembled together out of all\nIsrael those who had revolted from God, did they call any of them to a\nsecond circumcision.\n\nXVII. When they ask us what faith we had for many years after our\nbaptism, in order to show that our baptism was vain, since baptism is\nnot sanctified to us except by the word of promise received in faith,\u2014to\nthis inquiry we answer, that being blind and unbelieving for a long\ntime, we did not embrace the promise which had been given us in baptism,\nyet that the promise itself, as it was from God, always remained steady,\nfirm, and true. Though all men were false and perfidious, yet God ceases\nnot to be true; though all men were lost, yet Christ remains a Saviour.\nWe confess, therefore, that during that time we received no advantage\nwhatever from baptism, because we totally neglected the promise offered\nto us in it, without which baptism is nothing. Now, since, by the grace\nof God, we have begun to repent, we accuse our blindness and hardness of\nheart for our long ingratitude to his great goodness; yet we believe\nthat the promise itself never expired, but, on the contrary, we reason\nin the following manner:\u2014By baptism God promises remission of sins, and\nwill certainly fulfil the promise to all believers: that promise was\noffered to us in baptism; let us, therefore, embrace it by faith: it was\nlong dormant by reason of our unbelief; now, then, let us receive it by\nfaith. Wherefore, when God exhorts the Jewish people to repentance, he\ndoes not command them, who had been circumcised, as we have remarked, by\nimpious and sacrilegious hands, and who had lived for some time immersed\nin the same impiety, to be circumcised again: he only urges conversion\nof heart. For however the covenant had been violated by them, yet the\nsymbol of the covenant, according to the institution of the Lord, always\nremained firm and inviolable. On the sole condition of repentance,\ntherefore, they were restored to the covenant which God had once made\nwith them in circumcision; even though they had received it by the hands\nof the unfaithful priests, and had themselves done all that was in their\npower to corrupt it and render it ineffectual.\n\nXVIII. But they conceive themselves to be armed with an invincible\nargument, when they allege that Paul rebaptized some who had previously\nbeen baptized with the baptism of John.[1160] For if, by our own\nconfession, the baptism of John was in all respects the same as ours is\nnow,\u2014as these persons who had first been erroneously instructed, after\nhaving been taught the right faith, were rebaptized into it, so that\nbaptism, which was unaccompanied with the true doctrine, should be\nconsidered as nothing, and we ought to be baptized afresh into the true\nreligion, which we have now first imbibed. It is supposed by some, that\nthey had received their first baptism from a pretended and corrupt\nimitator of John, who had rather baptized them into a vain superstition\nthan into the truth. This conjecture they seem to derive from the\nconfession of those persons that they were entirely ignorant of the Holy\nSpirit\u2014an ignorance in which it is concluded John would not have\nsuffered his disciples to remain. But it is not probable that Jews, even\nthough they had never been baptized at all, would have been destitute of\nall knowledge of the Holy Spirit, who is celebrated in so many\ntestimonies of Scripture. The answer, therefore, which they gave, \u201cWe\nhave not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost,\u201d is to be\nunderstood as equivalent to a declaration that they had never heard\nwhether the graces of the Spirit, respecting which Paul inquired, were\ngiven to the disciples of Christ. For myself, I grant that the baptism\nthey had received was the true baptism of John, and the very same with\nthe baptism of Christ; but I deny that they were baptized again. What is\nthe meaning of these words, \u201cThey were baptized in the name of the Lord\nJesus?\u201d Some explain it to be, that they were only instructed by Paul in\nthe pure doctrine; but I prefer understanding it, in a more simple\nmanner, of the baptism of the Holy Spirit; that is, of the visible\ngraces of the Spirit given by imposition of hands. It is not uncommon in\nthe Scripture to designate those graces by the appellation of _baptism_;\nas on the day of Pentecost, the apostles are said to have remembered the\nwords of the Lord respecting the baptism of the Spirit and of fire. And\nPeter declared that he remembered the same, when he saw those graces\npoured out on Cornelius and his family and relatives. Nor is this\ninterpretation inconsistent with what is stated afterwards, that \u201cWhen\nPaul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them.\u201d For\nLuke does not relate two different things, but follows a mode of\nnarration familiar to the Hebrews, who first propose a subject\ngenerally, and then unfold it more in detail. This is obvious from the\nvery connection of the words; for he says, \u201cWhen they heard this, they\nwere baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And when Paul had laid his\nhands on them, the Holy Ghost came on them.\u201d The latter clause describes\nthe kind of baptism intended in the former. If ignorance vitiate a first\nbaptism, so that it requires to be corrected by a second, the first\npersons who ought to have been rebaptized were the apostles themselves,\nwho for three years after their baptism had scarcely any knowledge of\nthe least particle of pure doctrine. And among us, what rivers would be\nsufficient for the repetition of ablutions as numerous as the errors\nwhich are daily corrected in us by the mercy of the Lord!\n\nXIX. The virtue, dignity, utility, and end of this mystery, have now, if\nI mistake not, been sufficiently explained. With respect to the external\nsymbol, I sincerely wish that the genuine institution of Christ had the\ninfluence it ought to have, to repress the audacity of man. For, as\nthough it were a contemptible thing to be baptized in water, according\nto the precept of Christ, men have invented a benediction, or rather\nincantation, to pollute the true consecration of the water. They\nafterwards added a wax taper with chrism; exorcism seemed to open the\ngate to baptism. Now, though I am not ignorant of the ancient origin of\nthis adventitious medley, yet it is lawful for me and for all believers\nto reject every thing that men have presumed to add to the institution\nof Christ. Now, Satan, seeing that from the very first introduction of\nthe gospel, his impostures had been easily received by the foolish\ncredulity of the world, proceeded to grosser illusions; hence spittle,\nsalt, and other fooleries, which were publicly introduced with an\nunlimited license, to the reproach of baptism. From these experiments we\nmay learn that there is nothing holier, or better, or safer, than to\ncontent ourselves with the authority of Christ alone. How much better\nwas it, therefore, omitting all theatrical pomps which dazzle the eyes\nand stupefy the minds of the simple, whenever any one was to be\nbaptized, that he should be presented to the congregation of believers,\nand be offered to God in the presence and with the prayers of the whole\nChurch; that the confession of faith, in which the catechumen was to be\ninstructed, should be recited; that the promises which are included in\nbaptism should be declared; that the catechumen should be baptized in\nthe name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; and lastly,\nthat he should be dismissed with prayers and thanksgivings! Thus nothing\nmaterial would be omitted; and that one ceremony, which was instituted\nby God, would shine with the greatest lustre, unencumbered with any\nextraneous corruptions. But whether the person who is baptized be wholly\nimmersed, and whether thrice or once, or whether water be only poured or\nsprinkled upon him, is of no importance; Churches ought to be left at\nliberty, in this respect, to act according to the difference of\ncountries. The very word _baptize_, however, signifies to immerse; and\nit is certain that immersion was the practice of the ancient Church.\n\nXX. It is also necessary to state, that it is not right for private\npersons to take upon themselves the administration of baptism; for this,\nas well as the administration of the Lord\u2019s supper, is a part of the\npublic ministry of the Church. Christ never commanded women, or men in\ngeneral, to baptize; he gave this charge to those whom he had appointed\nto be apostles. And when he enjoined his disciples, in the celebration\nof the supper, to do as they had seen done by him when he executed the\noffice of a legitimate dispenser, he intended, without doubt, that they\nshould imitate his example. The custom, which has been received and\npractised for many ages past, and almost from the primitive times of the\nChurch, for baptism to be performed by laymen, in cases where death was\napprehended, and no minister was present in time, it appears to me\nimpossible to defend by any good reason. Indeed, the ancients\nthemselves, who either observed or tolerated this custom, were not\ncertain whether it was right or not. Augustine betrays this uncertainty,\nwhen he says, \u201cAnd if a layman, compelled by necessity, has given\nbaptism, I know not whether any one may piously affirm that it ought to\nbe repeated. For if it be done without the constraint of necessity, it\nis a usurpation of an office which belongs to another; but if necessity\nobliges, it is either no offence, or a venial one.\u201d Respecting women, it\nwas decreed without any exception, in the Council of Carthage, that they\nshould not presume to baptize at all, on pain of excommunication. But it\nis alleged, there is danger, lest a child, who is sick and dies without\nbaptism, should be deprived of the grace of regeneration. This I can by\nno means admit. God pronounces that he adopts our infants as his\nchildren, before they are born, when he promises that he will be a God\nto us, and to our seed after us. This promise includes their salvation.\nNor will any dare to offer such an insult to God as to deny the\nsufficiency of his promise to insure its own accomplishment. The\nmischievous consequences of that ill-stated notion, that baptism is\nnecessary to salvation, are overlooked by persons in general, and\ntherefore they are less cautious; for the reception of an opinion, that\nall who happen to die without baptism are lost, makes our condition\nworse than that of the ancient people, as though the grace of God were\nmore restricted now than it was under the law; it leads to the\nconclusion that Christ came not to fulfil the promises, but to abolish\nthem; since the promise, which at that time was of itself sufficiently\nefficacious to insure salvation before the eighth day, would have no\nvalidity now without the assistance of the sign.\n\nXXI. What was the custom of the Church before Augustine was born, may be\ncollected from the ancient fathers. In the first place, Tertullian says,\n\u201cThat it is not permitted for a woman to speak in the Church, neither to\nteach, nor to baptize, nor to offer, that she may not claim to herself\nthe functions of any office belonging to men, and especially to\npriests.\u201d The same thing is fully attested by Epiphanius, when he\ncensures Marcion for having given women liberty to baptize. I am aware\nof the answer made to this by persons of opposite sentiments\u2014that there\nis a great difference between a common usage, and an extraordinary\nremedy employed in cases of urgent necessity; but when Epiphanius\npronounces it to be a mockery, without making any exception, to give\nwomen liberty to baptize, it is sufficiently evident that he condemns\nthis corruption, and considers it inexcusable by any pretext whatever;\nnor does he add any limitation, in his third book, where he observes\nthat this liberty was not granted even to the holy mother of Christ.\n\nXXII. The example of Zipporah is alleged, but is not applicable to the\ncase. Because the angel of God was appeased after she had taken a stone\nand circumcised her son,[1161] it is unreasonable to infer that her\naction was approved by God. On the same principle it might be\nmaintained, that God was pleased with the worship established by the\nnations who were transplanted from Assyria to Samaria. But there are\nother powerful reasons to prove the absurdity of setting up the conduct\nof that foolish woman as a pattern for imitation. If I should allege,\nthat this was a single act, which ought not to be considered as a\ngeneral example, and especially as we nowhere find any special command\nthat the rite of circumcision was to be performed by the priests, the\ncase of circumcision is different from that of baptism; and this would\nbe sufficient to refute the advocates of its administration by women.\nFor the words of Christ are plain: \u201cGo ye, therefore, and teach all\nnations, baptizing them.\u201d[1162] Since he constitutes the same persons\npreachers of the gospel and administrators of baptism, \u201cand no man,\u201d\naccording to the testimony of the apostle, \u201ctaketh this honour upon\nhimself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron,\u201d[1163] whoever\nbaptizes without a legitimate call, intrudes into another person\u2019s\noffice. Even in the minutest things, as in meat and drink, whatever we\ndo with a doubtful conscience, Paul expressly declares to be sin.[1164]\nFemale baptism, therefore, being an open violation of the rule delivered\nby Christ, is a still greater sin; for we know that it is impious to\ndissever things which God has united. But all this I pass over; and\nwould only request my readers to consider that nothing was further from\nthe design of Zipporah, than to perform a service to God. For seeing her\nson to be in danger, she fretted and murmured, and indignantly cast the\nforeskin on the ground, reproaching her husband in such a manner as to\nbetray anger against God. In short, it is plain that all this proceeded\nfrom violence of temper, because she was displeased with God and her\nhusband that she was constrained to shed the blood of her son. Besides,\nif she had conducted herself with propriety in all other respects, yet\nit was an act of inexcusable presumption for her to circumcise her son\nin the presence of her husband, and that husband not a private man, but\nMoses, the principal prophet of God, who was never succeeded by a\ngreater in Israel; which was no more lawful for her to do, than it is\nfor women now to baptize in the presence of a bishop. But this\ncontroversy will easily be decided by the establishment of this\nprinciple\u2014that infants are not excluded from the kingdom of heaven, who\nhappen to die before they have had the privilege of baptism. But we have\nseen that it is no small injustice to the covenant of God, if we do not\nrely upon it as sufficient of itself, since its fulfilment depends not\non baptism, or on any thing adventitious. The sacrament is afterwards\nadded as a seal, not to give efficacy to the promise of God, as if it\nwanted validity in itself, but only to confirm it to us. Whence it\nfollows, that the children of believers are not baptized, that they may\nthereby be made the children of God, as if they had before been\nstrangers to the Church; but, on the contrary, they are received into\nthe Church by a solemn sign, because they already belonged to the body\nof Christ by virtue of the promise. If the omission of the sign,\ntherefore, be not occasioned by indolence, or contempt, or negligence,\nwe are safe from all danger. It is far more consistent with piety to\nshow this reverence to the institution of God, not to receive the\nsacraments from any other hands than those to which the Lord has\ncommitted them. When it is impossible to receive them from the Church,\nthe grace of God is not so attached to them, but that we may obtain it\nby faith from the word of the Lord.\n\nFootnote 1135:\n\n  Mark xvi. 16.\n\nFootnote 1136:\n\n  Eph. v. 26.\n\nFootnote 1137:\n\n  Titus iii. 5.\n\nFootnote 1138:\n\n  1 Peter iii. 21.\n\nFootnote 1139:\n\n  Rom. iii. 25.\n\nFootnote 1140:\n\n  Rom. vi. 3, 4.\n\nFootnote 1141:\n\n  Rom. vi. 11.\n\nFootnote 1142:\n\n  Col. ii. 11, 12.\n\nFootnote 1143:\n\n  Titus iii. 6.\n\nFootnote 1144:\n\n  Gal. iii. 26, 27.\n\nFootnote 1145:\n\n  Acts viii. 16.\n\nFootnote 1146:\n\n  Matt. xxviii. 19.\n\nFootnote 1147:\n\n  Matt. iii. 6, 11. Luke iii. 3. John iii. 23; iv. 1. Acts ii. 38, 41.\n\nFootnote 1148:\n\n  John i. 29.\n\nFootnote 1149:\n\n  Luke iii. 3.\n\nFootnote 1150:\n\n  Acts viii. 14-17.\n\nFootnote 1151:\n\n  Acts xix. 3-5.\n\nFootnote 1152:\n\n  Matt. iii. 11.\n\nFootnote 1153:\n\n  Acts ii. 3.\n\nFootnote 1154:\n\n  1 Cor. x. 2.\n\nFootnote 1155:\n\n  Gal. v. 19.\n\nFootnote 1156:\n\n  Rom. viii. 1.\n\nFootnote 1157:\n\n  Acts x. 44-48.\n\nFootnote 1158:\n\n  Acts xxii. 16.\n\nFootnote 1159:\n\n  1 Cor. xii. 13.\n\nFootnote 1160:\n\n  Acts xix. 1-6.\n\nFootnote 1161:\n\n  Exod. iv. 25.\n\nFootnote 1162:\n\n  Matt. xxviii. 19.\n\nFootnote 1163:\n\n  Heb. v. 4.\n\nFootnote 1164:\n\n  Rom. xiv. 23.\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER XVI.\nP\u00c6DOBAPTISM PERFECTLY CONSISTENT WITH THE INSTITUTION OF CHRIST AND THE\n                          NATURE OF THE SIGN.\n\n\nAs some turbulent spirits in the present age have raised fierce\ndisputes, which still continue to agitate the Church, on the subject of\ninfant baptism, I cannot refrain from adding some observations with a\nview to repress their violence. If any one should think this chapter\nextended to an immoderate length, I would request him to consider, that\npurity of doctrine in a capital point, and the peace of the Church,\nought to be of too much importance in our estimation for us to feel any\nthing tedious which may conduce to the restoration of both. I shall also\nstudy to make this discussion of as much use as possible to a further\nelucidation of the mystery of baptism. They attack infant baptism with\nan argument which carries with it an appearance of great plausibility,\nasserting that it is not founded on any institution of Christ, but was\nfirst introduced by the presumption and corrupt curiosity of man, and\nafterwards received with foolish and inconsiderate facility. For a\nsacrament rests on no authority, unless it stands on the certain\nfoundation of the word of God. But what if, on a full examination of the\nsubject, it shall appear that this is a false and groundless calumny on\nthe holy ordinance of the Lord? Let us, therefore, inquire into its\nfirst origin. And if it shall be found to have been a mere invention of\nhuman presumption, we ought to renounce it, and regulate the true\nobservance of baptism solely by the will of God. But if it shall be\nproved to be sanctioned by his undoubted authority, it behoves us to\nbeware lest, by opposing the holy institutions of God, we offer an\ninsult to their Author himself.\n\nII. In the first place, it is a principle sufficiently known, and\nacknowledged by all believers, that the right consideration of\nsacramental signs consists not merely in the external ceremonies, but\nthat it chiefly depends on the promise and the spiritual mysteries which\nthe Lord has appointed those ceremonies to represent. Whoever,\ntherefore, wishes to be fully informed of the meaning of baptism, and\nwhat baptism is, must not fix his attention on the element and the\noutward spectacle, but must rather elevate his thoughts to the promises\nof God which are offered to us in it, and to those internal and\nspiritual things which it represents to us. He who discovers these\nthings, has attained the solid truth and all the substance of baptism,\nand thence he will also learn the reason and use of the external\nsprinkling. On the other hand, he who contemptuously disregards these\nthings, and confines his attention entirely to the visible ceremony,\nwill understand neither the force nor propriety of baptism, nor even the\nmeaning or use of the water. This sentiment is established by\ntestimonies of Scripture too numerous and clear to leave the least\nnecessity for pursuing it any further at present. It remains, therefore,\nthat from the promises given in baptism, we endeavour to deduce its\nnature and meaning. The Scripture shows, that the first thing\nrepresented in it, is the remission and purgation of sins, which we\nobtain in the blood of Christ; and the second the mortification of the\nflesh, which consists in the participation of his death, by which\nbelievers are regenerated to newness of life, and so into communion with\nhim. This is the sum to which we may refer every thing delivered in the\nScriptures concerning baptism, except that it is also a sign by which we\ntestify our religion before men.\n\nIII. As the people of God, before the institution of baptism, had\ncircumcision instead of it, let us examine the similarity and difference\nbetween these two signs, in order to discover how far we may argue from\none to the other. When the Lord gave Abraham the command of\ncircumcision, he prefaced it by saying, \u201cI will be a God unto thee, and\nto thy seed after thee;\u201d at the same time declaring himself to be\n\u201cAlmighty,\u201d having an abundance of all things at his disposal, that\nAbraham might expect to find his hand the source of every\nblessing.[1165] These words contain the promise of eternal life,\naccording to the interpretation of Christ, who deduces from this\ndeclaration an argument to evince the immortality and resurrection of\nbelievers. \u201cFor God,\u201d says he, \u201cis not the God of the dead, but of the\nliving.\u201d[1166] Wherefore also Paul, in showing the Ephesians from what\nmisery the Lord had delivered them, concludes, from their not having\nbeen admitted to the covenant of circumcision, that \u201cat that time\u201d they\n\u201cwere without Christ, strangers from the covenants of promise, having no\nhope and without God;\u201d[1167] all these things being comprehended in that\ncovenant. But the first access to God, the first entrance into immortal\nlife, is the remission of sins. Whence it follows that this promise\ncorresponds with the promise of baptism respecting our purgation. The\nLord afterwards stipulated with Abraham, that he should walk before him\nin sincerity and purity of heart: this belongs to mortification, or\nregeneration. And to preclude any doubt that circumcision is a sign of\nmortification, Moses more expressly declares it in another place, when\nhe exhorts the Israelites to circumcise their hearts, because the Lord\nhad chosen them for himself above all the nations of the earth. As God,\nwhen he adopts the posterity of Abraham to be his people, commands them\nto be circumcised, so Moses pronounces it to be necessary to circumcise\nthe heart, thereby declaring the true signification of that carnal\ncircumcision.[1168] Then, that no one might attempt this in his own\nstrength, he teaches that it is the work of Divine grace.[1169] All\nthese things are so often inculcated by the prophets, that there is no\nneed to collect here the numerous testimonies which every where present\nthemselves. We have ascertained, therefore, that a spiritual promise,\nthe very same which is given to us in baptism, was given to the fathers\nin circumcision; which represented to them the remission of sins and the\nmortification of the flesh. Moreover, as we have shown that Christ, in\nwhom both these things are obtained, is the foundation of baptism, the\nsame must be evident of circumcision. For he was promised to Abraham,\nand in him the blessing of all nations; and the sign of circumcision was\nadded in confirmation of this grace.\n\nIV. There is now no difficulty in discovering what similarity or what\ndifference there is between these two signs. The promise, in which we\nhave stated the virtue of the signs to consist, is the same in both;\nincluding the paternal favour of God, remission of sins, and eternal\nlife. In the next place, the thing signified also is one and the same,\nnamely, regeneration. The foundation, on which the accomplishment of\nthese things rests, is the same in both. Wherefore there is no\ndifference in the internal mystery, by which all the force and peculiar\nnature of sacraments must be determined. All the difference lies in the\nexternal ceremony, which is the smallest portion of it; whereas the\nprincipal part depends on the promise and the thing signified. We may\nconclude, therefore, that whatever belongs to circumcision, except the\ndifference of the visible ceremony, belongs also to baptism. To this\ninference and comparison we are led by the apostle\u2019s rule, which directs\nus to examine every interpretation of Scripture by the proportion of\nfaith.[1170] And, indeed, the truth on this subject is obvious to the\nslightest observation. For as circumcision was a pledge to the Jews, by\nwhich they were assured of their adoption as the people and family of\nGod, and on their parts professed their entire subjection to him, and\ntherefore was their first entrance into the Church, so now we are\ninitiated into the Church of God by baptism, are numbered among his\npeople, and profess to devote ourselves to his service. Hence it is\nevident, beyond all controversy, that baptism has succeeded in the place\nof circumcision.\n\nV. Now, if it be inquired, whether baptism may rightly be administered\nto infants, shall we not pronounce it an excess of folly, and even\nmadness, in any one who resolves to dwell entirely on the element of\nwater and the external observance, and cannot bear to direct his\nthoughts to the spiritual mystery; a due consideration of which will\nprove, beyond all doubt, that baptism is justly administered to infants,\nas that to which they are fully entitled? For the Lord, in former ages,\ndid not favour them with circumcision without making them partakers of\nall those things which were then signified by circumcision. Otherwise,\nhe must have deluded his people with mere impostures, if he deceived\nthem by fallacious symbols; which it is dreadful even to hear. For he\nexpressly pronounces that the circumcision of a little infant should\nserve as a seal for the confirmation of the covenant. But if the\ncovenant remains firm and unmoved, it belongs to the children of\nChristians now, as much as it did to the infants of the Jews under the\nOld Testament. But if they are partakers of the thing signified, why\nshall they be excluded from the sign? If they obtain the truth, why\nshall they be debarred from the figure? Though the external sign in the\nsacrament is so connected with the word, as not to be separated from it,\nyet if it be distinguished, which shall we esteem of the greater\nimportance? Certainly, when we see that the sign is subservient to the\nword, we shall pronounce it to be inferior to it, and assign it the\nsubordinate place. While the word of baptism, then, is directed to\ninfants, why shall the sign, which is an appendix to the word, be\nprohibited to them? This one reason, if there were no others, would be\nabundantly sufficient for the refutation of all opposers. The objection\nthat there was a particular day fixed for circumcision, is a mere\nevasion. We admit that we are not now bound to certain days, like the\nJews; but when the Lord, though he prescribes no particular day, yet\ndeclares it to be his pleasure that infants shall be received into his\ncovenant by a solemn rite, what do we want more?\n\nVI. The Scripture, however, still affords a more certain knowledge of\nthe truth. For it is most evident that the covenant which the Lord once\nmade with Abraham continues as much in force with Christians in the\npresent day, as it did formerly with the Jews; and consequently that\nthat word is no less applicable to Christians than it was to the Jews.\nUnless we suppose that Christ by his advent diminished or curtailed the\ngrace of the Father; which is execrable blasphemy. Wherefore the\nchildren of the Jews, because they were made heirs of that covenant, and\ndistinguished from the children of the impious, were called a holy seed;\nand for the same reason, the children of Christians, even when only one\nof the parents is pious, are accounted holy, and according to the\ntestimony of the apostle, differ from the impure seed of idolaters. Now,\nas the Lord, immediately after having made the covenant with Abraham,\ncommanded it to be sealed in infants by an external sacrament, what\ncause will Christians assign why they should not also at this day\ntestify and seal the same in their children? Nor let it be objected,\nthat the Lord commanded not his covenant to be confirmed by any other\nsymbol than that of circumcision, which has long ago been abolished. For\nit is easy to reply, that during the time of the Old Testament he\nappointed circumcision for the confirmation of his covenant; but that\nsince the abrogation of circumcision, there always remains the same\nreason for confirming it, which we have in common with the Jews. It is\nnecessary, therefore, to be careful in observing what we have in common\nwith them, and what they had different from us. The covenant is common,\nthe reason for confirming it is common. Only the mode of confirmation is\ndifferent; for to them it was confirmed by circumcision, which among us\nhas been succeeded by baptism. Otherwise, if the testimony by which the\nJews were assured of the salvation of their seed be taken away from us,\nthe effect of the advent of Christ has been to render the grace of God\nmore obscure and less attested to us than it was to the Jews. If this\ncannot be affirmed without great dishonour to Christ, by whom the\ninfinite goodness of God has been diffused over the earth, and\nmanifested to men in a more conspicuous and liberal manner than at any\nformer period, we must be obliged to confess, that at least it ought not\nto be more concealed or less attested than under the obscure shadows of\nthe law.\n\nVII. Wherefore the Lord Jesus, to exhibit a specimen from which the\nworld might understand that he was come to extend rather than to limit\nthe mercy of the Father, kindly received the infants that were presented\nto him, and embraced them in his arms, chiding his disciples who\nendeavoured to forbid their approach to him, because they would keep\nthose, of whom was the kingdom of heaven, at a distance from him who is\nthe only way of entrance into it. But some will object, What resemblance\ndoes this embrace of Christ bear to baptism? for he is not said to have\nbaptized them, but to have received them, taken them in his arms, and\nblessed them; therefore, if we desire to imitate his example, let us\nassist infants with our prayers, but let us not baptize them. But it is\nnecessary to consider the conduct of Christ with more attention than it\nreceives from persons of this class. For it is not to be passed over as\na thing of little importance, that Christ commanded infants to be\nbrought to him, and added, as a reason for this command, \u201cFor of such is\nthe kingdom of heaven;\u201d and afterwards gave a practical testimony of his\nwill, when, embracing them in his arms, he commended them to his Father\nby his prayers and benedictions. If it be reasonable for infants to be\nbrought to Christ, why is it not allowable to admit them to baptism, the\nsymbol of our communion and fellowship with Christ? If of them is the\nkingdom of heaven, why shall they be denied the sign, which opens, as it\nwere, an entrance into the Church, that, being received into it, they\nmay be enrolled among the heirs of the heavenly kingdom? How unjust\nshall we be, if we drive away from Christ those whom he invites to him;\nif we deprive them of the gifts with which he adorns them; if we exclude\nthose whom he freely admits! But if we examine how far what Christ did\non that occasion differs from baptism, how much greater importance shall\nwe attach to baptism, by which we testify that infants are included in\nthe covenant of God, than to the reception, the embrace, the imposition\nof hands, and the prayers by which Jesus Christ himself acknowledged\nthem as his, and declared them to be sanctified by him! The other cavils\nby which our opponents endeavour to elude the force of this passage,\nonly betray their ignorance. For they argue that as Christ said, \u201cSuffer\nlittle children to _come_,\u201d they must have been grown to such an age and\nstature as to be capable of walking. But they are called by the\nevangelists \u0392\u03c1\u03b5\u03c6\u03b7; and \u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03b4\u03b9\u03b1, two words used by the Greeks to signify\nlittle infants hanging on the breast. The word \u201c_come_,\u201d therefore, is\nmerely used to denote \u201c_access_.\u201d To such evasions are persons obliged\nto have recourse, who resist the truth. Nor is there any more solidity\nin the objection, that the kingdom of heaven is not said to belong to\ninfants, but to those who resemble them, because the expression is, not\nof _them_, but \u201cof _such_ is the kingdom of heaven.\u201d For if this be\nadmitted, what kind of reason would it be that Christ assigns, with a\nview to show that infants in age ought not to be prevented from\napproaching him, when he says, \u201cSuffer little children to come unto me?\u201d\nNothing can be plainer than that he intends those who are in a state of\nreal infancy. And to prevent this from being thought unreasonable, he\nadds, \u201cOf such is the kingdom of heaven.\u201d And if infants be necessarily\ncomprehended, it is beyond all doubt that the word \u201c_such_\u201d designates\nboth infants themselves and those who resemble them.[1171]\n\nVIII. Now, every one must perceive, that the baptism of infants, which\nis so strongly supported by the authority of Scripture, is very far from\nbeing an invention of men. Nor is there much plausibility in the\nobjection, that it is nowhere stated that even a single infant was\nbaptized by the hands of the apostles. For though no such circumstance\nis expressly mentioned by the evangelists, yet, on the other hand, as\nthey are never excluded when mention happens to be made of the baptism\nof any family, who can rationally conclude from this, that they were not\nbaptized? If there were any force in such arguments, women might as well\nbe interdicted from the Lord\u2019s supper, because we have no account of\ntheir having been admitted to it in the days of the apostles. But in\nthis we are content with the rule of faith. For when we consider the\ndesign of the institution of the Lord\u2019s supper, the conclusion is easy\nrespecting the persons who ought to be admitted to a participation of\nit. We observe the same rule also in the case of baptism. For when we\nconsider the end of its institution, we evidently perceive that it\nbelongs to infants as well as to adults. Therefore they cannot be\ndeprived of it without a manifest evasion of the will of the Divine\nAuthor. What they circulate among the uninformed multitude, that after\nthe resurrection of Christ, a long series of years passed, in which\ninfant baptism was unknown, is shamefully contrary to truth; for there\nis no ancient writer who does not refer its origin, as a matter of\ncertainty, to the age of the apostles.\n\nIX. It remains for us briefly to show what advantage results from this\nceremony, both to believers who present their children to the Church to\nbe baptized, and to the infants themselves who are washed in the holy\nwater; to guard it from being despised as useless or unimportant. But if\nany man takes it into his head to ridicule infant baptism on this\npretext, he holds the command of circumcision, which was given by the\nLord, in equal contempt. For what will they allege to impugn the baptism\nof infants, which may not be retorted against circumcision? Thus the\nLord avenges the arrogance of those, who forthwith condemn what their\ncarnal sense does not comprehend. But God furnishes us with other\nweapons to repel their folly; nor does this sacred ordinance of his\nappointment, which we experience to be a source of peculiar support and\nconsolation to our faith, deserve to be called unnecessary. For this\nsign of God, communicated to a child, like the impress of a seal,\nratifies and confirms the promise given to the pious parent, declaring\nthat the Lord will be a God, not only to him, but also to his seed, and\nthat he is determined to exercise his goodness and grace, not only\ntowards him, but towards his posterity even to a thousand generations.\nThe manifestation here given of the mercy of God, in the first place,\nfurnishes the most abundant matter for the celebration of his glory; and\nin the second place, fills pious breasts with more than common joy, by\nwhich they are excited to a more ardent return of affection to such an\nindulgent Father, in whom they discover such care of their posterity on\ntheir account. Nor shall I regard an objection, if it should be urged,\nthat the mere promise of God ought to be sufficient to assure us of the\nsalvation of our children; since God, who knows our weakness, and has\nbeen pleased in this instance to indulge it, has decided otherwise. Let\nthose, therefore, who embrace the promise of God that he will perpetuate\nhis mercy to their offspring, consider it their duty to present them to\nthe Church to be signed with the symbol of mercy, and thereby to animate\ntheir minds to stronger confidence, when they actually see the covenant\nof the Lord engraven on the bodies of their children. The children also\nreceive some advantage from their baptism, their ingrafting into the\nbody of the Church being a more peculiar recommendation of them to the\nother members; and afterwards, when they grow to years of maturity, it\noperates upon them as a powerful stimulus to a serious attention to the\nworship of God, by whom they were accepted as his children by the solemn\nsymbol of adoption, before they were capable of knowing him as their\nFather. Finally, we ought to be alarmed by the vengeance which God\nthreatens to inflict, if any one disdains to mark his son with the\nsymbol of the covenant; for the contempt of that symbol involves the\nrejection and abjuration of the grace which it presents.\n\nX. Let us now discuss the arguments with which some violent disputants\ncontinue to impugn this holy institution of God. In the first place,\nfinding themselves very hardly pressed and exceedingly embarrassed by\nthe similarity of baptism and circumcision, they labour to establish a\nconsiderable difference between these two signs, that one may appear to\nhave nothing in common with the other. For they affirm, first, that\ndifferent things are signified; secondly, that the covenant is entirely\ndifferent; and thirdly, that the children are mentioned in a different\nmanner. But when they endeavour to prove the first point, they allege\nthat circumcision was a figure of mortification, and not of baptism;\nwhich we most readily grant, for it is an excellent argument in our\nfavour. We urge no other proof of our sentiment, than that baptism and\ncircumcision are equally signs of mortification. Hence we conclude, that\nbaptism was introduced in the place of circumcision, and represents to\nus the very same thing which that formerly did to the Jews. In asserting\na difference of the covenant, with what presumption and absurdity do\nthey corrupt the Scripture, and that not in a single passage, but\nwithout leaving any part of it secure from their perversions. For they\nrepresent the carnality of the Jews to be such, as to give them a\ngreater resemblance to brutes than to rational beings; contending that\nthe covenant made with them was limited to a temporary life, and that\nthe promises given to them were all confined to present and corporeal\nenjoyments. If this notion be admitted, what remains but to consider the\nJewish people as pampered for a season by the Divine bounty, (like a\nherd of swine, fattened in a sty,) to perish at length in eternal ruin?\nFor whenever we adduce circumcision and the promises annexed to it, they\nreply, that circumcision was a literal sign, and that the promises\nconnected with it were all carnal.\n\nXI. Certainly, if circumcision was a literal sign, the same opinion must\nbe formed of baptism; for the apostle makes one no more spiritual than\nthe other. He says to the Colossians, \u201cIn Christ ye are circumcised with\nthe circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins\nof the flesh;\u201d and this he calls \u201cthe circumcision of Christ.\u201d In\nexplication of this sentiment, he adds, that they were \u201cburied with\nChrist in baptism.\u201d[1172] What is the meaning of this language, but that\nthe accomplishment and truth of baptism is the same with the\naccomplishment and truth of circumcision, since they both represent the\nsame thing? For his design is to show that baptism was to Christians the\nsame that circumcision had before been to the Jews. But as we have now\nclearly evinced that the promises of these two signs, and the mysteries\nrepresented by them, are precisely the same, we shall insist no longer\non this point at present. I will only recommend believers to consider,\nwhether that sign ought to be accounted earthly and literal, which\ncontains nothing but what is spiritual and heavenly. But to guard the\nsimple against their fallacies, we shall briefly reply by the way to one\nobjection, by which they endeavour to support this shameful\nmisrepresentation. It is very certain that the principal promises of the\ncovenant, which God made with the Israelites under the Old Testament,\nwere spiritual, and had reference to eternal life; and that they were\nalso understood by the fathers, as they ought to be, in a spiritual\nsense, and inspired them with confident hopes of the life to come,\ntowards which they aspired with all the powers of their souls. At the\nsame time, we are far from denying that he testified his benevolence to\nthem by terrestrial and carnal advantages, by which we also maintain\nthat their hopes of spiritual promises were confirmed. Thus, when he\npromised eternal blessedness to his servant Abraham, he added, in order\nto set a manifest token of his favour before his eyes, another promise\nrespecting the possession of the land of Canaan. In this manner we ought\nto understand all the terrestrial promises which were given to the\nJewish nation; so that the spiritual promise may always be considered as\na source and foundation, to which the others may be referred. But having\ntreated these points more at large in discussing the difference of the\nOld and New Testaments, I touch the more slightly upon them here.\n\nXII. In the mention of the children they find this variety; that under\nthe Old Testament, those were called the children of Abraham, who\nderived their natural descent from him; but that now this appellation is\ngiven to those who imitate his faith; and that, therefore, that carnal\ninfancy, which was ingrafted into the fellowship of the Church by\ncircumcision, prefigured those spiritual infants of the New Testament,\nwho by the word of God are regenerated to an immortal life. In this\nlanguage we discover, indeed, a small spark of truth; but it is a great\nerror of these persons, that while they lay hold of whatever first comes\nto their hands, when they ought to pursue it much further, and to\ncompare many things together, they pertinaciously insist on a single\nword; hence it necessarily happens that they are often deceived, because\nthey acquire no solid knowledge of any thing. We confess that the\nnatural seed of Abraham did for a time hold the place of those spiritual\nchildren which are incorporated with him by faith. For we are called his\nchildren, notwithstanding there is no natural relationship between him\nand us. But if they understand, as they certainly do, that no spiritual\nblessing was ever promised by God to the carnal seed of Abraham, they\nare greatly deceived. It behoves us to aim at a more correct sentiment,\nto which we are directed by the certain guidance of the Scripture. The\nLord, therefore, promised to Abraham, that he should have a Seed, in\nwhom all the nations of the earth were to be blessed, and accompanied\nthis promise with an assurance that he would be a God to him, and to his\nseed. All those, who by faith receive Christ, the Author of the\nblessing, are heirs of this promise, and are therefore denominated\n\u201cchildren of Abraham.\u201d\n\nXIII. Though, after the resurrection of Christ, the boundaries of the\nkingdom of God began to be extended far and wide into all nations,\nwithout any distinction, that, according to the declaration of Christ,\nbelievers might be collected \u201cfrom the east, and from the west, and\nfrom the north, and from the south,\u201d to \u201csit down with Abraham, and\nIsaac, and Jacob,\u201d[1173] in the glory of heaven, yet he had embraced\nthe Jews with this great mercy for many ages before; and because he\nhad passed by all others, and selected this one nation, to be for a\nseason the exclusive objects of his grace, he called them his\n\u201cpeculiar treasure\u201d and \u201cspecial people.\u201d[1174] In attestation of this\nbeneficence, the Lord gave them circumcision, which was a sign to\nteach the Jews that he would be their defence and salvation; and the\nknowledge of this inspired their hearts with the hope of eternal life.\nFor what can be wanting to them whom God has taken into his charge?\nWherefore the apostle, with a view to prove that the Gentiles are\nchildren of Abraham as well as the Jews, expresses himself in the\nfollowing manner: \u201cFaith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness in\nuncircumcision. And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of\nthe righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised;\nthat he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be\nnot circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also;\nand the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision\nonly, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father\nAbraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised.\u201d[1175] Do not we see\nthat equal dignity is attributed to Jews and Gentiles? For during the\ntime fixed by the decree of God, Abraham was the father of\ncircumcision. When the \u201cmiddle wall of partition between\u201d them was\n\u201cbroken down,\u201d[1176] as the apostle says in another place, to give the\nGentiles an entrance into the kingdom of God, he became also their\nfather, and that without the sign of circumcision; for instead of\ncircumcision, they have baptism. The express intimation, that Abraham\nwas not a father to them who were of the circumcision only, was\nintroduced by the apostle, to repress the vain confidence of some who\nneglected all concern about piety, and prided themselves in mere\nceremonies. In the same manner, we may now refute the vanity of those\nwho in baptism never carry their thoughts beyond the water.\n\nXIV. But in objection to this, another passage is adduced from the same\napostle, in which he states, \u201cthat they which are the children of the\nflesh\u201d are not \u201cthe children of Abraham,\u201d but that only \u201cthe children of\nthe promise are counted for the seed.\u201d[1177] For this passage seems to\nimply, that carnal descent from Abraham is nothing, though we attribute\nsome importance to it. But it is requisite to pay more particular\nattention to the subject which the apostle is here discussing. For in\norder to show to the Jews, that the goodness of God was not confined to\nthe seed of Abraham, and even that carnal descent from him was of no\nvalue in itself, he alleges, in proof of it, the cases of Ishmael and\nEsau; who, notwithstanding they were the true offspring of Abraham\naccording to the flesh, were rejected as if they had been strangers, and\nthe blessing remained with Isaac and Jacob. Hence follows what he\nafterwards affirms\u2014that salvation depends on the mercy of God, which he\nimparts to whom he pleases; but that the Jews have no reason for\nsatisfaction, or glorying in the name of the covenant, unless they\nobserve the law of the covenant; that is, obey the Divine word. Yet,\nafter having demolished their vain confidence in their descent, knowing,\non the other hand, that the covenant which God had once made with the\nposterity of Abraham could by no means be invalidated, he argues, that\nthe natural descendants are not to be deprived of their dignity; by\nvirtue of which he shows that the Jews were the first and natural heirs\nof the gospel, only that they had been rejected as unworthy, on account\nof their ingratitude, yet that the heavenly benediction had not entirely\ndeparted from their nation. For which reason, though they were rebels\nand violators of the covenant, yet he calls them holy; such high honours\ndoes he give to the holy generation, which God honoured with his sacred\ncovenant; but he considers us, in comparison with them, as the\nposthumous, and even abortive children of Abraham, and that not by\nnature, but by adoption; as if a branch broken off from its native tree\nwere ingrafted on another stock. That they might not be defrauded of\ntheir prerogative, therefore, it was necessary for the gospel to be\nfirst announced to them; for they are, as it were, the first-born in the\nfamily of God. Wherefore this honour was to be given to them, till they\nrejected the offer of it, and by their ingratitude caused it to be\ntransferred to the Gentiles. Nor, whatever be the obstinacy with which\nthey persist in opposing the gospel, ought they, on that account, to be\ndespised by us, if we consider that, for the sake of the promise, the\nblessing of God still remains among them; as the apostle clearly\ntestifies that it will never entirely depart from them; \u201cfor the gifts\nand calling of God are without repentance.\u201d[1178]\n\nXV. See, now, the importance and the estimate to be formed of the\npromise given to the posterity of Abraham. Therefore, though we have no\ndoubt that the distinction of the heirs of the kingdom from those who\nhave no share in it, is the free act of the sovereign election of God,\nyet, at the same time, we perceive that he has been pleased to display\nhis mercy in a peculiar manner on the seed of Abraham, and to testify\nand seal it by circumcision. The same reason is applicable to the\nChristian Church. For as Paul, in that passage, argues that the children\nof the Jews were sanctified by their parents, so, in another\nplace,[1179] he teaches that the children of Christians derive the same\nsanctification from their parents; whence it is inferred, that they who,\non the contrary, are condemned as impure, are deservedly separated from\nothers. Now, who can doubt the falsehood of the consequence attempted to\nbe established, that the infants who were circumcised in former ages,\nonly prefigured those who are infants in a spiritual sense, being\nregenerated by the word of God? Paul does not reason in this manner,\nwhen he says, \u201cthat Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for\nthe truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers;\u201d[1180]\nas if he had said, Since the covenant made with Abraham relates to his\nseed, Jesus Christ, in order to execute and discharge the promise once\npledged by the Father, came to save the people of the Jews. We see how,\neven after the resurrection of Christ, Paul understands that the promise\nof the covenant is to be fulfilled, not only in an allegorical sense,\nbut, according to the literal import of the words, to the natural seed\nof Abraham. To the same effect is the declaration of Peter to the Jews,\n\u201cThe promise is unto you and to your children,\u201d[1181] and the\nappellation under which he addresses them, \u201cYe are the children of the\ncovenant,\u201d[1182] and if children, then heirs. A similar sentiment is\nconveyed in another passage of the apostle, which we have already\nquoted, where he represents the circumcision performed on infants as a\ntestimony of the communion which they have with Christ.[1183] And, on\nthe contrary principle, what will become of that promise, by which the\nLord, in the second precept of his law, declares to his servants, that\nhe will be merciful to their seed, even to a thousand generations?[1184]\nShall we here have recourse to allegories? That would be a frivolous\nevasion. Shall we say that this promise is cancelled? That would be\nsubversive of the law, which, on the contrary, Christ came to establish,\nas a rule, for a holy life. It ought to be admitted, therefore, beyond\nall controversy, that God is so kind and liberal to his servants, as,\nfor their sakes, to appoint even the children who shall descend from\nthem to be enrolled among his people.\n\nXVI. The other differences which they endeavour to establish between\nbaptism and circumcision, are not only ridiculous, and destitute of\nevery appearance of reason, but are even repugnant to each other. For\nafter they have affirmed that baptism belongs to the first day of the\nspiritual conflict, but circumcision to the eighth, when the\nmortification is already completed,\u2014immediately forgetting this, they\nchange their story, and call circumcision a sign of the mortification of\nthe flesh, and baptism a symbol of a burial, to which none are to be\nconsigned but those who are already dead. Where can we find another\ninstance of such levity of self-contradiction? For, according to the\nfirst proposition, baptism ought to precede circumcision; according to\nthe second, it ought to follow it. Yet it is not a new thing for the\nminds of men to run into such inconsistencies, when they prefer their\nown dreams to the unerring word of God. We say, therefore, that the\nfirst of these differences is a mere dream. If they wished to allegorize\non the eighth day, yet there was no propriety in this manner of doing\nit. It would have been much better to follow the ancients, and refer the\nnumber of the day either to the resurrection of Christ, which took place\non the eighth day, and on which we know that newness of life depends; or\nto the whole course of the present life, which ought to be a course of\nprogressive mortification, till, at the termination of life, the\nmortification also should be completed. It is probable, however, that\nGod deferred circumcision to the eighth day on account of the tenderness\nof young infants, whose lives might be endangered by the performance of\nthat rite immediately on their birth. Nor is there much more solidity in\nthe second position, that, after being dead, we are buried by baptism;\nsince the Scripture expressly teaches, that \u201cwe are buried by baptism\ninto death,\u201d[1185] in order to our entrance on a course of\nmortification, and continuance in it from that time forward! Nor is\nthere any more propriety in the objection, that, if it be necessary to\nconform baptism to circumcision, women ought not to be baptized. For if\nit be evident, that the sign of circumcision testified the\nsanctification of the seed of Israel, there can be no doubt that it was\ngiven equally for the sanctification of males and females. And though\nonly the males were circumcised, they alone being capable of it, the\nfemales were in a certain sense partakers of their circumcision.\nDismissing such follies, therefore, let us never forget the similarity\nof baptism and circumcision, between which we discover a complete\nagreement in the internal mystery, the promises, the use, and the\nefficacy.\n\nXVII. They consider themselves as advancing a most powerful argument for\nexcluding infants from baptism, when they allege, that by reason of\ntheir age they are not yet capable of understanding the mystery\nsignified in it; that is, spiritual regeneration, which cannot take\nplace in early infancy. Therefore they conclude, they are to be\nconsidered in no other view than as children of Adam, till they have\nattained an age which admits of a second birth. But all these things are\nuniformly contradicted by the truth of God. For if they must be left\namong the children of Adam, they are left in death; for in Adam we can\nonly die. On the contrary, Christ commands them to be brought to him.\nWhy? Because he is life. To give them life, therefore, he makes them\npartakers of himself; while these men, by driving them away from him,\nadjudge them to death. For if they pretend that infants do not perish,\neven though they are considered as children of Adam, their error is\nabundantly refuted by the testimony of Scripture. For when it pronounces\nthat \u201cin Adam all die,\u201d[1186] it follows that there remains no hope of\nlife but in Christ. In order to become heirs of life, therefore, it is\nnecessary for us to be partakers of him. So, when it is said, in other\nplaces, that we are \u201cby nature the children of wrath,\u201d[1187] and\n\u201cconceived in sin,\u201d[1188] with which condemnation is always connected,\nit follows, that we must depart from our own nature, to have any\nadmission to the kingdom of God. And what can be more explicit than this\ndeclaration, \u201cthat flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of\nGod?\u201d[1189] Let every thing of our own, therefore, be destroyed, which\nwill not be effected without regeneration, and then we shall see this\npossession of the kingdom. Lastly, if Christ speaks the truth, when he\ndeclares himself to be \u201clife,\u201d[1190] it is necessary for us to be\ningrafted into him, that we may be rescued from the bondage of death.\nBut how, it is inquired, are infants regenerated, who have no knowledge\neither of good or evil? We reply, that the work of God is not yet\nwithout existence, because it is not observed or understood by us. Now,\nit is certain that some infants are saved; and that they are previously\nregenerated by the Lord, is beyond all doubt. For if they are born in a\nstate of corruption, it is necessary for them to be purified before they\nare admitted into the kingdom of God, into which \u201cthere shall in no wise\nenter any thing that defileth.\u201d[1191] If they are born sinners, as both\nDavid and Paul affirm, either they must remain unacceptable and hateful\nto God, or it is necessary for them to be justified. And what do we\nrequire more, when the Judge himself declares that there is no entrance\ninto the heavenly life, except for those who are born again?[1192] And,\nto silence all objectors, by sanctifying John the Baptist in his\nmother\u2019s womb, he exhibited an example of what he was able to do for\nothers. Nor can they gain any advantage by their frivolous evasion, that\nthis was only a single case, which does not justify the conclusion that\nthe Lord generally acts in this manner with infants. For we use no such\nargument. We only mean to show, that they unjustly confine the power of\nGod within those narrow limits to which it does not suffer itself to be\nrestricted. Their other subterfuge is equally weak. They allege that,\naccording to the usage of the Scripture, the phrase _from the womb_\ndenotes _from childhood_. But it is easy to see that, in the declaration\nof the angel to Zacharias, it was used in a different sense, and that\nJohn was to be filled with the Holy Spirit, even before he was\nborn.[1193] Let us not attempt, therefore, to impose laws upon God,\nwhose power has sustained no diminution, but who is able to sanctify\nwhom he pleases, as he sanctified this child.\n\nXVIII. And for this reason, Christ was sanctified from his earliest\ninfancy, that he might sanctify in himself all his elect, of every age,\nwithout any difference. For as, in order to obliterate the guilt of the\ntransgression which had been perpetrated in our flesh, he assumed to\nhimself that very flesh, that he might perform a perfect obedience in\nit, on our account, and in our stead, so he was conceived of the Holy\nSpirit, that, having the whole body which he assumed, fully endued with\nthe sanctity of the Spirit, he might communicate the same to us. If\nChrist exhibits a perfect exemplar of all the graces which God bestows\nupon his children, he will also furnish us with a proof, that the age of\ninfancy is not altogether incompatible with sanctification. But, however\nthis may be, we consider it as clear, beyond all controversy, that not\none of the elect is called out of the present life, without having been\npreviously regenerated and sanctified by the Spirit of God. Their\nobjection, that the Holy Spirit, in the Scriptures, acknowledges no\nregeneration, except from \u201cthe incorruptible seed,\u201d that is, \u201cthe word\nof God,\u201d[1194] is a misinterpretation of that passage of Peter, which\nmerely comprehends believers who had been taught by the preaching of the\ngospel. To such persons, indeed, we grant that the word of the Lord is\nthe only seed of spiritual regeneration; but we deny that it ought to be\nconcluded from this, that infants cannot be regenerated by the power of\nGod, which is as easy to him as it is wonderful and mysterious to us.\nBesides, it would not be safe to affirm, that the Lord cannot reveal\nhimself in any way so as to make himself known to them.\n\nXIX. But our opponents say, \u201cFaith cometh by hearing,\u201d[1195] of which\nthey have not yet acquired the use, and they cannot be capable of\nknowing God; for Moses declares them to \u201chave no knowledge between good\nand evil.\u201d[1196] But they do not consider, that when the apostle makes\nhearing the source of faith, he only describes the ordinary economy and\ndispensation of the Lord, which he generally observes in the calling of\nhis people; but does not prescribe a perpetual rule for him, precluding\nhis employment of any other method; which he has certainly employed in\nthe calling of many, to whom he has given the true knowledge of himself\nin an internal manner, by the illumination of his Spirit, without the\nintervention of any preaching. But as they think it would be such a\ngreat absurdity for any knowledge of God to be given to infants, to whom\nMoses denies the knowledge of good and evil, I would beg them to inform\nme, what danger can result from our affirming that they already receive\nsome portion of that grace, of which they will ere long enjoy the full\nabundance. For if the plenitude of life consists in the perfect\nknowledge of God,\u2014when some of them, whom death removes from the present\nstate in their earliest infancy, pass into eternal life, they are\ncertainly admitted to the immediate contemplation of the presence of\nGod. As the Lord, therefore, will illuminate them with the full\nsplendour of his countenance in heaven, why may he not also, if such be\nhis pleasure, irradiate them with some faint rays of it in the present\nlife; especially if he does not deliver them from all ignorance before\nhe liberates them from the prison of the body? Not that I would hastily\naffirm them to be endued with the same faith which we experience in\nourselves, or at all to possess a similar knowledge of faith, which I\nwould prefer leaving in suspense; my design is only to check their\nfoolish arrogance, who presumptuously assert or deny whatever they\nplease.\n\nXX. To strengthen their cause still further, our opponents proceed to\nallege, that baptism is a sacrament of repentance and faith; and that,\ntherefore, as neither of these can be exercised in infancy, infants\nought not to be admitted to a participation of baptism, the\nsignification of which would thereby be rendered vain. But these\narguments are directed against God, more than against us. For it is very\nevident, from many testimonies of Scripture, that circumcision also was\na sign of repentance, and Paul calls it \u201ca seal of the righteousness of\nfaith.\u201d[1197] Let the reason, then, be demanded of God himself, why he\ncommanded it to be impressed on the bodies of infants. For, as baptism\nand circumcision both stand on the same ground, they can attribute\nnothing to the latter which they must not also grant to the former. If\nthey recur to their favourite subterfuge, that the age of infancy then\nprefigured spiritual infants, it has been already answered. We say,\ntherefore, that since God formerly communicated to infants the rite of\ncircumcision, which was a sacrament of repentance and faith, it appears\nto be no absurdity for them now to be admitted to a participation of\nbaptism; unless these men wish to offer a direct insult to the\ninstitution of God. But in this, as well as in all the proceedings of\nGod, his wisdom and righteousness are sufficiently conspicuous to\nrepress the opposition and detraction of the impious. For though\ninfants, at the time of their circumcision, did not understand the\nmeaning of that sign, they were nevertheless truly circumcised into the\nmortification of their corrupt and polluted nature, which they were to\npursue in mature years. In short, this objection may be answered without\nany difficulty, by saying that they are baptized into future repentance\nand faith; for though these graces have not yet been formed in them, the\nseeds of both are nevertheless implanted in their hearts by the secret\noperation of the Spirit. This answer at once overturns every argument\nthey urge against us, derived from the signification of baptism; as when\nthey allege the designation given it by Paul, where he calls it \u201cthe\nwashing of regeneration and renewing;\u201d[1198] whence they argue that it\nought to be given only to such as are capable of being regenerated and\nrenewed. But we may reply, on the other hand, neither was circumcision,\nwhich was a sign of regeneration, to be given to any but such as were\nalready regenerated; and this, in their apprehension, will be to condemn\nthe ordinance of God. Therefore, as we have suggested several times\nbefore, whatever arguments tend equally to invalidate circumcision, can\nhave no force in the controversy against baptism. Nor can they escape\nfrom any difficulty, by saying, that whatever clearly rests on the\nauthority of God, we ought to consider as fixed and determined, though\nwe can discover no reason for it; but that this reverence is not due to\ninfant baptism, or to other similar things, which are not enjoined upon\nus by the express word of God; for they will always be held fast by this\ndilemma. Either the command of God, respecting the circumcision of\ninfants, was legitimate and liable to no objections, or it was deserving\nof censure. If there was no absurdity in that command, neither can any\nabsurdity be detected in the practice of infant baptism.\n\nXXI. The charge of absurdity, with which they endeavour to stigmatize\nit, we thus refute: If any of those who are the objects of divine\nelection, after having received the sign of regeneration, depart out of\nthis life before they have attained years of discretion, the Lord\nrenovates them by the power of his Spirit, incomprehensible to us, in\nsuch a manner as he alone foresees will be necessary. If they happen to\nlive to an age at which they are capable of being instructed in the true\nsignification of baptism, they will hence be the more inflamed to the\npursuit of that renovation, with the token of which they find themselves\nto have been favoured in their earliest infancy, that it might be the\nobject of their constant attention all their lifetime. In the same sense\nmust be understood what Paul states in two places, that we are \u201cburied\nwith Christ by baptism.\u201d[1199] For he does not mean that he who is to be\nbaptized, must previously be buried with Christ, but simply declares the\ndoctrine which is contained in baptism, and that to persons already\nbaptized; so that it would be unreasonable to argue from those passages,\nthat such burial with Christ must precede baptism. In this manner Moses\nand the prophets reminded the people what was the meaning of\ncircumcision, though they had received that rite when they were infants.\nTo the same effect is what Paul writes to the Galatians, that \u201cas many\nas have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ.\u201d[1200] For what\npurpose? Why, that they might thenceforward live to Christ, who had\nnever lived to him before. And though in adults a knowledge of the\nmystery ought to precede the reception of the sign, yet a different rule\nis to be applied to infants, as we shall presently show. Nor can any\nother conclusion be drawn from that passage of Peter, which they\nconsider as decisive in their favour\u2014that baptism is \u201cnot the putting\naway of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience\ntoward God, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.\u201d[1201] They contend\nthat this passage leaves not the least room for the baptism of infants,\nwho are not capable of that in which the truth of baptism is here stated\nto consist. But they frequently fall into this error, of maintaining\nthat the thing signified should always precede the sign. For the truth\nof circumcision also consisted in the same answer of a good conscience;\nbut if it ought of necessity to precede it, infants would never have\nbeen circumcised by the command of God. But by showing us that the\nanswer of a good conscience is comprehended in the truth of\ncircumcision, and at the same time commanding infants to be circumcised,\nhe sufficiently indicates that it is administered with a view to\nsomething future. Wherefore, all the present efficacy to be required in\nthe baptism of infants, is to ratify and confirm the covenant made with\nthem by the Lord. The remaining signification of this sacrament will\nfollow afterwards, at the time foreseen and appointed by the Lord.\n\nXXII. It must now, I think, be evident to every person, that all\narguments of this kind are mere perversions of Scripture. Those which\nremain, and are nearly allied to these, we shall run over in a cursory\nmanner. They object, that baptism is given for the remission of sins:\nthis we admit, and it is completely in favour of our opinion. For being\nborn sinners, we need pardon and remission even from our birth. Now, as\nthe Lord does not exclude infants from the hope of mercy, but rather\nassures them of it, why shall we refuse them the sign, which is so far\ninferior to the thing signified? Wherefore, the argument which they urge\nagainst us, we retort upon themselves; infants are favoured with\nremission of sins,\u2014therefore they ought not to be deprived of the sign.\nThey also adduce that passage where the Lord is said to \u201ccleanse the\nChurch with the washing of water by the word.\u201d[1202] But no text could\nbe quoted more conclusive against their error; it furnishes an obvious\nconfirmation of our sentiment. If it be the will of Christ that the\nablution, with which he cleanses his Church, be testified by baptism, it\nappears unreasonable that its testimony should be wanting in infants,\nwho are justly considered as part of the Church, since they are called\nheirs of the kingdom of heaven. For Paul speaks of the whole Church,\nwhen he describes it as cleansed with the washing of water. And, on the\nsame principle, from that passage where he says that we are all baptized\ninto the body of Christ,[1203] we conclude that infants, whom he numbers\namong his members, ought to be baptized, that they may not be separated\nfrom his body. See with what violence, and with what variety of weapons,\nthey attack the bulwarks of our faith!\n\nXXIII. They proceed, in the next place, to the practice of the apostolic\nage, in which no one is found to have been admitted to baptism without a\nprevious profession of faith and repentance. For in answer to those who\n\u201cwere pricked in their heart, and said, What shall we do? Peter said\nunto them,\u201d first, \u201crepent,\u201d and then \u201cbe baptized for the remission of\nsins.\u201d[1204] In like manner Philip, when the eunuch requested to be\nbaptized, replied, \u201cIf thou believest with all thine heart, thou\nmayest.\u201d[1205] Hence they think themselves justified in concluding, that\nbaptism ought never to be administered to any person without being\npreceded by faith and repentance. But if we adopt this reasoning, the\nfirst of these passages, which makes no mention of faith, will evince\nthe sufficiency of repentance alone: the second, where repentance is not\nrequired, will prove that faith alone is sufficient. I suppose they will\nreply that one passage is elucidated by the other, and that therefore\nthey ought to be connected together. I also contend that other places\nought to be consulted, which may contribute to the solution of this\ndifficulty. For there are many passages of Scripture, the sense of which\ndepends on the circumstances connected with them. This is exemplified in\nthe cases now under consideration. For the persons addressed by Peter\nand Philip were of an age capable of exercising repentance and faith. We\nstrenuously deny that such persons ought to be baptized, without a\nknowledge of their repentance and faith, as far, at least, as they are\ncapable of being ascertained by the judgment of men. But that infants\nought to be ranked in a different class, is sufficiently evident; for,\nunder the former dispensation, if any person connected himself with the\nIsraelites in religious communion, it was necessary for him to be taught\nthe covenant of the Lord, and instructed in the law, before he received\ncircumcision, because he was an alien by birth, not one of the\nIsraelitish people, with whom the covenant, which was confirmed by\ncircumcision, had been made.\n\nXXIV. So the Lord himself, when he adopts Abraham, does not begin with\ncircumcision, concealing for a time what was intended by that sign; but\nhe first announces the covenant which he designs to make with him, and\nthen, after he has received that promise in faith, makes him a partaker\nof that sacrament. Why does the sacrament follow faith in the case of\nAbraham, and in Isaac, his son, precede all exercise of understanding?\nBecause it is reasonable that a person, who at an adult age is admitted\nto the fellowship of a covenant, to which he had hitherto been a\nstranger, should first learn the conditions of it; but this is not\nnecessary in the case of an infant, who, by hereditary right, according\nto the form of the promise, is already included in the covenant from its\nvery birth. Or, to express it with greater clearness and brevity, if the\nchildren of believers, without the aid of understanding, are partakers\nof the covenant, there is no reason why they should be excluded from the\nsign because they are not capable of expressing their consent to the\nstipulation of the covenant. This is evidently the reason why God\nsometimes declares the children descended from the Israelites to be born\nto himself;[1206] for he undoubtedly considers as his children, the\nchildren of those to whose seed he has promised to be a Father. But he\nwho is an unbeliever, descended from impious parents, is accounted an\nalien from the communion of the covenant, till he be united to God by\nfaith. It is no wonder, therefore, if he be not a partaker of the sign,\nthe signification of which in him would be delusive and vain. In this\nsense Paul tells the Ephesians, that as long as they were immersed in\nidolatry, they were \u201cstrangers from the covenant.\u201d[1207] The whole of\nthe subject, if I mistake not, may be clearly and summarily stated in\nthe following position; that persons of adult age, who embrace the\nChristian religion, having been hitherto aliens from the covenant, are\nnot to receive the sign of baptism without the intervention of faith and\nrepentance, which alone can give them an admission to the fellowship of\nthe covenant; but that the infant children of Christian parents, being\nadmitted by God to the inheritance of the covenant as soon as they are\nborn, are also to be admitted to baptism. To this must be referred what\nis related by the evangelists, that the people \u201cwere baptized of John,\nconfessing their sins\u201d[1208]\u2014an example which we think ought to be\nfollowed in the present day. For if a Turk or heathen were to offer\nhimself to baptism, we would not hastily admit him to that sacrament,\nwithout his having first made a confession to the satisfaction of the\nChurch.\n\nXXV. Moreover, they adduce the language of Christ, which is recorded by\nJohn, and which they suppose to represent a present regeneration as\nrequisite to baptism; \u201cExcept a man be born of water and the Spirit, he\ncannot enter into the kingdom of God.\u201d[1209] See, they say, how baptism\nis called _regeneration_ by the mouth of the Lord. When it is evident,\nthen, that infants are utterly incapable of regeneration, on what\npretence do we admit them to baptism, to which regeneration is\nindispensably necessary? In the first place, they are deceived in\nsupposing that this passage refers to baptism, because it mentions\nwater. For, after Christ had declared to Nicodemus the corruption of\nnature, and shown him the necessity of being born again,\u2014because\nNicodemus was dreaming of a second corporeal birth, he here indicates\nthe manner in which God regenerates us, namely, by water and by the\nSpirit; as if he had said, by the Spirit who, in the ablution and\npurification of the souls of believers, performs the office of water. I\ntherefore understand by \u201cwater and the Spirit,\u201d simply, the Spirit who\nis water. Nor is this a novel mode of expression; for it perfectly\ncorresponds with that declaration of John the Baptist, \u201cHe that cometh\nafter me shall baptize with the Holy Ghost and with fire.\u201d[1210] As _to\nbaptize with the Holy Spirit and with fire_, therefore, is to confer the\nHoly Spirit, who, in regeneration, has the office and nature of fire, so\n_to be born of water and of the Spirit_ is no other than to receive that\ninfluence of the Spirit, which does in the soul what water does on the\nbody. I know that others give a different interpretation, but I have no\ndoubt that this is the genuine sense; because the intention of Christ is\nsimply to teach that all must be divested of their own nature, who\naspire to the kingdom of heaven. However, if we were desirous of\nimitating their cavils, it would be easy for us, granting what they\nrequire, to retort upon them, that baptism is prior to faith and\nrepentance, because, in the words of Christ, water is mentioned before\nthe Spirit. It is certain that this phrase denotes spiritual gifts; and,\nif these follow baptism, I have established what I wish. But, leaving\nall subterfuges, let us adhere to the simple interpretation which I have\nproposed\u2014that no one, till he is renewed by living water, that is, by\nthe Spirit, can enter into the kingdom of God.\n\nXXVI. It is further evident that their notion ought to be exploded,\nbecause it adjudges all unbaptized persons to eternal death. Let us\nsuppose their tenet to be admitted, and baptism to be administered to\nadults alone; what will they say will become of a youth who is rightly\ninstructed in the first principles of piety, if he desires to be\nbaptized, but, contrary to the expectation of all around, happens to be\nsnatched away by sudden death? The Lord\u2019s promise is clear: \u201cWhosoever\nbelieveth on the Son, shall not come into condemnation;\u201d but \u201cis passed\nfrom death unto life.\u201d[1211] We are nowhere informed of his having\ncondemned one who had yet not been baptized. By this I would not be\nunderstood as implying that baptism may be despised with impunity; for,\nso far from attempting to excuse such contempt, I affirm it to be a\nviolation of the covenant of the Lord; I only mean to evince that it is\nnot so necessary, as that a person, who is deprived of the opportunity\nof embracing it, must immediately be considered as lost. But if we\nassent to their notion, we shall condemn all, without exception, whom\nany circumstance whatever prevents from being baptized, whatever faith\nthey may otherwise have, even that faith by which Christ himself is\nenjoyed. Moreover, they sentence all infants to eternal death, by\ndenying them baptism, which, according to their own confession, is\nnecessary to salvation. Let them see, now, how well they agree with the\nlanguage of Christ, which adjudges the kingdom of heaven to little\nchildren. But though we should grant them every thing they contend for\nrelative to the sense of this passage, still they will gain no advantage\nfrom it, unless they first overturn the doctrine which we have already\nestablished respecting the regeneration of infants.\n\nXXVII. But the strongest argument of all in favour of their opinion,\nthey boast, is contained in the original institution of baptism, which\nthey quote from the last chapter of Matthew, where Christ, sending forth\nhis disciples to all nations, gave them a commission, first to teach,\nand then to baptize. \u201cGo ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing\nthem in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost;\nteaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded\nyou.\u201d[1212] Then, from the last chapter of Mark, they add, \u201cHe that\nbelieveth and is baptized shall be saved.\u201d[1213] What more do we\nrequire, say they, when the language of our Lord clearly expresses that\nteaching ought to precede baptism, and represents baptism as subsequent\nto faith? Of this order, an example was furnished even by the Lord Jesus\nhimself who was not baptized till he was \u201cabout thirty years of\nage.\u201d[1214] In what various ways do they embarrass themselves, and\nbetray their ignorance! For it is a mistake, worse than childish, to\nconsider that commission as the original institution of baptism, which\nChrist had commanded his apostles to administer from the commencement of\nhis preaching. They have no reason to contend, therefore, that the law\nand rule of baptism ought to be derived from those two passages, as if\nthey contained the first institution of it. Though we should indulge\nthem by admitting this error, yet what force is there in their\nreasoning? Indeed, if we wanted to evade the force of their arguments,\nwe need not have recourse to any little subterfuge; a most ample field\npresents itself before us. For while they so violently insist on the\norder of the words, as to argue, that, when it is said, \u201cGo teach and\nbaptize,\u201d and \u201che that believeth and is baptized,\u201d the meaning is, that\npreaching ought to precede baptism, and that faith ought to precede the\nreception of baptism,\u2014why may not we, on the other hand, reply, that\nbaptizing ought to precede teaching the observance of those things which\nChrist has commanded, because it is said, \u201cBaptize, teaching them to\nobserve all things whatsoever I have commanded you.\u201d We have remarked\nthe same thing on the declaration of Christ, which has just been quoted,\nrespecting the regeneration of water and of the Spirit; for if it be\nunderstood according to their interpretation, it will appear from that\npassage that baptism is prior to regeneration, because it is mentioned\nfirst: Christ teaches that we must be born again, not of the Spirit and\nof water, but of water and of the Spirit.\n\nXXVIII. Their invincible bulwark, in which they place such great\nconfidence, seems already somewhat shaken; but as the truth may be\nsufficiently defended by simplicity, I have no inclination to escape\nwith such sophistical and trivial arguments; they shall therefore have a\nsolid reply. The principal command which Christ here gives to his\napostles, is to preach the gospel, to which he subjoins the\nadministration of baptism as an appendage. Besides, he says nothing of\nbaptism, any otherwise than as its administration is subordinate to the\noffice of teaching. For Christ sends his apostles to promulgate the\ngospel to all the nations of the world, that by the doctrine of\nsalvation they may collect, from every land, men who before were lost,\nand introduce them into his kingdom. But what men, or men of what\ndescription? It is certain that there is no mention of any, but those\nwho are capable of receiving instruction. He afterwards adds, that such\npersons, when they have been instructed, are to be baptized, and\nsubjoins a promise: \u201cHe that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.\u201d\nIs there even a single syllable in the whole discourse respecting\ninfants? What kind of argumentation, then, is that with which they\nassail us? Persons of _adult_ age are to be instructed, in order that\nthey may believe before they are to be baptized; _therefore_ it is\nunlawful to administer baptism to _infants_. It will be impossible for\nthem, with all their ingenuity, to prove any thing from this passage,\nexcept that the gospel is first to be preached to those who are capable\nof hearing it, before they are baptized; for it relates to no others.\nLet them raise an obstacle from this, if they can, to exclude infants\nfrom baptism.\n\nXXIX. But to render their fallacies still more palpable, I will show the\nabsurdity of them by a very plain similitude. The apostle says, \u201cthat if\nany would not work, neither should he eat.\u201d[1215] Now, if any man should\npretend to infer from this, that infants ought to be deprived of food,\nwould he not deserve universal contempt? Why so? Because it would be a\nperverse application to all men, indiscriminately, of what was spoken of\nmen of a certain class and a certain age. Nor is there any greater\npropriety in their reasoning in the present case. For what every one\nsees to belong exclusively to persons of adult age, they apply to\ninfants, in order to make them subject to a rule, which was only\nprescribed for persons of riper years. The example of Christ is far from\naffording any support to their cause. He was not baptized till he was\n\u201cabout thirty years of age.\u201d That is true indeed; but the reason is\nobvious; because he then intended to lay a solid foundation for baptism\nby his preaching, or rather to establish that which had a little before\nbeen laid by John. Intending, therefore, to institute baptism in his\ndoctrine, in order to conciliate the greater authority to his\ninstitution, he sanctified it in his own body, and that at the point of\ntime which he knew to be most proper, namely, when he was about to\ncommence his ministry. In short, they can prove nothing else from this\ncircumstance, except that baptism derived its origin and commencement\nfrom the preaching of the gospel. If they approve of fixing the\nthirtieth year, why do they not observe it, but admit every one to\nbaptism as soon as he is, in their judgment, sufficiently qualified for\nit? And even Servetus, one of their leaders, though he pertinaciously\ninsisted on this age, yet began to boast of being a prophet himself when\nhe had only attained his twenty-first year. As though it ought to be\ntolerated for a man to arrogate the office of a teacher in the Church\nbefore he is a member of it.\n\nXXX. At length they object, that there is no more reason why infants\nshould be admitted to baptism than to the Lord\u2019s supper, which, however,\nis not administered to them. As though the Scriptures did not make a\nconsiderable difference between the two cases in every respect. Infant\ncommunion was practised, indeed, in the ancient Church, as appears from\nCyprian and Augustine; but the custom has very properly been\ndiscontinued. For if we consider the nature and property of baptism, we\nfind it to be an entrance or initiation into the Church, by which we are\nenrolled among the people of God\u2014a sign of our spiritual regeneration,\nby which we are born again as the children of God; whereas, on the\ncontrary, the supper is appointed for those of riper years, who, having\npassed the tender state of infancy, are capable of bearing solid meat.\nThis difference is very evidently marked in the Scripture; in which, as\nfar as relates to baptism, the Lord makes no distinction of age, whereas\nhe does not present the supper to the participation of all alike, but\nonly to those who are capable of discerning the body and blood of the\nLord, of examining their own consciences, of showing forth the Lord\u2019s\ndeath, and considering the power of it. Do we wish for any thing plainer\nthan what the apostle inculcates in the following exhortation? \u201cLet a\nman examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that\ncup.\u201d[1216] It must, therefore, be preceded by examination, which would\nin vain be expected from infants. Again: \u201cHe that eateth and drinketh\nunworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the\nLord\u2019s body.\u201d[1217] If no persons can be worthy partakers of it, except\nthose who can truly distinguish the holiness of the body of Christ, why\nshould we give to our tender infants poison instead of salutary food?\nWhat is that precept of the Lord, \u201cThis do in remembrance of me?\u201d[1218]\nWhat is the inference which the apostle deduces from it? \u201cAs often as ye\neat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord\u2019s death till he\ncome.\u201d[1219] What remembrance, I ask, shall we require from infants of\nthat event, of which they have never attained any knowledge? What\npreaching of the cross of Christ, the virtue and benefit of which their\nminds are not yet capable of comprehending? Not one of these things is\nprescribed in baptism. Between these two signs, therefore, there is a\nconsiderable difference; such as we observe, also, between similar signs\nunder the Old Testament. Circumcision, which is known to correspond to\nour baptism, was destined for infants. The passover, which has now been\nsucceeded by the sacred supper, did not admit guests of all descriptions\npromiscuously, but was rightly eaten only by those who were of\nsufficient age to be able to inquire into its signification. If our\nopponents had a grain of sound sense, would they shut their eyes against\na thing so clear and obvious?\n\nXXXI. Though I am sorry to burden my readers with such an accumulation\nof reveries, yet it will be worth while to refute the specious arguments\nadduced in this controversy by Servetus, one of the most eminent of the\nAnabaptists, and even the chief glory of that sect. 1. He pretends that\nthe symbols appointed by Christ, as they are perfect, require also those\nwho receive them to be perfect, or persons capable of perfection. But\nthe answer is easy\u2014that the perfection of baptism reaches even unto\ndeath, and cannot with propriety be restricted to one instant of time. I\nobserve, also, that it is foolish to expect a man on the first day to\nattain perfection, towards which baptism invites us to proceed, by\ncontinual advances, as long as we live. 2. He objects, that the symbols\nof Christ were instituted as memorials, that every one may remember that\nhe has been buried with Christ. I answer, that what he has framed from\nhis own head requires no refutation; and that he applies to baptism what\nthe language of Paul shows to be peculiar to the sacred supper, namely,\nthat every one should examine himself; but that nothing like this is any\nwhere said of baptism; from which we conclude, that though, by reason of\ntheir age, infants are not capable of examination, it is nevertheless\nright to baptize them. 3. He adduces the declaration of Christ, that \u201che\nthat believeth not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God\nabideth on him;\u201d[1220] and concludes that infants, who are incapable of\nbelieving, remain in their condemnation. I answer, that in this passage\nChrist is not speaking of the general guilt in which all the descendants\nof Adam are involved, but only threatening the despisers of the gospel,\nwho proudly and obstinately reject the grace which is offered to them;\nand this has nothing to do with infants. I likewise oppose a contrary\nargument; all those whom Christ blesses are exempted from the curse of\nAdam and the wrath of God; and as it is known that infants were blessed\nby him, it follows that they are exempted from death. He falsely\nalleges, as a passage of Scripture, that \u201cwhosoever is born of the\nSpirit heareth the voice of the Spirit;\u201d which, though we were to admit\nas a genuine text, yet he could infer nothing more from it, than that\nbelievers are formed to obedience as the Spirit operates within them.\nBut that which is affirmed of a certain number, it is wrong to apply\nequally to all. 4. He objects, that because \u201cthat is first which is\nnatural,\u201d[1221] we ought to wait the proper time for baptism, which is\nspiritual. Now, though I grant that all the descendants of Adam, being\ncarnal, bring their condemnation into the world with them, yet I deny\nthat this is any impediment to the communication of a remedy, as soon as\never God is pleased to impart it. For Servetus can show no Divine\nappointment, that many years shall elapse before the newness of\nspiritual life can begin; for according to the testimony of Paul, though\nthe infant children of believers are in a ruined condition by nature,\nyet they are sanctified by supernatural grace.[1222] 5. He next produces\nan allegory, that when David went up to the fortress of Zion, he took\nwith him neither the blind nor the lame, but hardy soldiers.[1223] And\nwhat if I oppose him with a parable, in which God invites the blind and\nthe lame to the celestial feast?[1224] how will he extricate himself\nfrom this difficulty? I ask, also, whether the blind and the lame had\nnot previously served as soldiers with David. But it is useless to\ninsist longer on this argument, which the readers will discover from the\nsacred history to be founded on mere falsehood. 6. Then follows another\nallegory, that the apostles were \u201cfishers of men,\u201d[1225] not of infants.\nI ask, what is the meaning of that declaration of Christ, that \u201cthe\nkingdom of heaven is like unto a net, that was cast into the sea, and\ngathered of every kind?\u201d[1226] But as I am not fond of allegorical\ntrifling, I answer, that when the apostles were appointed to the office\nof teaching, they were not forbidden to baptize infants. I would further\nwish to be informed, since the evangelist uses the word \u03b1\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2, (a\nword which comprehends all the human race, without any exception,) why\ninfants should be denied to be \u03b1\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03c9\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2, (human beings.) 7. He\npretends, that as spiritual things belong to spiritual persons,[1227]\ninfants who are not spiritual are not fit subjects of baptism. But here\nit is evident that he is guilty of a gross perversion of that passage of\nPaul, the subject of which relates to doctrine. When the Corinthians\ndiscovered too much complacency in a vain subtlety, the apostle reproved\ntheir stupidity, because they still required to be taught the first\nprinciples of Christian doctrine. Who can infer from this, that baptism\nought to be denied to infants, whom, though they are born of the flesh,\nyet God consecrates to himself by gratuitous adoption? 8. He objects,\nthat if they are new men, they ought to be fed with spiritual food. The\nanswer is easy\u2014that they are admitted into the flock of Christ by\nbaptism, and that the symbol of that adoption is sufficient for them,\ntill they grow to an age capable of bearing solid food; and that it is\ntherefore necessary to wait for the time of that examination, which God\nexpressly requires in the sacred supper. 9. He next objects, that Christ\ninvites all his people to the sacred supper. I answer, it is\nsufficiently clear that he admits none but such as are already prepared\nto celebrate the remembrance of his death. Whence it follows, that\ninfants, whom he condescended to take into his arms, remain in a\ndistinct and peculiar class, till they grow to riper years, and yet that\nthey are not strangers to the Church. To this he objects, that it is a\nmonstrous thing for a person that is born, not to eat. I reply, that the\nexternal participation of the supper is not the only way in which souls\nare fed; and therefore that Christ is food to infants, notwithstanding\nthey abstain from the sign; but that the case of baptism is different,\nby which alone they are admitted into the Church. He further objects,\nthat \u201ca faithful and wise servant, whom his lord hath made ruler over\nhis household, giveth them meat in due season.\u201d[1228] This I readily\ngrant; but by what authority will he determine the time of baptism for\nus, so as to prove that it is not administered to infants at a proper\ntime? 10. He likewise adduces the command of Christ to his apostles, to\nhasten to the harvest, while the fields are whitening.[1229] The sole\ndesign of Christ on that occasion was to stimulate the apostles, that,\nseeing the present fruit of their labours, they might exert themselves\nin their ministry with the greater cheerfulness. Who can infer from this\nthat the time of harvest is the only time proper for baptism? 11. His\nnext argument is, that in the primitive Church Christians and disciples\nwere the same persons.[1230] But here we see that he injudiciously\nreasons from a part to the whole. The appellation of disciples was given\nto persons of adult age, who had been already instructed, and had made a\nprofession of Christianity; just as the Jews under the law were the\ndisciples of Moses; yet no one can justly infer from this, that infants\nwere strangers, God having declared them to be part of his family. 12.\nMoreover he alleges, that all Christians are brethren, but that we treat\ninfants as not of that number, as long as we exclude them from the\nLord\u2019s supper. But I return to that principle, that none are heirs of\nthe kingdom of heaven, except those who are members of Christ; and that\nthe embrace with which he honoured infants was a true pledge of the\nadoption, by which they are united with adults, and that their temporary\nabstinence from the supper does not prevent them from belonging to the\nbody of the Church. The thief who was converted on the cross was a\nbrother of believers, though he never partook of the Lord\u2019s supper at\nall. 13. He proceeds to assert, that no person becomes our brother but\nby the spirit of adoption communicated \u201cby the hearing of faith.\u201d[1231]\nI reply, that he is constantly reverting to the same false reasoning, by\na preposterous application to infants of that which is spoken\nexclusively of adults. Paul is there showing that the ordinary method\nwhich God uses in calling his elect, and bringing them to the faith, is\nto raise them up faithful teachers, by whose labours and instructions he\nextends his assistance to them. But who will dare to impose a law to\nprevent his ingrafting infants into Christ by some other secret method?\n14. He objects, that Cornelius was baptized after he had received the\nHoly Ghost.[1232] But the absurdity of attempting to extract a general\nrule from this one example, is evident from the cases of the eunuch and\nthe Samaritans,[1233] in whom the Lord observed a different order, for\ntheir baptism preceded their reception of the gifts of the Spirit. 15.\nHis next argument is worse than absurd; he says, that by regeneration we\nare made gods;[1234] but that they are gods to whom the word of God\ncomes,[1235] which is not applicable to infants. The ascription of deity\nto believers is one of his reveries, which it is irrelevant to our\npresent subject to discuss; but to pervert that quotation from the\nPsalms to a sense so remote from its genuine meaning, betrays the most\nmonstrous impudence. Christ says that the appellation of _gods_ is given\nby the prophet to kings and magistrates, because they sustain an office\nof Divine appointment. But that which is directed to certain individuals\nrespecting the particular charge of governors, this dexterous\ninterpreter applies to the doctrine of the gospel, in order to exclude\ninfants from the Church. 16. He objects, again, that infants cannot be\naccounted new creatures, because they are not begotten by the word. I\nmust again repeat, what I have so often remarked, that the doctrine of\nthe gospel is the incorruptible seed, to regenerate those who are\ncapable of understanding it; but that where, by reason of age, there is\nnot yet any capacity of learning, God has his different degrees of\nregenerating those whom he has adopted. 17. Then he returns to his\nallegories, and alleges that sheep and goats were not offered in\nsacrifice immediately after they were brought forth.[1236] If I approved\nof the application of figures to this subject, I might easily retort,\nthat all the first born immediately on their birth are consecrated to\nthe Lord,[1237] and that a lamb was to be sacrificed in its first year;\nwhence it should follow, that it is not at all necessary to wait for\nmany years, but that our children ought to be dedicated to God in their\nearliest infancy. 18. He further contends, that none can come to Christ\nbut those who have been prepared by John; as though the office of John\nhad not been a temporary one. But to pass over this; the children whom\nChrist took up in his arms and blessed, had certainly no such\npreparation. Wherefore let him depart with his false principle. 19. At\nlength he calls in the assistance of Trismegistus and the Sibyls, to\nshow that sacred ablutions are not suitable to any but adults. See what\nhonourable sentiments he entertains respecting the baptism of Christ,\nwhich he would conform to the profane rites of the heathen, that its\nadministration might be regulated by the pleasure of Trismegistus. But\nwe have more reverence for the authority of God, who has been pleased to\nconsecrate infants to himself, and to initiate them by a sacred sign,\nthe meaning of which they were too young to be able to understand. Nor\ndo we esteem it lawful to borrow from the ablutions of the heathen any\nthing that may introduce into our baptism the least change of that\neternal and inviolable law which God has established respecting\ncircumcision. 20. In the last place, he argues, that if it be lawful to\nbaptize infants without understanding, baptism may be, in mimicry and\njest, administered by boys in play. But he must contest this subject\nwith God, by whose command circumcision was performed upon infants,\nbefore they had attained any understanding. Was it a ludicrous ceremony,\nthen, or a fit subject for the sports of children, that they could\noverturn the sacred institution of God? But it is no wonder that these\nreprobate spirits, as if transported with frenzy, bring forward the most\nenormous absurdities in defence of their errors; for such delusion is\nthe just judgment of God upon their pride and obstinacy. And I trust I\nhave clearly shown the futility of all the arguments with which Servetus\nhas endeavoured to assist the cause of his Anabaptist brethren.\n\nXXXII. No doubt, I conceive, can now remain in the mind of any sober\nman, that those who raise controversies and contentions on the subject\nof infant baptism are presumptuous disturbers of the Church of Christ.\nBut it is worth while to notice the object which Satan aims at promoting\nby so much subtlety; which is, to deprive us of the peculiar benefit of\nconfidence and spiritual joy, which is to be derived from this source,\nand in the same degree also to diminish the glory of the Divine\ngoodness. For how delightful is it to pious minds, not only to have\nverbal assurances, but even ocular proof, of their standing so high in\nthe favour of their heavenly Father, that their posterity are also the\nobjects of his care! For here we see how he sustains the character of a\nmost provident Father to us, since he discontinues not his solicitude\nfor us even after our death, but regards and provides for our children.\nOught we not, then, after the example of David, to exult in praise and\nthanksgiving to God with our whole heart, that his name may be glorified\nby such an expression of his goodness? This is evidently the reason why\nSatan makes such great exertions in opposition to infant baptism; that\nthe removal of this testimony of the grace of God may cause the promise\nwhich it exhibits before our eyes gradually to disappear, and at length\nto be forgotten. The consequence of this would be, an impious\ningratitude to the mercy of God, and negligence of the instruction of\nour children in the principles of piety. For it is no small stimulus to\nour education of them in the serious fear of God, and the observance of\nhis law, to reflect, that they are considered and acknowledged by him as\nhis children as soon as they are born. Wherefore, unless we are\nobstinately determined to obscure the goodness of God, let us present to\nhim our children, to whom he assigns a place in his family, that is,\namong the members of his Church.\n\nFootnote 1165:\n\n  Gen. xvii. 1-14.\n\nFootnote 1166:\n\n  Matt. xxii. 32. Luke xx. 37, 38.\n\nFootnote 1167:\n\n  Ephes. ii. 12.\n\nFootnote 1168:\n\n  Deut. x. 16.\n\nFootnote 1169:\n\n  Deut. xxx. 6.\n\nFootnote 1170:\n\n  Rom. xii. 3, 6.\n\nFootnote 1171:\n\n  Matt. xix 13-15. Mark x 13-16. Luke xviii. 15-17.\n\nFootnote 1172:\n\n  Col. ii. 11, 12.\n\nFootnote 1173:\n\n  Matt. viii. 11. Luke xiii. 29.\n\nFootnote 1174:\n\n  Exod. xix. 5. Deut. vii. 6.\n\nFootnote 1175:\n\n  Rom. iv. 9-12.\n\nFootnote 1176:\n\n  Eph. ii. 14.\n\nFootnote 1177:\n\n  Rom. ix. 7, 8.\n\nFootnote 1178:\n\n  Rom. xi. 29.\n\nFootnote 1179:\n\n  1 Cor. vii. 14.\n\nFootnote 1180:\n\n  Rom. xv. 8.\n\nFootnote 1181:\n\n  Acts ii. 39.\n\nFootnote 1182:\n\n  Acts iii. 25.\n\nFootnote 1183:\n\n  Eph. i. 11, 12.\n\nFootnote 1184:\n\n  Exod. xx. 6.\n\nFootnote 1185:\n\n  Rom. vi. 4.\n\nFootnote 1186:\n\n  1 Cor. xv. 22.\n\nFootnote 1187:\n\n  Eph. ii. 3.\n\nFootnote 1188:\n\n  Psalm li. 5.\n\nFootnote 1189:\n\n  1 Cor. xv. 50.\n\nFootnote 1190:\n\n  John xi. 25; xiv. 6.\n\nFootnote 1191:\n\n  Rev. xxi. 27.\n\nFootnote 1192:\n\n  John iii. 3, 5.\n\nFootnote 1193:\n\n  Luke i. 15.\n\nFootnote 1194:\n\n  1 Peter i. 23.\n\nFootnote 1195:\n\n  Rom. x. 17.\n\nFootnote 1196:\n\n  Deut. i. 39.\n\nFootnote 1197:\n\n  Jer. iv. 4. Rom. iv. 11.\n\nFootnote 1198:\n\n  Titus iii. 5.\n\nFootnote 1199:\n\n  Rom. vi. 4. Col. ii. 12.\n\nFootnote 1200:\n\n  Gal. iii. 27.\n\nFootnote 1201:\n\n  1 Peter iii. 21.\n\nFootnote 1202:\n\n  Ephes. v. 26.\n\nFootnote 1203:\n\n  1 Cor. xii. 13.\n\nFootnote 1204:\n\n  Acts ii. 37, 38.\n\nFootnote 1205:\n\n  Acts viii. 37.\n\nFootnote 1206:\n\n  Ezek. xvi. 20; xxiii. 37.\n\nFootnote 1207:\n\n  Eph. ii. 12.\n\nFootnote 1208:\n\n  Matt. iii. 6.\n\nFootnote 1209:\n\n  John iii. 5.\n\nFootnote 1210:\n\n  Matt. iii. 11.\n\nFootnote 1211:\n\n  John iii. 18; v. 24.\n\nFootnote 1212:\n\n  Matt. xxviii. 19, 20.\n\nFootnote 1213:\n\n  Mark xvi. 16.\n\nFootnote 1214:\n\n  Luke iii. 23.\n\nFootnote 1215:\n\n  2 Thess. iii. 10.\n\nFootnote 1216:\n\n  1 Cor. xi. 28.\n\nFootnote 1217:\n\n  1 Cor. xi. 29.\n\nFootnote 1218:\n\n  1 Cor. xi. 24, 25.\n\nFootnote 1219:\n\n  1 Cor xi. 26.\n\nFootnote 1220:\n\n  John iii. 36.\n\nFootnote 1221:\n\n  1 Cor. xv. 46.\n\nFootnote 1222:\n\n  1 Cor. vii. 14.\n\nFootnote 1223:\n\n  2 Sam. v. 6-8.\n\nFootnote 1224:\n\n  Luke xiv. 21.\n\nFootnote 1225:\n\n  Matt. iv. 19.\n\nFootnote 1226:\n\n  Matt. xiii. 47.\n\nFootnote 1227:\n\n  1 Cor. ii. 13.\n\nFootnote 1228:\n\n  Matt. xxiv. 45.\n\nFootnote 1229:\n\n  John iv. 35-38.\n\nFootnote 1230:\n\n  Acts xi. 26.\n\nFootnote 1231:\n\n  Gal. iii. 2.\n\nFootnote 1232:\n\n  Acts x. 44-48.\n\nFootnote 1233:\n\n  Acts viii. 16, 17, 26, &c.\n\nFootnote 1234:\n\n  2 Peter i. 4.\n\nFootnote 1235:\n\n  John x. 35. Psalm lxxxii. 6.\n\nFootnote 1236:\n\n  Exod. xii. 5.\n\nFootnote 1237:\n\n  Exod. xiii. 12. Numb. viii. 17.\n\n\n\n\n                             CHAPTER XVII.\n                 THE LORD\u2019S SUPPER AND ITS ADVANTAGES.\n\n\nAfter God has once received us into his family, and not only so as to\nadmit us among his servants, but to number us with his children,\u2014in\norder to fulfil the part of a most excellent father, solicitous for his\noffspring, he also undertakes to sustain and nourish us as long as we\nlive; and not content with this, he has been pleased to give us a\npledge, as a further assurance of this never-ceasing liberality. For\nthis purpose, therefore, by the hand of his only begotten Son, he has\nfavoured his Church with another sacrament, a spiritual banquet, in\nwhich Christ testifies himself to be the bread of life, to feed our\nsouls for a true and blessed immortality. Now, as the knowledge of so\ngreat a mystery is highly necessary, and on account of its importance,\nrequires an accurate explication; and, on the other hand, as Satan, in\norder to deprive the Church of this inestimable treasure, long ago\nendeavoured, first by mists, and afterwards by thicker shades, to\nobscure its lustre, and then raised disputes and contentions to alienate\nthe minds of the simple from a relish for this sacred food, and in our\ntime also has attempted the same artifice; after having exhibited a\nsummary of what relates to the subject, adapted to the capacity of the\nunlearned, I will disentangle it from those sophistries with which Satan\nhas been labouring to deceive the world. In the first place, the signs\nare bread and wine, which represent to us the invisible nourishment\nwhich we receive from the body and blood of Christ. For as in baptism\nGod regenerates us, incorporates us into the society of his Church, and\nmakes us his children by adoption, so we have said, that he acts towards\nus the part of a provident father of a family, in constantly supplying\nus with food, to sustain and preserve us in that life to which he has\nbegotten us by his word. Now, the only food of our souls is Christ; and\nto him, therefore, our heavenly Father invites us, that being refreshed\nby a participation of him, we may gain fresh vigour from day to day,\ntill we arrive at the heavenly immortality. And because this mystery of\nthe secret union of Christ with believers is incomprehensible by nature,\nhe exhibits a figure and image of it in visible signs, peculiarly\nadapted to our feeble capacity; and, as it were, by giving tokens and\npledges, renders it equally as certain to us as if we beheld it with our\neyes; for the dullest minds understand this very familiar similitude,\nthat our souls are nourished by Christ, just as the life of the body is\nsupported by bread and wine. We see, then, for what end this mystical\nbenediction is designed; namely, to assure us that the body of the Lord\nwas once offered as a sacrifice for us, so that we may now feed upon it,\nand, feeding on it, may experience within us the efficacy of that one\nsacrifice; and that his blood was once shed for us, so that it is our\nperpetual drink. And this is the import of the words of the promise\nannexed to it: \u201cTake, eat; this is my body, which is given for you.\u201d The\nbody, therefore, which was once offered for our salvation, we are\ncommanded to take and eat; that seeing ourselves made partakers of it,\nwe may certainly conclude, that the virtue of that life-giving death\nwill be efficacious within us. Hence, also, he calls the cup \u201cthe new\ntestament,\u201d or rather _covenant_, in his blood.[1238] For the covenant\nwhich he once ratified with his blood, he in some measure renews, or\nrather continues, as far as relates to the confirmation of our faith,\nwhenever he presents us that sacred blood to drink.\n\nII. From this sacrament pious souls may derive the benefit of\nconsiderable satisfaction and confidence; because it affords us a\ntestimony that we are incorporated into one body with Christ, so that\nwhatever is his, we are at liberty to call ours. The consequence of this\nis, that we venture to assure ourselves of our interest in eternal life,\nof which he is the heir, and that the kingdom of heaven, into which he\nhas already entered, can no more be lost by us than by him; and, on the\nother hand, that we cannot be condemned by our sins, from the guilt of\nwhich he absolved us, when he wished them to be imputed to himself, as\nif they were his own. This is the wonderful exchange which, in his\ninfinite goodness, he has made with us. Submitting to our poverty, he\nhas transferred to us his riches; assuming our weakness, he has\nstrengthened us by his power; accepting our mortality, he has conferred\non us his immortality; taking on himself the load of iniquity with which\nwe were oppressed, he has clothed us with his righteousness; descending\nto the earth, he has prepared a way for our ascending to heaven;\nbecoming with us the Son of man, he has made us, with himself, the sons\nof God.\n\nIII. Of all these things we have such a complete attestation in this\nsacrament, that we may confidently consider them as truly exhibited to\nus, as if Christ himself were presented to our eyes, and touched by our\nhands. For there can be no falsehood or illusion in this word, \u201cTake,\neat, drink; this is my body which is given for you; this is my blood\nwhich is shed for the remission of sins.\u201d By commanding us to take, he\nsignifies that he is ours; by commanding us to eat and drink, he\nsignifies that he is become one substance with us. In saying that his\nbody is given for us, and his blood shed for us, he shows that both are\nnot so much his as ours, because he assumed and laid down both, not for\nhis own advantage, but for our salvation. And it ought to be carefully\nobserved, that the principal and almost entire energy of the sacrament\nlies in these words, \u201cwhich is given for you;\u201d \u201cwhich is shed for you;\u201d\nfor otherwise it would avail us but little, that the body and blood of\nthe Lord are distributed to us now, if they had not been once delivered\nfor our redemption and salvation. Therefore they are represented to us\nby bread and wine, to teach us that they are not only ours, but are\ndestined for the support of our spiritual life. This is what we have\nalready suggested\u2014that by the corporeal objects which are presented in\nthe sacrament, we are conducted, by a kind of analogy, to those which\nare spiritual. So, when bread is given to us as a symbol of the body of\nChrist, we ought immediately to conceive of this comparison, that, as\nbread nourishes, sustains, and preserves the life of the body, so the\nbody of Christ is the only food to animate and support the life of the\nsoul. When we see wine presented as a symbol of his blood, we ought to\nthink of the uses of wine to the human body, that we may contemplate the\nsame advantages conferred upon us in a spiritual manner by the blood of\nChrist; which are these\u2014that it nourishes, refreshes, strengthens, and\nexhilarates. For if we duly consider the benefits resulting to us from\nthe oblation of his sacred body, and the effusion of his blood, we shall\nclearly perceive that these properties of bread and wine, according to\nthis analogy, are most justly attributed to those symbols, as\nadministered to us in the Lord\u2019s supper.\n\nIV. The principal object of the sacrament, therefore, is not to present\nus the body of Christ, simply, and without any ulterior consideration,\nbut rather to seal and confirm that promise, where he declares that his\n\u201cflesh is meat indeed, and\u201d his \u201cblood drink indeed,\u201d by which we are\nnourished to eternal life; where he affirms that he is \u201cthe bread of\nlife,\u201d and that \u201che that eateth of this bread shall live for\never;\u201d[1239] to seal and confirm that promise, I say; and, in order to\ndo this, it sends us to the cross of Christ, where the promise has been\nfully verified, and entirely accomplished. For we never rightly and\nadvantageously feed on Christ, except as crucified, and when we have a\nlively apprehension of the efficacy of his death. And, indeed, when\nChrist called himself \u201cthe bread of life,\u201d he did not use that\nappellation on account of the sacrament, as some persons erroneously\nimagine, but because he had been given to us as such by the Father, and\nshowed himself to be such, when, becoming a partaker of our human\nmortality, he made us partakers of his Divine immortality; when,\noffering himself a sacrifice, he sustained our curse, to fill us with\nhis blessing; when, by his death, he destroyed and swallowed up death;\nwhen, in his resurrection, this corruptible flesh of ours, which he had\nassumed, was raised up by him, in a state of incorruption and glory.\n\nV. It remains for all this to be applied to us; which is done in the\nfirst place by the gospel, but in a more illustrious manner by the\nsacred supper, in which Christ offers himself to us with all his\nbenefits, and we receive him by faith. The sacrament, therefore, does\nnot first constitute Christ the bread of life; but, by recalling to our\nremembrance that he has been made the bread of life, upon which we may\nconstantly feed, and by giving us a taste and relish for that bread, it\ncauses us to experience the support which it is adapted to afford. For\nit assures us, in the first place, that whatever Christ has done or\nsuffered, was for the purpose of giving life to us; and, in the next\nplace, that this life will never end. For as Christ would never have\nbeen the bread of life to us, if he had not been born, and died, and\nrisen again for us, so now he would by no means continue so, if the\nefficacy and benefit of his nativity, death, and resurrection, were not\npermanent and immortal. All this Christ has beautifully expressed in\nthese words: \u201cThe bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give\nfor the life of the world;\u201d[1240] in which he clearly signifies, that\nhis body would be as bread to us, for the spiritual life of the soul,\nbecause it was to be exposed to death for our salvation; and that it is\ngiven to us to feed upon it, when he makes us partakers of it by faith.\nHe gave it once, therefore, to be made bread, when he surrendered it to\nbe crucified for the redemption of the world; he gives it daily, when,\nby the word of the gospel, he presents it to us, that we may partake of\nit as crucified; when he confirms that presentation by the sacred\nmystery of the supper; when he accomplishes within that which he\nsignifies without. Here it behoves us to guard against two errors; that,\non the one hand, we may not, by undervaluing the signs, disjoin them\nfrom the mysteries with which they are connected; nor, on the other\nhand, by extolling them beyond measure, obscure the glory of the\nmysteries themselves. That Christ is the bread of life, by which\nbelievers are nourished to eternal salvation, there is no man, not\nentirely destitute of religion, who hesitates to acknowledge; but all\nare not equally agreed respecting the manner of partaking of him. For\nthere are some who define in a word, that to eat the flesh of Christ,\nand to drink his blood, is no other than to believe in Christ himself.\nBut I conceive that, in that remarkable discourse, in which Christ\nrecommends us to feed upon his body, he intended to teach us something\nmore striking and sublime; namely, that we are quickened by a real\nparticipation of him, which he designates by the terms of _eating_ and\n_drinking_, that no person might suppose the life which we receive from\nhim to consist in simple knowledge. For as it is not _seeing_, but\n_eating_ bread, that administers nourishment to the body, so it is\nnecessary for the soul to have a true and complete participation of\nChrist, that by his power it may be quickened to spiritual life. At the\nsame time, we confess that there is no other eating than by faith, as it\nis impossible to imagine any other; but the difference between me and\nthe persons whose sentiment I am opposing, is this; they consider eating\nto be the very same as believing; I say, that in believing we eat the\nflesh of Christ, because he is actually made ours by faith, and that\nthis eating is the fruit and effect of faith; or, to express it more\nplainly, they consider the eating to be faith itself; but I apprehend it\nto be rather a consequence of faith. The difference is small in words,\nbut in the thing itself it is considerable. For though the apostle\nteaches that \u201cChrist dwelleth in our hearts by faith,\u201d[1241] yet no one\nwill explain this inhabitation to be faith itself. Every one must\nperceive that the apostle intended to express a peculiar advantage\narising from faith, of which the residence of Christ in the hearts of\nbelievers is one of the effects. In the same manner, when the Lord\ncalled himself \u201cthe bread of life,\u201d[1242] he intended not only to teach\nthat salvation is laid up for us in the faith of his death and\nresurrection, but also that, by our real participation of him, his life\nis transferred to us, and becomes ours; just as bread, when it is taken\nfor food, communicates vigour to the body.\n\nVI. When Augustine, whom they bring forward as their advocate, said that\nwe eat the body of Christ by believing in him, it was with no other\nmeaning than to show that this eating is not of a corporeal nature, but\nsolely by faith. This I admit; but at the same time I add, that we\nembrace Christ by faith, not as appearing at a distance, but as uniting\nhimself with us, to become our head, and to make us his members. I do\nnot altogether disapprove, however, such a mode of expression, but if\nthey mean to define what it is to eat the flesh of Christ, I deny this\nto be a complete explanation. Otherwise, I see that Augustine has\nfrequently used this phrase; as when he says, \u201cExcept ye eat the flesh\nof the Son of man, ye have no life in you;[1243] this is a figure which\nenjoins a participation of the sufferings of our Lord, and a sweet and\nuseful recollection in the memory, that his flesh was wounded and\ncrucified for us:\u201d and again, when he says, \u201cThat the three thousand,\nwho were converted by the preaching of Peter,[1244] drank the blood of\nChrist by believing in him, which they had shed in persecuting him.\u201d But\nin many other passages he highly celebrates that beneficial consequence\nof faith, and states our souls to be as much refreshed by the communion\nof the body of Christ, as our bodies are by the bread which we eat. And\nthe very same idea is conveyed by Chrysostom, when he says, \u201cThat Christ\nmakes us his body, not only by faith, but also in reality.\u201d For he does\nnot mean that this benefit is obtained any otherwise than by faith; he\nonly intends to preclude a supposition from being entertained by any\none, that this faith is nothing more than a speculative apprehension. I\nsay nothing at present of those who maintain the Lord\u2019s supper to be a\nmere mark of external profession, because I think I have sufficiently\nrefuted their error, when treating of the sacraments in general. Only\nlet it be observed, that when Christ says, \u201cThis cup is the new\ntestament, or covenant, in my blood,\u201d[1245] this is the expression of a\npromise calculated for the confirmation of faith; whence it follows,\nthat unless we direct our views to God, and embrace what he offers us,\nwe never properly celebrate the sacred supper.\n\nVII. Nor am I satisfied with those persons, who, after having\nacknowledged that we have some communion with Christ, when they mean to\ndescribe it, represent us merely as partakers of his Spirit, but make no\nmention of his flesh and blood; as though there were no meaning in these\nand other similar expressions: \u201cThat his flesh is meat indeed; that his\nblood is drink indeed; that except we eat his flesh, and drink his\nblood, we have no life in us.\u201d Wherefore, if it be evident that the full\ncommunion of Christ goes beyond their too confined description of it, I\nwill endeavour to state, in few words, how far it extends, before I\nspeak of the contrary error of carrying it to excess. For I shall have a\nlonger controversy with the hyperbolical doctors, who, while in their\nfolly they imagine an absurd and extravagant way of eating the flesh of\nChrist, and drinking his blood, deprive him of his real body, and\nmetamorphose him into a mere phantom; if, however, it be possible, in\nany words, to unfold so great a mystery, which I find myself incapable\nof properly comprehending, even in my mind; and this I am ready to\nacknowledge, that no person may measure the sublimity of the subject by\nmy inadequate representation of it. On the contrary, I exhort my readers\nnot to confine their thoughts within such narrow and insufficient\nlimits, but to endeavour to rise much higher than I am able to conduct\nthem; for as to myself, whenever I handle this subject, after having\nendeavoured to say every thing, I am conscious of having said but very\nlittle, in comparison of its excellence. And though the conceptions of\nthe mind can far exceed the expressions of the tongue, yet, with the\nmagnitude of the subject, the mind itself is oppressed and overwhelmed.\nNothing remains for me, therefore, but to break forth in admiration of\nthat mystery, which the mind is unable clearly to understand, or the\ntongue to express. I will nevertheless state the substance of my\nopinion, which, as I have no doubt of its truth, I trust will also be\nreceived with approbation by godly minds.\n\nVIII. In the first place, we learn from the Scriptures, that Christ was\nfrom the beginning that life-giving Word of the Father, the fountain and\norigin of life, from which all things have ever derived their existence.\nTherefore John in one place calls him \u201cThe Word of life,\u201d and in another\nsays, that \u201cin him was life;\u201d[1246] signifying, that even then he\ndiffused his energy over all the creatures, and endued them with life\nand breath. Yet the same apostle immediately adds, that \u201cthe life was\nmanifested\u201d then, and not before, when the Son of God, by assuming our\nflesh, rendered himself visible to the eyes, and palpable to the hands\nof men. For though he diffused his influence over all the creatures\nbefore that period, yet, because man was alienated from God by sin, had\nlost the participation of life, and saw nothing on every side but\nimpending death, it was necessary to his recovery of any hope of\nimmortality, that he should be received into the communion of that word.\nFor what slender hopes shall we form, if we hear that the Word of God\ncontains in himself all the plenitude of life, while we are at an\ninfinite distance from him, and, withersoever we turn our eyes, see\nnothing but death presenting itself on every side? But since he who is\nthe fountain of life has taken up his residence in our flesh, he remains\nno longer concealed at a distance from us, but openly exhibits himself\nto our participation. He also makes the very flesh in which he resides\nthe means of giving life to us, that, by a participation of it, we may\nbe nourished to immortality. \u201cI am the living bread,\u201d says he, \u201cwhich\ncame down from heaven. And the bread that I will give is my flesh, which\nI will give for the life of the world.\u201d[1247] In these words, he shows,\nnot only that he is life, as he is the eternal Word who descended from\nheaven to us, but that in descending he imparted that power to the flesh\nwhich he assumed, in order that it might communicate life to us. Hence\nfollow these declarations: \u201cThat his flesh is meat indeed, and that his\nblood is drink indeed;\u201d[1248] meat and drink by which believers are\nnourished to eternal life. Here, then, we enjoy peculiar consolation,\nthat we find life in our own flesh. For in this manner we not only have\nan easy access to it, but it freely discovers and offers itself to our\nacceptance; we have only to open our hearts to its reception, and we\nshall obtain it.\n\nIX. Now, though the power of giving life to us is not an essential\nattribute of the body of Christ, which, in its original condition, was\nsubject to mortality, and now lives by an immortality not its own, yet\nit is justly represented as the source of life, because it is endued\nwith a plenitude of life to communicate to us. In this I agree with\nCyril, in understanding that declaration of Christ, \u201cAs the Father hath\nlife in himself, so hath he given to the Son to have life in\nhimself.\u201d[1249] For in this passage, he is not speaking of the\nattributes which he possessed with the Father from the beginning, but of\nthe gifts with which he was adorned in the flesh in which he appeared;\ntherefore he showed that the fulness of life dwelt in his humanity, that\nwhoever partook of his flesh and blood might, at the same time, enjoy a\nparticipation of life. For, as the water of a fountain is sometimes\ndrunk, sometimes drawn, and sometimes conveyed in furrows for the\nirrigation of lands, yet the fountain does not derive such an abundance\nfor so many uses from itself, but from the spring which is perpetually\nflowing to furnish it with fresh supplies, so the flesh of Christ is\nlike a rich and inexhaustible fountain, which receives the life flowing\nfrom the Divinity, and conveys it to us. Now, who does not see that a\nparticipation of the body and blood of Christ is necessary to all who\naspire to heavenly life? This is implied in those passages of the\napostle, that the Church is the body of Christ, and his fulness;[1250]\nthat he is \u201cthe head, from whom the whole body, joined together and\ncompacted by that which every joint supplieth, maketh increase of the\nbody;\u201d[1251] that our bodies are \u201cthe members of Christ;\u201d[1252] things\nwhich we know can no otherwise be effected than by his entire union both\nof body and spirit with us. But that most intimate fellowship, by which\nwe are united with his flesh, the apostle has illustrated in a still\nmore striking representation, when he says, \u201cWe are members of his body,\nof his flesh, and of his bones.\u201d[1253] At length, to declare the subject\nto be above all description, he concludes his discourse by exclaiming,\n\u201cThis is a great mystery.\u201d[1254] It would be extreme stupidity,\ntherefore, to acknowledge no communion of believers with the body and\nblood of the Lord, which the apostle declares to be so great, that he\nwould rather admire than express it.\n\nX. We conclude, that our souls are fed by the flesh and blood of Christ,\njust as our corporeal life is preserved and sustained by bread and wine.\nFor otherwise there would be no suitableness in the analogy of the sign,\nif our souls did not find their food in Christ; which cannot be the case\nunless Christ truly becomes one with us, and refreshes us by the eating\nof his flesh and the drinking of his blood. Though it appears incredible\nfor the flesh of Christ, from such an immense local distance, to reach\nus, so as to become our food, we should remember how much the secret\npower of the Holy Spirit transcends all our senses, and what folly it is\nto apply any measure of ours to his immensity. Let our faith receive,\ntherefore, what our understanding is not able to comprehend, that the\nSpirit really unites things which are separated by local distance. Now,\nthat holy participation of his flesh and blood, by which Christ\ncommunicates his life to us, just as if he actually penetrated every\npart of our frame, in the sacred supper he also testifies and seals; and\nthat not by the exhibition of a vain or ineffectual sign, but by the\nexertion of the energy of his Spirit, by which he accomplishes that\nwhich he promises. And the thing signified he exhibits and offers to all\nwho come to that spiritual banquet; though it is advantageously enjoyed\nby believers alone, who receive such great goodness with true faith and\ngratitude of mind. For which reason the apostle said, \u201cThe cup of\nblessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ?\nThe bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of\nChrist?\u201d[1255] Nor is there any cause to object, that it is a figurative\nexpression, by which the name of the thing signified is given to the\nsign. I grant, indeed, that the breaking of the bread is symbolical, and\nnot the substance itself: yet, this being admitted, from the exhibition\nof the symbol we may justly infer the exhibition of the substance; for,\nunless any one would call God a deceiver, he can never presume to affirm\nthat he sets before us an empty sign. Therefore, if, by the breaking of\nthe bread, the Lord truly represents the participation of his body, it\nought not to be doubted that he truly presents and communicates it. And\nit must always be a rule with believers, whenever they see the signs\ninstituted by the Lord, to assure and persuade themselves that they are\nalso accompanied with the truth of the thing signified. For to what end\nwould the Lord deliver into our hands the symbol of his body, except to\nassure us of a real participation of it? If it be true that the visible\nsign is given to us to seal the donation of the invisible substance, we\nought to entertain a confident assurance, that in receiving the symbol\nof his body, we at the same time truly receive the body itself.\n\nXI. In harmony, therefore, with the doctrine which has always been\nreceived in the Church, and which is maintained in the present day by\nall who hold right sentiments, I say, that the sacred mystery of the\nsupper consists of two parts: the corporeal signs, which, being placed\nbefore our eyes, represent to us invisible things in a manner adapted to\nthe weakness of our capacities; and the spiritual truth, which is at the\nsame time typified and exhibited by those symbols. When I intend to give\na familiar view of this truth, I am accustomed to state three\nparticulars which it includes: the signification; the matter, or\nsubstance, which depends on the signification; and the virtue, or\neffect, which follows from both. The signification consists in the\npromises which are interwoven with the sign. What I call the matter or\nsubstance, is Christ, with his death and resurrection. By the effect, I\nmean redemption, righteousness, sanctification, eternal life, and all\nthe other benefits which Christ confers upon us. Now, though all these\nthings are connected with faith, yet I leave no room for this cavil; as\nthough, when I say that Christ is received by faith, I intended that he\nis received merely in the understanding and imagination; for the\npromises present him to us, not that we may rest in mere contemplation\nand simple knowledge, but that we may enjoy a real participation of him.\nAnd, in fact, I see not how any man can attain a solid confidence that\nhe has redemption and righteousness in the cross of Christ, and life in\nhis death, unless he first has a real communion with Christ himself; for\nthose blessings would never be imparted to us, if Christ did not first\nmake himself ours. I say, therefore, that in the mystery of the supper,\nunder the symbols of bread and wine, Christ is truly exhibited to us,\neven his body and blood, in which he has fulfilled all obedience to\nprocure our justification. And the design of this exhibition is, first,\nthat we may be united into one body with him, and, secondly, that being\nmade partakers of his substance, we may experience his power in the\ncommunication of all blessings.\n\nXII. I now proceed to the hyperbolical additions which superstition has\nmade to this sacrament. For here Satan has exerted amazing subtlety to\nwithdraw the minds of men from heaven, and involve them in a\npreposterous error, by persuading them that Christ is attached to the\nelement of bread. In the first place, we must be careful not to dream of\nsuch a presence of Christ in the sacrament as the ingenuity of the\nRomanists has invented; as if the body of Christ were exhibited, by a\nlocal presence, to be felt by the hand, bruised by the teeth, and\nswallowed by the throat. For this was the form of recantation which Pope\nNicolas directed to Berengarius as a declaration of his repentance; the\nlanguage of which is so monstrous, that the scholiast exclaims, that\nthere is danger, unless the readers be very prudent and cautious, of\ntheir imbibing from it a worse heresy than that of Berengarius; and\nPeter Lombard, though he takes great pains to defend it from the charge\nof absurdity, yet rather inclines to a different opinion. For, as we\nhave not the least doubt that Christ\u2019s body is finite, according to the\ninvariable condition of a human body, and is contained in heaven, where\nit was once received, till it shall return to judgment, so we esteem it\nutterly unlawful to bring it back under these corruptible elements, or\nto imagine it to be present every where. Nor is there any need of this,\nin order to our enjoying the participation of it; since the Lord by his\nSpirit gives us the privilege of being united with himself in body,\nsoul, and spirit. The bond of this union, therefore, is the Spirit of\nChrist, by whom we are conjoined, and who is, as it were, the channel by\nwhich all that Christ himself is and has is conveyed to us. For, if we\nbehold the sun darting his rays and transmitting his substance, as it\nwere, in them, to generate, nourish, and mature the roots of the earth,\nwhy should the irradiation of the Spirit of Christ be less effectual to\nconvey to us the communication of his body and blood? Wherefore, the\nScripture, when it speaks of our participation of Christ, attributes all\nthe power of it to the Spirit. One passage shall suffice instead of\nmany. In the eighth chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, Paul\nrepresents Christ as dwelling in us no otherwise than by his\nSpirit.[1256] By this representation, the apostle does not destroy that\ncommunion of the body and blood of Christ of which we are now treating,\nbut teaches that it is solely owing to the agency of the Spirit that we\npossess Christ with all his benefits, and have him dwelling within us.\n\nXIII. Deterred by a horror of such barbarous impiety, the schoolmen have\nexpressed themselves in more modest language, yet they only trifle with\nequal fallacy and greater subtlety. They admit that Christ is not\ncontained in the bread and wine in a local or corporeal manner; but they\nafterwards invent a manner which they neither understand themselves nor\ncan explain to others; which, however, amounts to this, that Christ is\nto be sought, as they express it, in the form of bread. When they say\nthat the substance of bread is transmuted into Christ, do they not\nattach his substance to the whiteness, which they pretend is all that\nremains of the bread? But, they say, he is so contained in the\nsacrament, that he remains in heaven, and we maintain no other presence\nthan that of _habitude_. But whatever words they employ to gloss over\ntheir notions, they all terminate in this, that, by the consecration,\nthat which was before bread becomes Christ, so that the substance of\nChrist is concealed under the colour of bread. This they are not ashamed\nto express in plain terms; for Lombard says, \u201cThat the body of Christ,\nwhich is visible in itself, is hidden and concealed, after the\nconsecration, under the form of bread.\u201d Thus the figure of the bread is\nnothing but a veil, which prevents the flesh from being seen. Nor is\nthere any need of many conjectures, to discover what snares they\nintended to lay in these words, which the thing itself plainly evinces.\nFor it is evident in what profound superstition not only the people in\ngeneral, but even the principal men, have now for several ages been\ninvolved, and are involved, at the present day, in the Papal churches.\nTrue faith, which is the sole medium of our union and communion with\nChrist, being an object of little solicitude to them, provided they have\nthat carnal presence which they have fabricated without any authority\nfrom the Divine word, they consider him as sufficiently present with\nthem. The consequence of this ingenious subtlety, therefore, we find to\nbe this, that bread has been taken for God.\n\nXIV. Hence proceeded that pretended transubstantiation, for which they\nnow contend with more earnestness than for all the other articles of\ntheir faith. For the first inventors of the local presence were unable\nto explain how the body of Christ could be mixed with the substance of\nthe bread, without being immediately embarrassed by many absurdities.\nTherefore they found it necessary to have recourse to this fiction, that\nthe bread is transmuted into the body of Christ; not that his body is\nproperly made of the bread, but that Christ annihilates the substance of\nthe bread, and conceals himself under its form. It is astonishing that\nthey could fall into such ignorance, and even stupidity, as to\npromulgate such a monstrous notion, in direct opposition to the\nScripture and to the doctrine of the primitive Church. I confess,\nindeed, that some of the ancient writers sometimes used the word\n_conversion_, not with a view to destroy the substance of the external\nsigns, but to signify that the bread dedicated to that sacrament is\nunlike common bread, and different from what it was before. But they all\nconstantly and expressly declare, that the sacred supper consists of two\nparts, earthly and heavenly; and the earthly part they explain, without\nthe least hesitation, to be bread and wine. Whatever the Romanists may\npretend, it is very clear that the authority of the ancients, which they\nfrequently presume to oppose to the plain word of God, affords them no\nassistance in the support of this dogma; and, indeed, it is\ncomparatively but of recent invention, for it was not only unknown to\nthose better times, when the doctrine of religion still flourished in\nits purity, but even when that purity had already been much corrupted.\nThere is not one of the ancient writers who does not acknowledge in\nexpress terms that the consecrated symbols of the supper are bread and\nwine; though, as we have observed, they sometimes distinguish them with\nvarious titles, to celebrate the dignity of the mystery. For when they\nsay, that a secret _conversion_ takes place in the consecration, so that\nthey are something different from bread and wine, I have already stated\ntheir meaning to be, not that the bread and wine are annihilated, but\nthat they are to be considered in a different light from common\naliments, which are merely designed for the nourishment of the body;\nbecause, in those elements, we are presented with the spiritual meat and\ndrink of the soul. In this we also coincide. But, say our opponents, if\nthere be a conversion, one thing must be changed into another. If they\nmean that something is made what it was not before, I agree with them.\nIf they wish to apply this to their absurd notion, let them tell me what\nchange they think takes place in baptism. For in that also the fathers\nstate a wonderful conversion, when they say, that from the corruptible\nelement proceeds a spiritual ablution of the soul, yet not one of them\ndenies that it retains the substance of water. But there is no such\ndeclaration, they say, respecting baptism as there is respecting the\nsupper: \u201cThis is my body.\u201d As though the question related to those\nwords, which have a meaning obvious enough, and not rather to the\nconversion or change spoken of, which ought to signify no more in the\nsupper than in baptism. Let them cease their verbal subtleties,\ntherefore, which only betray their own absurdity. Indeed, there would be\nno consistency in the signification, if the external sign were not a\nliving image of the truth which is represented in it. By the external\nsign, Christ intended to declare that his flesh is meat. If he were to\nset before us a mere spectre of bread, and not real bread, where would\nbe the analogy or similitude, which ought to lead us from the visible\nemblem to the invisible substance? For, to preserve the correspondence\ncomplete, the signification would extend no further than that we should\nbe fed with an appearance of the flesh of Christ. As in baptism, if\nthere were nothing but an appearance of water to deceive our eyes, we\nshould have no certain pledge of our ablution; and such an illusive\nrepresentation we should find a source of painful uncertainty. The\nnature of the sacrament, therefore, is subverted, unless the earthly\nsign correspond in its signification to the heavenly substance; and,\nconsequently, we lose the truth of this mystery, unless the true body of\nChrist be represented by real bread. I repeat it again; since the sacred\nsupper is nothing but a visible attestation of the promise, that Christ\nis \u201cthe bread of life which cometh down from heaven,\u201d[1257] it requires\nthe use of visible and material bread to represent that which is\nspiritual; unless we are determined that the means which God kindly\naffords to support our weakness shall be altogether unavailing to us.\nWith what reason could Paul conclude that \u201cwe, being many, are one\nbread, for we are all partakers of that one bread,\u201d[1258] if there were\nnothing but a mere phantom of bread, and not the true and real substance\nof it?\n\nXV. They would never have been so shamefully deluded by the fallacies of\nSatan, if they had not been previously fascinated with this error\u2014that\nthe body of Christ contained in the bread was received in a corporeal\nmanner into the mouth, and actually swallowed. The cause of such a\nstupid notion was, that they considered the consecration as a kind of\nmagical incantation. But they were unacquainted with this principle,\nthat the bread is a sacrament only to those to whom the word is\naddressed; as the water of baptism is not changed in itself, but on the\nannexation of the promise, begins to be to us that which it was not\nbefore. This will be further elucidated by the example of a similar\nsacrament. The water which flowed from the rock in the wilderness, was\nto the fathers a token and sign of the same thing which is represented\nto us by the wine in the sacred supper; for Paul says, \u201cThey did drink\nthe same spiritual drink.\u201d[1259] But the same water served also for\ntheir flocks and herds. Hence it is easily inferred, that when earthly\nelements are applied to a spiritual use, no other change takes place in\nthem than with regard to _men_, to whom they become seals of the\npromises. Besides, since the design of God is, as I have often repeated,\nby suitable vehicles to elevate us to himself, this object is impiously\nfrustrated by the obstinacy of those who invite us to Christ indeed, but\ninvisibly concealed under the form of bread. It is not possible for the\nhuman mind to overcome the immensity of local distance, and to penetrate\nto Christ in the highest heavens. What nature denied them, they\nattempted to correct by a remedy yet more pernicious, that while\nremaining on the earth, they might attain a proximity to Christ without\nany need of ascending to heaven. This is all the necessity which\nconstrained them to metamorphose the body of Christ. In the time of\nBernard, though a harsh mode of expression had been adopted, still\ntransubstantiation was yet unknown; and in all preceding ages it was a\ncommon similitude, in the mouths of all, that in this sacrament the body\nand blood of Christ were spiritually united with the bread and wine.\nThey argue respecting the terms, in their own apprehension, with great\nacuteness, but without adducing any thing applicable to the present\nsubject. The rod of Moses, they say, though it took the form of a\nserpent, still retained its original name, and was called a rod.[1260]\nSo they think it equally probable, that though the bread be changed into\nanother substance, yet it may by a catachresis, without any violation of\npropriety, be denominated according to its visible appearance. But what\nsimilitude or connection can they discover between that illustrious\nmiracle and their fictitious illusion, which no eye on earth witnesses?\nThe magicians had practised their sorceries, so that the Egyptians\nbelieved them to possess a Divine power to effect changes in the\ncreatures above the order of nature. Moses confronted them, and\ndefeating all their enchantments, showed the invincible power of God to\nbe on his side; because his one rod swallowed up all the rest. But that\nbeing a transmutation visible to the eye, makes nothing to the present\nargument, as we have already observed; and the rod soon after visibly\nreturned to its original form. Moreover, it is not known whether that\nwas in reality a temporary transmutation of substance or not. The\nallusion to the rods of the magicians deserves also to be observed; for\nMoses says, that \u201cAaron\u2019s rod swallowed up their _rods_:\u201d he would not\ncall them serpents, lest he might appear to imply a transmutation which\ndid not exist; for those impostors had done nothing but dazzle the eyes\nof the spectators. What resemblance has this to the following and other\nsimilar expressions: \u201cThe bread which we break;\u201d[1261] \u201cAs often as ye\neat this bread;\u201d[1262] \u201cThey continued in breaking of bread?\u201d[1263] It\nis certain that their eyes were only deceived by the incantations of the\nmagicians. There is greater uncertainty with respect to Moses, by whose\nhand it was no more difficult for God to make a rod into a serpent, and\nafterwards to make the serpent into a rod again, than to invest angels\nwith material bodies, and soon after to disembody them again. If the\nnature of this sacrament were the same, or bore any affinity to the case\nwe have mentioned, our opponents would have some colour for their\nsolution. We must, therefore, consider it as a fixed principle, that the\nflesh of Christ is not truly promised to us for food in the sacred\nsupper, unless the true substance of the external symbol corresponds to\nit. And as one error gives birth to another, a passage of Jeremiah is so\nstupidly perverted, in order to prove transubstantiation, that I am\nashamed to recite it. The prophet complains that wood was put into his\nbread;[1264] signifying that his enemies by their cruelty had taken away\nall the relish of his food; as David in a similar figure utters the\nfollowing complaint: \u201cThey gave me also gall for my meat, and in my\nthirst they gave me vinegar to drink.\u201d[1265] These disputants explain it\nas an allegory, that the body of Christ was affixed to the wood of the\ncross; and this, they say, was the opinion of some of the fathers. I\nreply, we ought rather to pardon their ignorance, and bury their\ndisgrace in oblivion, than to add the effrontery of constraining them\ncontinually to combat the genuine meaning of the prophet.\n\nXVI. Others, who perceive it to be impossible to destroy the analogy of\nthe sign and the thing signified, without subverting the truth of the\nmystery, acknowledge that the bread in the sacred supper is the true\nsubstance of that earthly and corruptible element, and undergoes no\nchange in itself; but they maintain that it has the body of Christ\nincluded under it. If they explained their meaning to be, that when the\nbread is presented in the sacrament, it is attended with an exhibition\nof the body of Christ, because the truth represented is inseparable from\nits sign, I should make little objection; but as, by placing the body\nitself in the bread, they attribute ubiquity to it, which is\nincompatible with its nature, and by stating it to be _under the bread_,\nrepresent it as lying concealed in it; it is necessary to unmask such\nsubtleties: not that it is my intention to enter on a professed\nexamination of the whole of this subject at present; I shall only lay\nthe foundations of the discussion, which will follow in its proper\nplace. They maintain the body of Christ, therefore, to be invisible and\ninfinite, that it may be concealed under the bread; because they suppose\nit to be impossible for them to partake of him, any otherwise than by\nhis descending into the bread; but they know nothing of that descent of\nwhich we have spoken, by which he elevates us to himself. They bring\nforward every plausible pretext that they can; but when they have said\nall, it is evident that they are contending for a local presence of\nChrist. And what is the reason of it? It is because they cannot conceive\nof any other participation of his flesh and blood, except what would\nconsist in local conjunction and contact, or in some gross enclosure.\n\nXVII. And to defend with obstinacy the error which they have once\nembraced, some of them hesitate not to affirm that the body of Christ\nnever had any other dimensions than the whole extent of heaven and\nearth. His birth as an infant, his growth to maturity, his extension on\nthe cross, his incarceration in the sepulchre,\u2014all this, they say, took\nplace in consequence of a kind of dispensation, that he might as a man\naccomplish every thing necessary to our salvation. His appearance in the\nsame corporeal form after his resurrection, his ascension to heaven, his\nsubsequent appearances to Stephen and to Paul,\u2014all this also resulted\nfrom a similar dispensation, that he might manifest himself to the view\nof man as appointed King in heaven. Now, what is this but to raise\nMarcion from the dead? For if such were the condition of Christ\u2019s body,\nevery one must perceive it to have been a mere phantom or visionary\nform, without any real substance. Some plead, with a little more\nsubtlety, that the body of Christ, which is given in the sacrament, is\nglorious and immortal, and that therefore it involves no absurdity, if\nit be contained under the sacrament in various places, or in no place,\nor without any form. But I ask what kind of body did Jesus Christ give\nto his disciples, the night before he suffered? Do not the words imply,\nthat he gave them the same mortal body which was just about to be\nbetrayed? They reply, that he had already manifested his glory in the\neyes of three of his disciples, on the mount. That is true; but his\ndesign was, in that splendour, to give them a transient glimpse of his\nimmortality. They will not find there a twofold body, but the very same\nwhich Christ was accustomed to carry about with him, adorned with\nunusual glory, from which it speedily returned to its natural condition.\nWhen he distributed his body at the institution of the sacred supper,\nthe hour was approaching, in which, \u201cstricken and smitten of God,\u201d he\nwas to lie down like a leper \u201cwithout form or comeliness:\u201d[1266] he was\nthen far from intending to display the glory of his resurrection. What a\ndoor does this open to the error of Marcion, if the body of Christ\nappeared in one place mortal and mean, and in another was received as\nimmortal and glorious? On their principle, however, this happens every\nday; for they are constrained to confess that the body of Christ is\nvisible in itself, while at the same time they say that it is invisibly\nconcealed under the symbol of bread. And yet the promulgators of such\nmonstrous absurdities are so far from being ashamed of their disgrace,\nthat they stigmatize us with unprovoked and enormous calumnies, because\nwe refuse to subscribe to them.\n\nXVIII. If they are determined to fasten the body and blood of the Lord\nto the bread and wine, one must of necessity be severed from the other.\nFor as the bread is presented separately from the cup, the body, being\nunited to the bread, must consequently be divided from the blood\ncontained in the cup. For when they affirm that the body is in the\nbread, and the blood in the cup, while the bread and the wine are at\nsome distance from each other, no sophistry will enable them to evade\nthis conclusion\u2014that the body is separated from the blood. Their usual\npretence, that the blood is in the body, and the body in the blood, by\nwhat they call _concomitance_, is perfectly frivolous, while the symbols\nin which they are contained are so divided. But if we elevate our views\nand thoughts towards heaven, to seek Christ there in the glory of his\nkingdom, as the symbols invite us to him entire, under the symbol of\nbread we shall eat his body, under the symbol of wine we shall\ndistinctly drink his blood, so that we shall thus enjoy him entire. For\nthough he has removed his flesh from us, and in his body is ascended to\nheaven, yet he sits at the Father\u2019s right hand, that is, he reigns in\nthe power, and majesty, and glory of the Father. This kingdom is neither\nlimited to any local space, nor circumscribed by any dimensions; Christ\nexerts his power wherever he pleases in heaven and earth, exhibits\nhimself present in his energetic influence, is constantly with his\npeople, inspiring his life into them, lives in them, sustains them,\nstrengthens and invigorates them, just as if he were corporeally\npresent; in short, he feeds them with his own body, of which he gives\nthem a participation by the influence of his Spirit. This is the way in\nwhich the body and blood of Christ are exhibited to us in the sacrament.\n\nXIX. It is necessary for us to establish such a presence of Christ in\nthe sacred supper, as neither, on the one hand, to fasten him to the\nelement of bread, or to enclose him in it, or in any way to circumscribe\nhim, which would derogate from his celestial glory; nor, on the other\nhand, to deprive him of his corporeal dimensions, or to represent his\nbody as in different places at once, or to assign it an immensity\ndiffused through heaven and earth, which would be clearly inconsistent\nwith the reality of his human nature. Let us never suffer ourselves to\nbe driven from these two exceptions; that nothing be maintained\nderogatory to Christ\u2019s celestial glory; which is the case when he is\nrepresented as brought under the corruptible elements of this world, or\nfastened to any earthly objects; and that nothing be attributed to his\nbody incompatible with the human nature; which is the case when it is\nrepresented as infinite, or is said to be in more places than one at the\nsame time. These absurdities being disclaimed, I readily admit whatever\nmay serve to express the true and substantial communication of the body\nand blood of the Lord, which is given to believers under the sacred\nsymbols of the supper; and to express it in a manner implying not a mere\nreception of it in the imagination or apprehension of their mind, but a\nreal enjoyment of it as the food of eternal life. Nor can any cause be\nassigned, why this opinion is so odious to the world, and the minds of\nmultitudes are so unjustly prejudiced against any defence of it, but\nthat they have been awfully infatuated with the delusions of Satan. It\nis certain that the doctrine we advance is in all respects in perfect\nharmony with the Scriptures; it contains nothing absurd, ambiguous, or\nobscure; it is not at all inimical to true piety, or solid edification;\nin short, it includes nothing that can offend, except that for several\nages, while the ignorance and barbarism of the sophists prevailed over\nthe Church, this very clear light and obvious truth was shamefully\nsuppressed. Yet, as, in the present age also, Satan is making the most\npowerful exertions to oppose it, and is employing turbulent spirits to\nendeavour to blacken it by every possible calumny and reproach, it is\nnecessary to be the more diligent in asserting and defending it.\n\nXX. Now, before we proceed any further, it is requisite to discuss the\ninstitution itself; because the most plausible objection of our\nadversaries is, that we depart from the words of Christ. To exonerate\nourselves from the false charge which they bring against us, it is\nhighly proper, therefore, to begin with an exposition of the words. The\naccount given by three of the evangelists, and by Paul, informs us, that\n\u201cJesus took bread, and gave thanks, and blessed it, and brake it, and\ngave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body, which is\ngiven or broken for you. And he took the cup, and said, This cup is my\nblood of the new testament, or the new testament in my blood, which is\nshed for you, and for many, for the remission of sins.\u201d[1267] The\nadvocates of transubstantiation contend that the pronoun _this_ denotes\nthe appearance of the bread, because the consecration is made by the\nwhole of the sentence, and there is no visible substance, according to\nthem, which can be indicated by it. But if they are guided by a\nscrupulous attention to the words, because Christ declared that which he\ngave into the hands of his disciples to be his body, nothing can be more\nat variance with a just interpretation of them, than the notion that\nwhat before was bread had now become the body of Christ. For it was that\nwhich Christ took into his hands to deliver to his disciples, that he\nasserts to be his body; but he took \u201c_bread_.\u201d Who does not perceive,\nthen, that that to which this pronoun referred was bread still? and\ntherefore nothing would be more absurd than to transfer to a mere\nappearance or visionary form that which was spoken of real bread.\nOthers, when they explain the word _is_ to denote transubstantiation,\nhave recourse to an interpretation still more violently perverted and\nunnatural. They have not the least colour, therefore, for a pretence\nthat they are influenced by a scrupulous reverence for the words of\nChrist. For to use the word _is_ to signify a transmutation into another\nsubstance, is a thing never heard of, in any country or in any language.\nThose who acknowledge the continuance of bread in the supper, and affirm\nthat it is accompanied with the real body of Christ, differ considerably\namong themselves. Those of them who express themselves more modestly,\nthough they strenuously insist on the literal meaning of these words,\n\u201c_This is my body_,\u201d yet afterwards depart from their literal precision,\nand explain them to import that the body of Christ is with the bread, in\nthe bread, and under the bread. Of the opinion maintained by them, we\nhave already spoken, and shall soon have occasion to take further\nnotice; at present I am only arguing respecting the words, by which they\nconsider themselves bound, so that they cannot admit the bread to be\ncalled _his body_, because it is a sign of it. But if they object to\nevery trope, and insist on taking the words in a sense strictly literal,\nwhy do they forsake the language of Christ, and adopt a phraseology of\ntheir own so very dissimilar? For there is a wide difference between\nthese two assertions, that \u201cthe bread is the body,\u201d and that \u201cthe body\nis with the bread.\u201d But because they perceived the impossibility of\nsupporting this simple proposition, \u201cthat the bread is the body,\u201d they\nhave endeavoured to escape from their embarrassment by those evasions.\nOthers, more daring, hesitate not to assert, that, in strict propriety\nof speech, the bread _is_ the body; and thereby prove themselves to be\nadvocates for a truly literal interpretation. If it be objected, that\nthen the bread is Christ, and Christ is God, they will deny this,\nbecause it is not expressed in the words of Christ. But they will gain\nnothing by their denial of it, for it is universally admitted that the\nwhole person of Christ is offered to us in the sacrament. Now, it would\nbe intolerable blasphemy to affirm of a frail and corruptible element,\nwithout any figure, that it is Christ. I ask them whether these two\npropositions are equivalent to each other\u2014_Christ is the Son of God_,\nand _Bread is the body of Christ_. If they confess them to be\ndifferent,\u2014a confession which, if they hesitated, it would be easy to\nextort from them,\u2014let them say wherein the difference consists. I\nsuppose they will adduce no other point of difference, than that the\nbread is called _the body_ in a sacramental sense. Whence it follows,\nthat the words of Christ are not subject to any common rule, and ought\nnot to be examined on the principles of grammar. I would likewise\ninquire of the inflexible champions of a literal interpretation, whether\nthe words attributed to Christ, by Luke and Paul, \u201cThis cup _is_ the new\ntestament in my blood,\u201d do not express the same idea as the former\nclause, in which the bread is called his body. Surely the same reverence\nought to be shown to one part of the sacrament as to the other; and\nbecause brevity is obscure, the sense is elucidated by a fuller\nstatement. Whenever, therefore, they shall argue, from that one word,\nthat the bread is the body of Christ, I shall adduce the interpretation\nfurnished by the fuller account, that it is the _testament_ in his body.\nFor shall we seek for an expositor of greater fidelity or accuracy than\nPaul and Luke? Nor is it my design to diminish in the smallest degree\nthat participation of the body of Christ, which I have acknowledged is\nenjoyed; my only object is, to silence that foolish obstinacy which\ndisplays itself in violent contentions about words. From the authority\nof Paul and Luke, I understand the bread to be the body of Christ,\nbecause it is the covenant in his body. If they resist this, their\ncontention is not with me, but with the Spirit of God. Notwithstanding\nthey profess to be influenced by such reverence for the words of Christ,\nthat they dare not understand an explicit declaration of his in a\nfigurative sense, yet this pretext is not sufficient to justify their\npertinacious rejection of all the reasons which we allege to the\ncontrary. At the same time, as I have already suggested, it is necessary\nto understand what is meant by \u201cthe testament in the body and blood of\nChrist;\u201d because we should derive no benefit from the covenant ratified\nby the sacrifice of his death, if it were not followed by that secret\ncommunication by which we become one with him.\n\nXXI. It remains for us, therefore, to acknowledge that, on account of\nthe affinity which the things signified have with their symbols, the\nname of the substance has been given to the sign, in a figurative sense\nindeed, but by a most apt analogy. I forbear to introduce any thing of\nallegories and parables, lest any one should accuse me of having\nrecourse to subterfuges, and travelling out of the present subject. I\nobserve that this is a metonymical form of expression, which is commonly\nused in the Scripture in reference to sacraments. For in no other sense\nis it possible to understand such passages as these; when of\ncircumcision it is said, \u201cThis is my covenant;\u201d[1268] of the paschal\nlamb, \u201cIt is the Lord\u2019s passover;\u201d[1269] of the legal sacrifices, that\nthey were expiations, or atonements;[1270] of the rock, from which the\nwater issued in the desert, \u201cThat Rock was Christ.\u201d[1271] And not only\nis the name of something superior transferred to that which is inferior,\nbut, on the contrary, the name of the visible sign is likewise given to\nthe thing signified; as when God is said to have appeared to Moses in\nthe bush,[1272] when the ark of the covenant is called God,[1273] and\nthe Holy Spirit, a dove.[1274] For, though there is an essential\ndifference between the symbol and the thing signified, the former being\ncorporeal, terrestrial, and visible, and the latter spiritual,\ncelestial, and invisible, yet, as the symbol is not a vain and useless\nmemorial, a mere adumbration of the thing which it has been consecrated\nto represent, but also a true and real exhibition of it, why may not the\nname of that which it signifies be justly applied to it? If symbols\ninvented by man, which are rather emblems of things absent, than tokens\nof things present, of which also they very frequently give a delusive\nrepresentation, are, nevertheless, sometimes distinguished by the names\nof the things which they signify, there is far greater reason why the\nsymbols instituted by God should borrow the names of those things of\nwhich they always exhibit a correct and faithful representation, and by\nthe truth of which they are always accompanied. So great, therefore, is\nthe similitude and affinity of the one to the other, that there is\nnothing at all unnatural in such a mutual interchange of appellations.\nLet our adversaries cease, then, to assail us with their ridiculous wit,\nby calling us Tropologists, because we explain the sacramental\nphraseology according to the common usage of the Scripture. For as there\nis a great similarity in many respects between the various sacraments,\nso this metonymical transfer of names is common to them all. As the\napostle, therefore, states, that \u201cthe Rock\u201d from which flowed \u201cspiritual\ndrink\u201d for the Israelites, \u201cwas Christ,\u201d[1275] because it was a visible\nsymbol, under which \u201cthat spiritual drink\u201d was received, though not in a\nmanner discernible by the corporeal eye, so bread is now called the body\nof Christ, because it is the symbol under which the Lord truly offers us\nhis body to eat. And that no one may despise this as a novel sentiment,\nwe shall show that the same was entertained by Augustine. He says, \u201cIf\nthe sacraments had not some similitude to those things of which they are\nsacraments, they would be no sacraments at all. On account of this\nsimilitude, they frequently take the names even of the things which they\nrepresent. Therefore, as the sacrament of the body of Christ is in some\nsense that body itself, and the sacrament of the blood of Christ, is\nthat blood itself, so the sacrament of faith is called faith.\u201d His works\ncontain many similar passages, which it would be useless to collect, as\nthis one is sufficient; only the reader ought to be apprized that this\nholy father repeats and confirms the same observation in an epistle to\nEuodius. It is a frivolous subterfuge to plead, that when Augustine\nspeaks of metonymical expressions, as frequently and commonly used\nrespecting the sacraments, he makes no mention of the Lord\u2019s supper;\nfor, if this were admitted, we could no longer reason from the genus to\nthe species, or from the whole to a part; it would not be a good\nargument to say, that every animal is endued with the power of motion,\ntherefore oxen and horses are endued with the power of motion. All\nfurther dispute on this point, however, is precluded by the language of\nthe same writer on another occasion\u2014\u201cthat Christ did not hesitate to\ncall it his body, when he gave it as the sign of his body.\u201d Again: \u201cIt\nwas wonderful patience in Christ, to admit Judas to the feast, in which\nhe instituted and gave to his disciples the emblem of his body and of\nhis blood.\u201d\n\nXXII. But if some obstinate man, shutting his eyes against every other\nconsideration, should insist on this single expression, \u201c_This is_ my\nbody,\u201d as though it made a distinction between the supper and all other\nsacraments, the answer is easy. They allege that the verb substantive is\ntoo emphatical to admit of any figure. If we grant this, the verb\nsubstantive is also used by Paul, where he says, \u201cThe bread which we\nbreak, _is_ it not the _communion_ of the body of Christ?\u201d[1276] But the\ncommunion of the body is something different from the body itself. In\nalmost all cases of sacraments, we find the same word used\u2014\u201cThis _is_ my\ncovenant.\u201d \u201cIt _is_ the Lord\u2019s passover.\u201d[1277] And to mention no more,\nwhen Paul says, \u201cThat Rock _was_ Christ,\u201d[1278] why do they consider the\nverb substantive less emphatical in that passage than in the speech of\nChrist? Let them also explain the force of the verb substantive in that\nplace where John says, \u201cThe Holy Ghost _was_ not yet, because that Jesus\nwas not yet glorified.\u201d[1279] For if they obstinately adhere to their\nrule, they will destroy the eternal existence of the Spirit, as if it\ncommenced at the ascension of Christ. Let them answer, in the last\nplace, what is the meaning of Paul, when he calls baptism \u201cthe washing\nof regeneration, and renewing,\u201d[1280] though it is evidently useless to\nmany. But nothing is more conclusive against them than that passage\nwhere Paul says, that the Church is Christ. For having drawn a\nsimilitude from the human body, he adds, \u201cSo also is Christ;\u201d[1281] by\nwhich he means not the only begotten Son of God, in himself, but in his\nmembers. I think I have so far succeeded, that all men of sense and\nintegrity must be disgusted with the foul calumnies of our adversaries,\nwhen they charge us with giving no credit to the words of Christ, which\nwe receive with as much submission as themselves, and consider with\ngreater reverence. Indeed, their supine negligence is a proof that it is\na subject of little concern to them, what was the will or meaning of\nChrist, provided they can use him as a shield to defend their obstinacy;\nas our diligence in inquiring into Christ\u2019s true meaning is a sufficient\nproof of our high regard to his authority. They maliciously represent,\nthat human reason prevents us from believing what Christ himself has\ndeclared with his sacred mouth; but how unjustly they stigmatize us with\nthis reproach, I have explained, in a great measure, already, and shall\npresently make still more evident. Nothing prevents us, therefore, from\nbelieving Christ when he speaks, and immediately acquiescing in every\nword he utters. The only question is, whether it be criminal to inquire\ninto his genuine meaning.\n\nXXIII. To show themselves men of letters, these good doctors prohibit\neven the least departure from the literal signification. I reply, When\nthe Scripture calls God \u201ca man of war,\u201d because this language would be\ntoo harsh, unless it be explained in a figurative sense, I hesitate not\nto consider it as a comparison borrowed from men. And indeed it was upon\nno other pretext that the ancient Anthropomorphites molested the\northodox fathers, than by laying hold of such expressions as these: \u201cThe\neyes of the Lord behold; It entereth into the ears of the Lord; His hand\nis stretched out; The earth is his footstool;\u201d and accusing them of\ndepriving God of his body, which the Scripture ascribes to him. If this\ncanon of interpretation be admitted, all the light of faith will be\noverwhelmed in the crudest barbarism. For what monstrous absurdities\nwill not fanatics be able to elicit from the Scripture, if they are\npermitted to allege every detached and ill-understood word and syllable\nin confirmation of their notions? The objection which they urge, from\nthe improbability that Christ, when he was preparing peculiar\nconsolation for his disciples in seasons of adversity, should express\nhimself in enigmatical or obscure language, is completely in our favour.\nFor if it had not been understood by the apostles, that the bread was\ncalled his body in a figurative sense, because it was a symbol of his\nbody, they would undoubtedly have been disturbed about so monstrous a\ndeclaration. Almost at the same moment, John states that they were\nembarrassed and perplexed with every minute difficulty. They who debated\namong themselves how Christ was to go to the Father, and were at a loss\nto know how he would depart from this world; who could understand\nnothing that was said of a heavenly Father, because they had not seen\nhim; how could they have been so ready to believe any thing so entirely\nrepugnant to every dictate of reason, as that Christ was sitting at the\ntable before their eyes, and yet was invisibly enclosed in the bread? By\neating the bread without any hesitation, they testified their consent,\nand hence it appears that they understood the words of Christ in the\nsame sense that we do, considering that it is common in all sacraments\nfor the name of the sign to be transferred to the thing signified. To\nthe disciples, therefore, it was, as it is to us, a certain and clear\nconsolation, involved in no enigma; nor is there any other cause to be\nassigned why some reject our interpretation, except that the devil has\nblinded them by his delusions, in consequence of which they imagine\nenigmatical obscurities, where a beautiful figure furnishes such an\nobvious and natural meaning. Besides, if we rigidly adhere to the\nletter, what Christ said of the bread would be inconsistent with what he\nsaid of the cup. He calls the bread _his body_, he calls the wine _his\nblood_: either this must be a vain repetition, or a distinction which\nseparates the body from the blood. It might be said of the cup, This is\nmy body, as truly as of the bread; and the converse of this proposition\nwould be equally correct, that the bread is his blood. If they reply,\nthat we ought to consider for what end or use the symbols were\ninstituted,\u2014this I acknowledge; but it is impossible to free their error\nfrom this absurd consequence, that the bread is the blood, and the wine\nthe body. Now I am at a loss how to understand them, when they admit the\nbread and the body to be different things, and yet assert that the bread\nis properly and without any figure called the body; as if any one should\nsay that a garment is different from a man, and yet that it is properly\ncalled a man. At the same time, as if their victory consisted in\nobstinacy and calumny, they charge us with accusing Christ of falsehood,\nif we inquire into the true meaning of his words. Now it will be easy\nfor the readers to judge how unjustly we are treated by these\nsyllable-hunters, when they persuade the simple to believe that we\nderogate from the authority due to the words of Christ, which we have\nproved to be outrageously perverted and confounded by them, but to be\nfaithfully and accurately explained by us.\n\nXXIV. But the infamy of this falsehood cannot be entirely effaced,\nwithout repelling another calumny; for they accuse us of being so\ndevoted to human reason, as to limit the power of God by the order of\nnature, and to allow him no more than our own understanding teaches us\nto ascribe to him. Against such iniquitous aspersions I appeal to the\ndoctrine which I have maintained; which will sufficiently evince that I\nam far from measuring this mystery by the capacity of human reason, or\nsubjecting it to the laws of nature. Is it from natural philosophy that\nwe have learned that Christ feeds our souls with his flesh from heaven,\njust as our bodies are nourished with bread and wine? Whence is it that\nflesh has the power of giving life to our souls? Every one will\npronounce it not to be from nature. No more will it accord with human\nreason that the flesh of Christ descends to us to become nourishment to\nus. In short, whoever shall understand our doctrine, will be enraptured\nwith admiration of the secret power of God. But these good zealots\ncontrive a miracle, without which God himself, with all his power,\ndisappears from their view. I would again request of my readers a\ndiligent consideration of the nature and tendency of our doctrine,\nwhether it depends on human reason, or on the wings of faith rises above\nthe world and ascends to heaven. We say that Christ descends to us both\nby the external symbol and by his Spirit, that he may truly vivify our\nsouls with the substance of his flesh and blood. He who perceives not\nthat many miracles are comprehended in these few words, is more than\nstupid; for there is nothing more preternatural than for souls to derive\nspiritual and heavenly life from the flesh, which had its origin from\nthe earth, and was subject to death; nothing is more incredible than for\nthings separated from each other by all the distance of heaven and\nearth, notwithstanding that immense local distance, to be not only\nconnected, but united, so that our souls receive nourishment from the\nflesh of Christ. Let these fanatics, then, no longer attempt to render\nus odious by such a foul calumny, as though we, in any respect, limited\nthe infinite power of God; which is either a most stupid mistake, or an\nimpudent falsehood. For the question here respects not what God could\ndo, but what he has chosen to do. We affirm that what pleased him, came\nto pass. It pleased him for Christ to become in all respects like his\nbrethren, sin excepted.[1282] What is the nature of our body? Has it not\nits proper and certain dimensions? is it not contained in some\nparticular place, and capable of being felt and seen? And why, say they,\nmay not God cause the same flesh to occupy many different places, to be\ncontained in no particular place, and to have no form or dimensions? But\nhow can they be so senseless as to require the power of God to cause a\nbody to be a body, and not to be a body, at the same time? It is like\ndemanding of him to cause light to be at once both light and darkness.\nBut he wills light to be light, darkness to be darkness, and flesh to be\nflesh. Whenever it shall be his pleasure, indeed, he will turn darkness\ninto light, and light into darkness; but to require that light and\ndarkness shall no longer be different, is to aim at perverting the order\nof Divine wisdom. Therefore body must be body, spirit must be spirit,\nevery thing must be subject to that law, and retain that condition,\nwhich was fixed by God at its creation. And the condition of a body is\nsuch, that it must occupy one particular place, and have its proper form\nand dimensions. In this condition did Christ assume a body, to which, as\nAugustine observes, \u201che gave incorruption and glory, but without\ndepriving it of its nature and reality.\u201d The testimony of the Scripture\nis clear\u2014that he ascended to heaven, whence he will come again, in like\nmanner as he was seen to ascend.[1283]\n\nXXV. They reply, that they have the word in which the will of God is\nclearly revealed; that is, if they be allowed to banish from the Church\nthe gift of interpretation which elucidates the word. I confess that\nthey have the word and quote the letter of Scripture; but just as did\nthe Anthropomorphites in past ages, who represented God to be corporeal;\njust as did Marcion and the Manich\u00e6ans, who attributed to Christ a\ncelestial or visionary body. For they quoted these texts: \u201cThe first man\nis of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven.\u201d[1284]\n\u201cChrist made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a\nservant, and was made in the likeness of man.\u201d[1285] These groveling\nsouls imagine that God can have no power, unless the whole order of\nnature be reversed by the monster which they have fabricated in their\nown brains; but this is an attempt to circumscribe God, and to measure\nhis power by the fancies of men. For from what word have they learned\nthat the body of Christ is visible in heaven, and yet is on earth,\nconcealed in an invisible manner under innumerable pieces of bread? They\nwill say that necessity requires this, in order to the body of Christ\nbeing given in the supper. The truth is, that when they had determined\nto conclude, from the language of Christ, that his body was eaten in a\ncarnal manner, carried away with this prejudice, they found it necessary\nto invent that subtlety, which the whole tenor of the Scripture\ncontradicts. That we derogate any thing from the power of God, is so far\nfrom being true, that our doctrine peculiarly tends to magnify it. But\nas they never cease to accuse us of defrauding God of his due honour, by\na rejection of every thing which natural reason finds it difficult to\nbelieve, though promised by the mouth of Christ himself, I repeat the\nanswer which I have lately given, that we consult not natural reason\nrespecting the mysteries of faith, but that, with the placid docility\nand gentleness of spirit recommended by James,[1286] we receive the\ndoctrine which comes down from heaven. Yet, in a point in which they run\ninto a pernicious error, I admit that we pursue a useful moderation. On\nhearing the words of Christ, \u201cThis is my body,\u201d they imagine a miracle\nthe most distant from his intention. This notion gives birth to\nprodigious absurdities; but, having already embarrassed themselves by\ntheir foolish precipitation, they plunge themselves into the abyss of\nthe Divine omnipotence, in order to extinguish the light of truth. Hence\nthe haughty presumption, with which they profess to have no wish to know\nhow Christ is concealed under the bread, being content with that\ndeclaration, \u201cThis is my body.\u201d We, on the contrary, with equal\nobedience and care, endeavour to ascertain the true meaning of this\npassage, as we do of all others; nor do we, with preposterous eagerness,\ntemerity, and indiscretion, seize the first thought which presents\nitself to our minds, but after diligent meditation we embrace that sense\nwhich the Spirit of God suggests; established in which, we look down\nwith contempt on every opposition made to it by the wisdom of this\nworld; we even impose restraints on our own minds, that they may not\ndare to utter a word of cavil, and keep them humble to prevent their\nmurmuring against the authority of God. Hence has proceeded that\nexposition of the words of Christ, which all, who are but moderately\nversed in the Scripture, know to be agreeable to its invariable usage\nrespecting sacraments. Nor do we esteem it unlawful, in a difficult\ncase, after the example of the holy virgin, to inquire how it can\nbe.[1287]\n\nXXVI. But as nothing will be more effectual to confirm the faith of true\nbelievers, than a knowledge that the doctrine which we have advanced is\ndrawn from the pure word of God, and rests upon its authority, I will\ndemonstrate this with all possible brevity. It is not from Aristotle,\nbut from the Holy Spirit, that we have learned that the body of Christ,\nsince its resurrection, is limited, and received into heaven till the\nlast day. I am fully aware that our adversaries contemptuously elude the\npassages which are adduced for this purpose.[1288] Whenever Christ\nspeaks of his approaching departure from the world, they reply that this\ndeparture was nothing more than a change of his mortal state. But if\nthis were correct, Christ would not substitute the Holy Spirit to supply\nthe defect of his absence, as they express it, since the Spirit does not\nsucceed to his place, nor does Christ himself descend again from the\nglory of heaven to assume the condition of this mortal life. The advent\nof the Spirit, and the ascension of Christ, are clearly opposed to each\nother; and, therefore, it is impossible for Christ to dwell with us,\naccording to his flesh, in the same manner in which he sends his Spirit.\nBesides, he expressly declares that he shall not always be with his\ndisciples in the world.[1289] This declaration also they think they have\ncompletely explained away, by saying that Christ merely intended that he\nshould not always be poor and mean, and exposed to the necessities of\nthis transitory life. But they are evidently contradicted by the\ncontext, which relates, not to his poverty, or indigence, or any of the\nmiseries of this life, but to his reception of respect and honour. The\nunction performed by the woman displeased the disciples, because they\nthought it an unnecessary and useless expense, bordering on luxury; and,\ntherefore, they wished that the value of the ointment, which they\nconsidered as improperly lavished, had been distributed to the poor.\nChrist said, that he should not always be present to receive such\nhonour. Augustine has given the same explanation of this passage, in the\nfollowing explicit language:\u2014\u201cWhen Christ said, Me ye have not always\nwith you, he spoke of the presence of his body. For according to his\nmajesty, his providence, and his ineffable and invisible grace, is\naccomplished what he said on another occasion\u2014Lo, I am with you always,\neven to the end of the world; but, with respect to the body, which the\nWord assumed, which was born of the virgin, which was apprehended by the\nJews, which was affixed to the tree, which was taken down from the\ncross, which was wrapped in linen clothes, which was laid in the\nsepulchre, which was manifested at the resurrection, this declaration is\nfulfilled\u2014Me ye have not always with you. Why? Because in his corporeal\npresence he conversed with his disciples for forty days, and while they\nwere attending him, seen, but not followed by them, he ascended to\nheaven. He is not here; for he sits at the right hand of the Father: and\nyet he is here; for he has not withdrawn the presence of his majesty:\notherwise, according to the presence of his majesty, we have Christ\nalways with us; but, with respect to his corporeal presence, he said\nwith truth, Me ye have not always with you. For the Church had his\nbodily presence for a few days; now it retains him by faith, but does\nnot behold him with corporeal eyes.\u201d Here let us briefly remark, this\nfather represents Christ as present with us in three respects\u2014in his\nmajesty, his providence, and his ineffable grace; under the last of\nwhich I comprehend the wonderful communion of his body and blood; only\nwe must understand this to be effected by the power of the Holy Spirit,\nand not by a fictitious enclosure of his body under the bread. For our\nLord has declared that he has flesh and bones, capable of being felt and\nseen; and _to go away_ and _to ascend_ import not a mere appearance of\nascent and departure, but an actual performance of that which the words\nexpress. Shall we, then, it will be said by some, assign to Christ a\nparticular district of heaven? I reply, with Augustine, that this\nquestion is too curious, and altogether unnecessary; provided we believe\nthat he is in heaven, that is enough.\n\nXXVII. Does not the term _ascension_, which is so frequently repeated,\nsignify a removal from one place to another? This they deny, because\nthey consider his exaltation as only denoting the majesty of his empire.\nBut I ask, What was the manner of his ascent? Was he not carried up on\nhigh in the view of his disciples? Do not the evangelists expressly\nstate that he was received up into heaven?[1290] These acute sophists\nreply that he was concealed from their sight by an interposing cloud, to\nteach believers that thenceforward he would not be visible in the world.\nAs though, to produce a belief of his invisible presence, he ought not\nrather to have vanished in a moment, or to have been enveloped in the\ncloud without moving from where he stood. But as he was carried up into\nthe air, and, by the interposition of a cloud between him and his\ndisciples, showed that he was no longer to be sought for on earth, we\nconfidently conclude that his residence is now in heaven. This also is\naffirmed by Paul, who teaches us to expect him from thence.[1291] For\nthis reason the angels admonished the disciples\u2014\u201cWhy stand ye gazing up\ninto heaven? This same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven,\nshall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.\u201d[1292]\nHere also the adversaries of sound doctrine have recourse to what they\nthink an ingenious evasion\u2014that he will then become visible who has\nnever departed from the world, but remained invisible with his people.\nAs though the angels, in that address, insinuated a twofold presence,\nand did not simply make the disciples ocular witnesses of his ascension,\nwith a view to preclude every doubt; just as if they had said, Received\nup into heaven in your sight, he has taken possession of the celestial\nempire; it remains for you to wait with patience till he shall come\nagain as the judge of the world; for he is now entered into heaven, not\nto occupy it alone, but to assemble you and all the godly to enjoy it\nwith him.\n\nXXVIII. As the advocates of this spurious doctrine are not ashamed to\ndefend it by the suffrages of the fathers, and particularly of\nAugustine, I will briefly expose the disingenuousness of this attempt.\nTheir testimonies having been collected by learned and pious writers, I\nhave no inclination to go over the same ground; any one who wishes may\nconsult their writings. Nor even from Augustine shall I adduce every\npassage which would serve the argument; but shall content myself with\nshowing, by a few extracts, that he is, beyond all doubt, perfectly in\nharmony with us. In order to deprive us of him, our adversaries allege\nthat, in various parts of his works, he states the flesh and blood of\nChrist, even the victim once offered on the cross, to be dispensed in\nthe sacred supper; but this is altogether frivolous; since he also calls\nthe consecrated symbols either \u201cthe eucharist,\u201d or \u201cthe sacrament of\nChrist\u2019s body and blood.\u201d But in what sense he uses the words _flesh_\nand _blood_, it is unnecessary to make any long or circuitous inquiry;\nfor he explains himself by saying, \u201cthat sacraments take their names\nfrom the similitude of those things which they signify, and, therefore,\nin some sense, the sacrament of the body is _the body_.\u201d With this\ncorresponds another well known passage: \u201cThe Lord hesitated not to say,\nThis is my body, when he delivered the sign of it.\u201d They object again,\nthat Augustine expressly says, that the body of Christ falls to the\nearth, and enters into the mouth. I reply, that he says this in the same\nsense in which he affirms it to be consumed; because he connects both\nthese things together. Nor does any objection arise from his saying,\nthat when the mystery is finished, the bread is consumed; because he had\njust before said, \u201cAs these things are known to man, being done by man,\nthey may have honour as holy things, but not as miracles.\u201d And to the\nsame effect is another expression, which our adversaries, without\nsufficient consideration, represent as in their favour; that, \u201cwhen\nChrist presented the mystical bread to his disciples, he, in a certain\nsense, held himself in his own hands.\u201d For, by introducing this\nqualifying phrase _in a certain sense_, he sufficiently declares that\nthe body of Christ was not truly or really enclosed in the bread. Nor\nought this to be thought strange, for in another place he expressly\nmaintains, \u201cThat if bodies be deprived of their local spaces, they will\nbe nowhere, and consequently will cease to have any existence.\u201d It is a\npoor cavil, to say that this passage does not relate to the sacred\nsupper, in which God exerts a special power; because the question had\nbeen agitated respecting the body of Christ, and this holy father,\nprofessedly answering it, says, \u201cChrist has given immortality to his\nbody, but has not deprived it of its nature. In a corporeal form,\ntherefore, he is not to be considered as universally diffused; for we\nmust beware of asserting his Divinity in such a way as to destroy the\ntruth of his body. It does not follow, that, because God is every where,\nall that is in him is every where also.\u201d The reason is immediately\nadded\u2014\u201cFor one person is God and man, and both constitute one Christ; as\nGod, he is every where; as man, he is in heaven.\u201d What stupidity would\nit have betrayed not to except the mystery of the supper, a thing so\nserious and important, if it contained any thing inconsistent with the\ndoctrine he was maintaining! Yet, if any one will attentively read what\nfollows, he will find, that under that general doctrine, the Lord\u2019s\nsupper is also comprehended. He says, that Christ, who is, in one\nperson, the only begotten Son of God and the Son of man, is every where\npresent as God; that, as God, he resides in the temple of God, that is,\nin the Church; and yet that he occupies some particular place in heaven,\naccording to the dimensions of a real body. To unite Christ with his\nChurch, we see he does not bring down his body from heaven; which he\ncertainly would have done, if that body could not become our food\nwithout being enclosed under the bread. In another place, describing how\nChrist is now possessed by believers, he says, \u201cYou have him by the sign\nof the cross, by the sacrament of baptism, by the food and drink of the\naltar.\u201d Whether he is correct in placing a superstitious ceremony among\nthe symbols of Christ\u2019s presence, I am not now discussing; but in\ncomparing the presence of the flesh to the sign of the cross, he\nsufficiently shows that he does not imagine Christ to have two bodies,\none visibly seated in heaven, and the other invisibly concealed under\nthe bread. If any further explication be necessary, it is soon after\nadded, \u201cThat we always have Christ, according to the presence of his\nmajesty; but that, according to the presence of his flesh, it is rightly\nsaid, Me ye have not always.\u201d Our adversaries reply, that it is also\nobserved, at the same time, \u201cthat according to his ineffable and\ninvisible grace, his declaration is fulfilled\u2014Lo, I am with you always,\neven to the end of the world.\u201d But this is nothing in their favour,\nbecause, after all, it is restricted to that majesty which is always\nopposed to the body, and his flesh is expressly distinguished from his\npower and grace. In another passage of this author, we find the same\nantithesis, or contrast, \u201cthat Christ left his disciples in his\ncorporeal presence, that he might be with them by his spiritual\npresence;\u201d which clearly distinguishes the substance of the flesh from\nthe power of the Spirit, which conjoins us with Christ, notwithstanding\nwe are widely separated from him by local distance. He frequently uses\nthe same mode of expression, as when he says, \u201cChrist will come again,\nin his corporeal presence, to judge the living and the dead, according\nto the rule of faith and sound doctrine. For in his spiritual presence,\nhe was to come to his disciples, and to be with his whole Church on\nearth, to the end of time. This discourse, therefore, was addressed to\nthe believers, whom he had already begun to keep with his corporeal\npresence, and whom he was about to leave by his corporeal absence, that\nwith the Father he might keep them by his spiritual presence.\u201d To\nexplain _corporeal_ to mean _visible_, is mere trifling; for he opposes\nthe body of Christ to his Divine power; and by adding, \u201cthat _with the\nFather he might keep them_,\u201d clearly expresses that the Saviour\ncommunicates his grace to us from heaven by the Holy Spirit.\n\nXXIX. As they place so much confidence in this subterfuge of an\ninvisible presence, let us see how far it serves their cause. In the\nfirst place, they cannot produce a single syllable from the Scriptures\nto prove that Christ is invisible; but they take for granted, what no\nman of sound judgment will concede to them, that the body of Christ\ncannot be given in the supper, without being concealed under the form of\nbread. Now, so far is this from being an admitted axiom, that it is the\nvery point in dispute between them and us. And while they talk in this\nway, they are constrained to attribute to Christ a double body, because,\nupon their principle, he is visible in heaven, and at the same time, by\na special dispensation, is invisible in the sacred supper. Whether this\nis correct or not, it is easy to judge from various passages of\nScripture, and particularly from the testimony of Peter; who says of\nChrist, that \u201cthe heavens must receive him, until the times of\nrestitution of all things.\u201d[1293] These men maintain that he is in all\nplaces, but without any form. They object that it is unreasonable to\nsubject the nature of a glorified body to the laws of common nature. But\nthis objection leads to the extravagant notion of Servetus, which justly\ndeserves the detestation of all believers, that the body of Christ,\nafter his ascension, was absorbed in his Divinity. I will not assert,\nthat they hold this opinion; but if it be considered as one of the\nattributes of the glorified body, to fill all places in an invisible\nmanner, it is evident that the corporeal substance must be destroyed,\nand no difference will be left between the Divinity and the humanity.\nBesides, if the body of Christ be multiform and variable, so as to\nappear in one place, and to be invisible in another, what becomes of the\nnature of a body which consists in having its proper dimensions? and\nwhere is its unity? With far greater propriety Tertullian argues, that\nthe body of Christ was a true and natural body, because the emblem of it\nis presented to us in the mystery of the supper, as a pledge and\nassurance of spiritual life. And, indeed, it was of his glorified body,\nthat Christ said, \u201cHandle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and\nbones, as ye see me have.\u201d[1294] We see how the truth of his body is\nproved by the lips of Christ himself, because it can be felt and seen;\ndeprive it of these qualities, and it will cease to be a body. They are\nalways recurring to their subterfuge of the dispensation which they have\ninvented. But it is our duty to receive what Christ absolutely declares,\nin such a manner, as to admit, without any exception, whatever he is\npleased to affirm. He proved that he was not a phantom, because he was\nvisible in his flesh. If that be taken away which he asserts to belong\nto the nature of his body, will it not be necessary to frame a new\ndefinition of a body? Now, with all their sophistry, they can extract\nnothing to support their imaginary _dispensation_ from that passage of\nPaul, where he says, that \u201cFrom heaven we look for the Saviour, who\nshall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his\nglorious body.\u201d[1295] For we cannot hope for a conformity to Christ in\nthose qualities which they attribute to him, which would make all our\nbodies invisible and infinite; nor will they find a man foolish enough\nto be persuaded to believe so great an absurdity. Let them, then, no\nlonger ascribe to the glorified body of Christ the property of being in\nmany places at once, or of being contained within no particular space.\nIn short, let them either deny the resurrection of the flesh, or admit\nthat Christ, though clothed with celestial glory, has not divested\nhimself of his flesh; for he will make us, in our flesh, partakers of\nthe same glory, as we shall enjoy a resurrection similar to his. For\nwhat is there more clearly stated in any part of the Scripture, than\nthat as Christ really assumed our flesh when he was born of the virgin,\nand suffered in our flesh to atone for our sins, so he resumed the same\nflesh, at his resurrection, and carried it up into heaven? For all the\nhope that we have of our resurrection and ascension to heaven, is\nfounded on the resurrection and ascension of Christ; who, as Tertullian\nsays, \u201chas taken the pledge of our resurrection into heaven with him.\u201d\nNow, how weak and faint would this hope be, if the real flesh of Christ\nhad not truly risen from the dead, and entered into the kingdom of\nheaven! But it is essential to a real body, to have its particular form\nand dimensions, and to be contained within some certain space. Let us\nhear no more, then, of this ridiculous notion, which fastens the minds\nof men, and Christ himself, to the bread. For what is the use of this\ninvisible presence concealed under the bread, but to lead those who\ndesire to be united to Christ, to confine their attention to that\nsymbol? But the Lord intended to withdraw, not only our eyes, but all\nour senses, from the earth, when he forbade the woman to touch him,\nbecause he was not yet ascended to his Father.[1296] When he saw Mary,\nwith pious affection and reverence, hastening to kiss his feet, there\nwas no reason for his disapprobation and prohibition of such an act,\nbefore his ascension to heaven, except that heaven was the only place\nwhere he chose to be sought. It is objected, that he was afterwards seen\nby Stephen;[1297] but the answer is easy; for, in order to this, no\nchange of place was necessary to Christ, who could impart to the eyes of\nhis servant a supernatural perspicacity, capable of penetrating into\nheaven. The same observation is applicable to his appearance to\nPaul.[1298] They allege that Christ came out of the sepulchre, while the\nsepulchre remained closed, and entered into the room where his disciples\nwere assembled, while the doors continued shut; but this contributes no\nsupport to their error. For as the water was like a solid pavement,\nforming a road for Christ when he walked on the lake, so it is no wonder\nif the hardness of the stone gave way, to make him a passage; though it\nis more probable that the stone removed at his command, and after his\ndeparture returned to its place. And to enter while the doors remained\nshut, does not imply his penetrating through the solid matter, but his\nopening an entrance for himself by his Divine power, so that, in a\nmiraculous manner, he instantaneously stood in the midst of his\ndisciples, though the doors were shut. What they adduce from Luke, that\n\u201che vanished out of the sight\u201d of his two disciples, with whom he had\nwalked to Emmaus,[1299] is of no service to their cause, but is in\nfavour of ours; for, according to the testimony of the same evangelist,\nwhen he joined these disciples, he assumed no new appearance in order to\nconceal himself; but \u201ctheir eyes were holden, that they should not know\nhim.\u201d[1300] Our adversaries, however, not only transform Christ, to keep\nhim in the world, but they represent him as unlike himself, and\naltogether different on earth from what he is in heaven. By such\nextravagances, in short, they turn the body of Christ into a spirit,\nthough not by positive assertion, yet by direct implication; and not\ncontent with this, they attribute to it qualities utterly incompatible\nwith each other; whence it follows, of necessity, that he must have two\nbodies.\n\nXXX. Though we should grant them what they contend for, respecting its\ninvisible presence, still this would be no proof of its infinity,\nwithout which it will be a vain attempt to enclose Christ under the\nbread. Unless the body of Christ be capable of being every where at\nonce, without any limitation of place, it will not be credible that it\nis concealed under the bread in the sacred supper. It was this necessity\nwhich caused them to introduce their monstrous notion of its ubiquity.\nBut it has been shown, by clear and strong testimonies of Scripture,\nthat the body of Christ was, like other human bodies, circumscribed by\ncertain dimensions; and its ascension to heaven made it evident that it\nwas not in all places, but that it left one place, when it removed to\nanother. Nor is the promise, \u201cI am with you always, even unto the end of\nthe world,\u201d[1301] to be applied, as they suppose it should be, to his\nbody. In the first place, on this supposition, there will be no such\nperpetual connection, unless Christ dwells in us in a corporeal manner,\nwithout the use of the sacramental supper; and therefore they have no\nsufficient cause for contending so fiercely respecting the words of\nChrist, in order to enclose Christ under the bread. In the next place,\nthe context evinces, that Christ there has not the most distant\nreference to his flesh, but promises his disciples invincible aid to\nsustain and defend them against all the assaults of Satan and the world.\nFor having assigned them a difficult province, to encourage them to\nundertake it without hesitation, and to discharge it with undaunted\nresolution, he supports them with the assurance of his presence; as\nthough he had said, they should never want his aid, which nothing could\novercome. Unless these men wished to involve every thing in confusion,\nought they not to distinguish the nature of this presence? It is evident\nthat some persons would rather incur the greatest disgrace by betraying\ntheir ignorance, than relinquish even the least particle of their error.\nI speak not of the Romanists, whose doctrine is more tolerable, or at\nleast more modest; but some are so carried away with the heat of\ncontention, as to affirm that, on account of the union of the two\nnatures in Christ, wherever his Divinity is, his flesh, which cannot be\nseparated from it, is there also; as if that union had mingled the two\nnatures so as to form some intermediate kind of being, which is neither\nGod nor man. This notion was maintained by Eutyches, and since his time\nby Servetus. But it is clearly ascertained from the Scriptures, that in\nthe one person of Christ the two natures are united in such a manner,\nthat each retains its peculiar properties undiminished. That Eutyches\nwas justly condemned as a heretic, our adversaries will not deny; it is\nsurprising that they overlook the cause of his condemnation, which was,\nthat by taking away the difference between the two natures, and\ninsisting on the unity of the person, he made the Divinity human, and\ndeified the humanity. What absurdity, therefore, is it to mingle heaven\nand earth together, rather than not to draw the body down from the\ncelestial sanctuary! They endeavour to justify themselves by adducing\nthese texts: \u201cNo man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down\nfrom heaven, even the Son of man, which is in heaven;\u201d and, \u201cThe only\nbegotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared\nhim.\u201d[1302] But it argues the same stupidity to disregard the\ncommunication of properties, a term which was with good reason adopted\nby the holy fathers in the early ages. When Paul says that \u201cThe Lord of\nglory\u201d was \u201ccrucified,\u201d[1303] he certainly does not intend that Christ\nsuffered any thing in his Divinity, but that the same person, who\nsuffered as an abject and despised man, was also, as God, the Lord of\nglory. In the same sense, the Son of man was in heaven; because the same\nChrist, who, according to the flesh, dwelt on earth as the Son of man,\nas God, was always in heaven. For this reason, in the same passage, he\nrepresents himself as having descended from heaven, according to his\nDivinity; not that his Divinity quitted heaven to confine itself in the\nprison of the body; but because, though it filled all space, yet it\ndwelt corporeally, or naturally, and in a certain ineffable manner, in\nthe humanity. It is a distinction common in the schools, and which I am\nnot ashamed to repeat, that though Christ is every where entire, yet all\nthat is in him is not every where. And I sincerely wish that the\nschoolmen themselves had duly considered the meaning of this\nobservation; for then we should never have heard of their stupid notion\nof the corporeal presence of Christ in the sacrament. Therefore, our\nMediator, as he is every where entire, is always near to his people; and\nin the sacred supper exhibits himself present in a peculiar manner, yet\nnot with all that belongs to him; because, as we have stated, his body\nhas been received into heaven, and remains there till he shall come to\njudgment.\n\nXXXI. They are exceedingly deceived, who cannot conceive of any presence\nof the flesh of Christ in the supper, except it be attached to the\nbread. For on this principle they leave nothing to the secret operation\nof the Spirit, which unites us to Christ. They suppose Christ not to be\npresent, unless he descends to us; as though we cannot equally enjoy his\npresence, if he elevates us to himself. The only question between us,\ntherefore, respects the manner of this presence; because they place\nChrist in the bread, and we think it unlawful for us to bring him down\nfrom heaven. Let the readers judge on which side the truth lies. Only\nlet us hear no more of that calumny, that Christ is excluded from the\nsacrament, unless he be concealed under the bread. For as this is a\nheavenly mystery, there is no necessity to bring Christ down to the\nearth, in order to be united to us.\n\nXXXII. If any one inquire of me respecting the manner, I shall not be\nashamed to acknowledge, that it is a mystery too sublime for me to be\nable to express, or even to comprehend; and, to be still more explicit,\nI rather experience it, than understand it. Here, therefore, without any\ncontroversy, I embrace the truth of God, on which I can safely rely. He\npronounces his flesh to be the food, and his blood the drink, of my\nsoul. I offer him my soul, to be nourished with such aliment. In his\nsacred supper, he commands me, under the symbols of bread and wine, to\ntake, and eat, and drink, his body and blood. I doubt not that he truly\npresents, and that I receive them. Only I reject the absurdities which\nappear to be either degrading to his majesty, or inconsistent with the\nreality of his human nature, and are at the same time repugnant to the\nword of God, which informs us that Christ has been received into the\nglory of the celestial kingdom, where he is exalted above every\ncondition of the world, and which is equally careful to attribute to his\nhuman nature the properties of real humanity. Nor ought this to seem\nincredible or unreasonable, because, as the kingdom of Christ is wholly\nspiritual, so his communications with his Church are not at all to be\nregulated by the order of the present world; or, to use the words of\nAugustine, \u201cThis mystery, as well as others, is celebrated by man, but\nin a Divine manner; it is administered on earth, but in a heavenly\nmanner.\u201d The presence of Christ\u2019s body, I say, is such as the nature of\nthe sacrament requires; where we affirm that it appears with so much\nvirtue and efficacy, as not only to afford our minds an undoubted\nconfidence of eternal life, but also to give us an assurance of the\nresurrection and immortality of our bodies. For they are vivified by his\nimmortal flesh, and in some degree participate his immortality. Those\nwho go beyond this in their hyperbolical representations, merely obscure\nthe simple and obvious truth by such intricacies. If any person be not\nyet satisfied, I would request him to consider, that we are now treating\nof a sacrament, every part of which ought to be referred to faith. Now,\nwe feed our faith by this participation of the body of Christ which we\nhave mentioned, as fully as they do, who bring him down from heaven. At\nthe same time, I candidly confess, that I reject that mixture of the\nflesh of Christ with our souls, or that transfusion of it into us, which\nthey teach; because it is sufficient for us that Christ inspires life\ninto our souls from the substance of his flesh, and even infuses his own\nlife into us, though his flesh never actually enters into us. I may also\nremark, that the analogy of faith, to which Paul directs us to conform\nevery interpretation of the Scripture, is in this case, beyond all\ndoubt, eminently in our favour. Let the adversaries of so clear a truth\nexamine by what rule of faith they regulate themselves. \u201cHe that\nconfesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is not of\nGod.\u201d[1304] Such persons, though they may conceal it, or may not observe\nit, do, in effect, deny the reality of his flesh.\n\nXXXIII. The same judgment is to be formed of our participation, which\nthey suppose not to be enjoyed at all, unless the flesh of Christ be\nswallowed in the bread. But we do no small injury to the Holy Spirit,\nunless we believe that our communion with the flesh and blood of Christ\nis the effect of his incomprehensible influence. Even if the virtue of\nthis mystery, such as we have represented it, and as it was understood\nby the ancient Church, had received the consideration justly due to it,\nfor four hundred years past, there would have been quite enough to\nsatisfy us, and the door would have been shut against many pernicious\nerrors, which have kindled dreadful dissensions, by which the Church has\nbeen miserably agitated in the present, as well as past ages. But\nsophistical men insist on a hyperbolical kind of presence, which is\nnever taught in the Scripture; and they contend as eagerly for this\nfoolish and absurd imagination, as if the whole of religion consisted in\nthe enclosure of Christ in the bread. It principally concerns us to know\nhow the body of Christ, which was once delivered for us, is made ours,\nand how we are made partakers of his blood which was shed; for the\nentire possession of Christ crucified consists in an enjoyment of all\nhis benefits. Now, leaving these things, which are of such great\nimportance, and even neglecting and forgetting them, these sophists take\nno pleasure but in this thorny question; how the body of Christ is\nconcealed under the bread, or under the form of the bread. They falsely\npretend that all that we teach respecting a spiritual participation, is\ncontrary to what they call the true and real participation; because we\nregard nothing but the manner, which, in their opinion, is corporeal, as\nthey enclose Christ in the bread, but in ours is spiritual, because the\nsecret influence of the Spirit is the bond which unites us to Christ.\nNor is there any more truth in their other objection, that we attend to\nnothing but the fruit or effect which believers experience from feeding\non the flesh of Christ. For we have already said, that Christ himself is\nthe matter or substance of the sacred supper, and that it is in\nconsequence of this, that we are absolved from our sins by the sacrifice\nof his death, are washed in his blood, and by his resurrection are\nraised to the hope of the heavenly life. But the foolish imagination, of\nwhich Lombard was the author, has perverted their minds, while they have\nsupposed the sacrament to consist in eating the flesh of Christ. For\nthese are his words: \u201cThe sacrament, without the thing, consists in the\nforms of bread and wine; the sacrament and the thing are the flesh and\nblood of Christ; the thing, without the sacrament, is his mystical\nflesh.\u201d Again, a little after: \u201cThe thing signified and contained is the\nproper flesh of Christ; the thing signified and not contained, is his\nmystical body.\u201d With his distinction between the flesh of Christ, and\nthe power which it has to nourish, I fully agree; but his notion, of\nwhat is a sacrament, and as contained under the bread, is an error not\nto be endured. Hence proceeded a false idea of sacramental eating,\nbecause they supposed the body of Christ to be eaten by impious and\nprofane persons, notwithstanding they were strangers to him. But the\nflesh of Christ itself, in the mystery of the supper, is as much a\nspiritual thing, as our eternal salvation. Whence we conclude, that\npersons who are destitute of the Spirit of Christ, can no more eat the\nflesh of Christ, than drink wine which has no taste. It is certainly\noffering an insult, and doing violence to Christ, to attribute to him a\nbody all feeble and dead, which is promiscuously distributed to\nunbelievers; and it is expressly contradicted by his own words: \u201cHe that\neateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in\nhim.\u201d[1305] They reply, that the discourse from which this text is\nquoted does not treat of sacramental eating; and this I concede to them;\nonly let them not be perpetually striking on the same rock, that the\nflesh of Christ may be eaten without any benefit. But I would wish them\nto inform me how long they retain it after they have eaten it. Here I\nbelieve they will find it impossible to escape. But they object, that\nthe truth of the promises of God can sustain no diminution or failure\nfrom the ingratitude of men. This I admit; and I also maintain, that the\nvirtue of this mystery remains unimpaired, notwithstanding wicked men\nexert their utmost efforts to destroy it. It is one thing, however, for\nthe body of Christ to be offered, and another for it to be received.\nChrist presents this spiritual meat and spiritual drink to all; some\nreceive them with avidity, others fastidiously reject them; shall their\nrejection cause the meat and drink to lose their nature? They will\nplead, that their sentiment is supported by this similitude\u2014that the\nflesh of Christ, though it be not relished by unbelievers, nevertheless\nstill continues to be flesh. But I deny that it can ever be eaten\nwithout the taste of faith; or, if the language of Augustine be\npreferred, I deny that men carry away from the sacrament any more than\nthey collect in the vessel of faith. Thus, nothing is taken from the\nsacrament, but its truth and efficacy remain unimpaired, notwithstanding\nthe wicked depart empty from its external participation. If our\nadversaries object again, that it derogates from these words, \u201cThis is\nmy body,\u201d if the wicked receive corruptible bread, and nothing more, the\nanswer is easy\u2014That God will have his veracity discovered, not in the\nreception itself, but in the constancy of his goodness, since he is\nready to impart to the unworthy, and even liberally offers to them, that\nwhich they reject. And this is the perfection of the sacrament, which\nthe whole world cannot violate, that the flesh and blood of Christ are\nas truly given to the unworthy, as to the elect and faithful people of\nGod; but it is likewise true, that as rain, falling upon a hard rock,\nruns off from it without penetrating into the stone, thus the wicked, by\ntheir obduracy, repel the grace of God, so that it does not enter into\ntheir hearts. Besides, a reception of Christ, without faith, is as great\nan absurdity, as for seed to germinate in the fire. Their inquiry, how\nChrist came for condemnation to some, unless they receive him\nunworthily, is a groundless cavil; for we nowhere read that the\nperdition of man is owing to an unworthy reception of Christ, but rather\nto a rejection of him. Nor can they derive any assistance from the\nparable in which Christ speaks of some seed springing up among thorns,\nand being afterwards choked and destroyed; for he is there showing what\nvalue belongs to that temporary faith, which our adversaries suppose to\nbe unnecessary to a participation of the flesh and blood of Christ,\nplacing Judas, in this respect, on an equality with Peter. Their error\nis rather refuted by another part of the same parable, in which Christ\nspeaks of some seed as having fallen by the way-side, and some on stony\nground, neither of which took any root.[1306] Whence it follows, that\nthe obduracy of unbelievers is such an obstacle, that Christ does not\nreach them. Whoever desires our salvation to be promoted by this\nmystery, will find nothing more proper than that believers, conducted to\nthe fountain should derive life from the Son of God. But the dignity of\nit is sufficiently magnified, when we remember, that it is a medium by\nwhich we are incorporated into Christ; or by which, after our\nincorporation into him, the connection is more and more strengthened,\ntill he perfectly unites us with himself, in the heavenly life. They\nobject, that Paul ought not to have made unbelievers \u201cguilty of the body\nand blood of the\n\nLord,\u201d[1307] unless they had been partakers of them. But I answer, that\nthey are not condemned for having eaten and drunk his body and blood,\nbut only for having profaned the mystery, by trampling under foot the\npledge of our holy union with God, which ought to have been received by\nthem with reverence.\n\nXXXIV. Now, because Augustine is the principal among the ancient fathers\nwho has asserted this point of doctrine, that the sacraments sustain no\ndiminution, and that the grace which they represent is not frustrated by\nthe unbelief or wickedness of men, it will be useful to adduce his own\nwords, which will clearly prove that those who expose the body of Christ\nto be eaten by dogs,[1308] are chargeable with an injudicious and\nculpable perversion of his meaning, in applying it to the present\nargument. Sacramental eating, according to them, is that by which the\nwicked receive the body and blood of Christ without any influence of his\nSpirit, or any effect of his grace. Augustine, on the contrary,\ncarefully examining these words, \u201cWhoso eateth my flesh and drinketh my\nblood hath eternal life,\u201d[1309] says, \u201cThis is the virtue of the\nsacrament, not the mere visible sacrament; and that internally, not\nexternally; he who eats with his heart, and not with his teeth;\u201d from\nwhich he concludes that the sacrament of the union which we have with\nthe body and blood of Christ, is presented in the sacred supper, to some\nto life, to others to perdition; but that the thing signified by the\nsacrament is only given to life to all who partake of it, and in no case\nto perdition. To preclude any cavil here, that the thing signified is\nnot the body, but the grace of the Spirit, which may be separated from\nthe body, he obviates such misrepresentations by the use of the\ncontrasted epithets of _visible_ and _invisible_; for the body of Christ\ncannot be comprehended under the former. Hence it follows, that\nunbelievers receive nothing but the visible symbol. And, for the more\ncomplete removal of every doubt, after having said that this bread\nrequires the hunger of the inner man, he adds, \u201cMoses, and Aaron, and\nPhinehas, and many others who ate the manna, were acceptable to God.\nWhy? Because they spiritually understood the visible food, they\nspiritually hungered, they spiritually ate, that they might be\nspiritually satisfied. For we also, in the present day, have received\nvisible food; but the sacrament is one thing, and the virtue of the\nsacrament is another.\u201d A little after he says, \u201cTherefore he who abides\nnot in Christ, and in whom Christ does not abide, spiritually neither\neats his flesh nor drinks his blood, though he may carnally and visibly\npress the sign of the body and blood with his teeth.\u201d Here, again, we\nfind the visible sign opposed to the spiritual eating; which contradicts\nthat error, that the invisible body of Christ is really eaten\nsacramentally, though it be not eaten spiritually. We are informed also\nthat nothing is granted to the profane and impure, beyond the visible\nreception of the sign. Hence that well known observation of his, that\nthe other disciples ate _the bread which was the Lord_, but that Judas\nmerely ate _the Lord\u2019s bread_; by which he clearly excludes unbelievers\nfrom the participation of the body and blood. And to the same purpose is\nwhat he says in another place: \u201cWhy do you wonder if the bread of Christ\nwas given to Judas to enslave him to the devil, when you see, on the\nother hand, that the messenger of Satan was given to Paul to make him\nperfect in Christ?\u201d[1310] He says, indeed, in another place, \u201cThat the\nsacramental bread was the body of Christ to those to whom Paul said, He\nthat eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to\nhimself;[1311] and that they could not, therefore, be affirmed to have\nreceived nothing, because they had received amiss.\u201d But his meaning is\nmore fully explained in another passage. For professedly undertaking to\ndescribe how the body of Christ is eaten by the wicked and profligate,\nwho confess the Christian faith with their lips while they deny it in\ntheir actions, and that in opposition to the opinion of some who\nsupposed them to eat not only the sacramental symbol, but the substance\nitself, he says, \u201cThey must not be considered as eating the body of\nChrist, because they are not to be numbered among the members of Christ.\nFor, to mention nothing else, they cannot, at the same time, be the\nmembers of Christ and the members of a harlot. And where the Lord\nhimself says, He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth\nin me, and I in him;[1312] he shows what it is to eat his body, not\nmerely in a sacramental way, but in truth; for this is to dwell in\nChrist, that Christ may dwell in us. This is the same as if he had said,\nWhoever dwelleth not in me, and in whom I dwell not, let him not say or\nthink he eateth my body or drinketh my blood.\u201d Let the readers consider\nthe opposition here stated between eating _merely in a sacramental way_,\nand _in truth_, and there will remain no doubt respecting his meaning.\nHe confirms the same with equal perspicuity in the following passage:\n\u201cPrepare not your jaws, but your heart; it is for this that the supper\nis enjoined. Behold, we believe in Christ when we receive him by faith;\nin receiving him, we know what we think; we take a bit of bread, and our\nhearts are satisfied. We are fed, therefore, not by what we see, but by\nwhat we believe.\u201d Here, also, what the wicked partake of he restricts to\nthe visible sign, and pronounces that Christ is only received by faith.\nSo, in another place, he expressly remarks that the good and the wicked\npartake of the elements in common, and excludes the latter from the true\nparticipation of the body of Christ. For, if they had enjoyed the\nsubstance itself, he would not have been entirely silent on that which\nwould have strengthened his argument. In another place also, treating of\nthe eating, and the benefit of it, he concludes thus: \u201cThen will the\nbody and blood of Christ be life to every one, if that which is visibly\nreceived in the sacrament, be, in the truth which is signified,\nspiritually eaten and spiritually drunk.\u201d Let those, therefore, who, in\norder to agree with Augustine, make unbelievers partakers of the flesh\nand blood of Christ, exhibit to us the body of Christ in a visible\nmanner, since he pronounces the whole truth of the sacrament to be\nspiritual. And the evident conclusion from his language is, that the\nsacramental eating is nothing more than eating the visible and external\nsign, when unbelief precludes the entrance of the substance. If the body\nof Christ could be eaten truly, without being eaten spiritually, what\ncould be the meaning of Augustine, when he said, \u201cYou are not to eat\nthis body which you see, and to drink the blood which will be shed by\nthose who shall crucify me. I have appointed a sacrament for you;\nspiritually understood, it shall vivify you.\u201d He certainly did not mean\nto deny that the same body which Christ offered in sacrifice is\nexhibited in the supper; but he designates the mode of participating in\nit\u2014that though it has been received into celestial glory, it inspires us\nwith life by the secret influence of the Holy Spirit. I acknowledge that\nhe frequently speaks of the body of Christ as eaten by unbelievers, but\nhe explains his meaning by adding that it is done sacramentally; and, in\nanother place, he describes the spiritual eating as not consisting in a\ncorporeal swallowing of the grace of God. And that my adversaries may\nnot charge me with a wish to overwhelm them by an accumulation of\npassages, I would request them to inform me how they can evade that one\ndeclaration of his, where he says, \u201cthat the sacraments realize what\nthey represent in the elect alone.\u201d Surely they will not dare to deny\nthat the bread represents the body of Christ. Hence it follows, that the\nreprobate are excluded from the participation of it. The following\npassage of Cyril also shows him to have been of the same opinion: \u201cAs\nwhen any one pours melted wax upon other wax, the whole will be mingled\ntogether into one mass, so it is necessary to any person\u2019s reception of\nthe body and blood of Christ, for him to be united with Christ, so that\nChrist may be found in him, and he in Christ.\u201d These words, I think,\nsufficiently prove, that those who eat the body of Christ merely in a\nsacramental way are deprived of the true and real participation of it,\nas the body itself cannot be separated from its efficacious power; and\nyet that this is no impeachment of the truth of the promises of God, who\nstill continues to send us rain from heaven, though rocks and stones\nimbibe none of the moisture.\n\nXXXV. This knowledge will also easily dissuade us from the carnal\nadoration which has been introduced into the sacrament by the perverse\ntemerity of some, who reasoned in this manner: If the body be there,\nconsequently the soul and the Divinity are there together with the body,\nfor they cannot be separated from it; therefore Christ ought to be\nadored there. In the first place, what will they do, if we refuse to\nadmit what they call _concomitance_? For, however they may urge the\nabsurdity of separating the soul and the Divinity from the body, what\nman in his senses can be persuaded that the body of Christ is Christ?\nThey consider it, indeed, as fully demonstrated by their arguments. But\nas Christ speaks distinctly of his body and blood, without specifying\nthe nature of the presence, how can they establish what they wish by\nthat which is itself doubtful? What then? If their consciences happen to\nbe exercised with any peculiar affliction, will they not, with all their\nsyllogisms, be confounded and overwhelmed; when they shall perceive\nthemselves to be destitute of the certain word of God, which furnishes\nthe only support for our souls when they are called to give an account,\nand without which they sink in a moment; when they shall reflect that\nthe doctrine and examples of the apostles are against them, and that\nthey are themselves the sole authors of their error? To such reflections\nwill be added other sentiments of compunction, and those by no means\ninconsiderable. What! was it a thing of no consequence to adore God in\nthis form, without any such thing being enjoined upon us? In a case\nwhere the true worship of God was concerned, ought that to have been so\nlightly undertaken, which not a word in the Scripture could be found to\nsanction? But if, with becoming humility, they had kept all their\nthoughts in subjection to the word of God, they would certainly have\nlistened to what Christ said, \u201cTake, eat, drink,\u201d and would have obeyed\nthis command, which enjoins the sacrament to be taken, not to be adored.\nThose who, as the Lord has commanded, receive it without adoration, are\nassured that they do not deviate from the Divine command; and such an\nassurance is the best satisfaction we can have in any thing in which we\nengage. They have the example of the apostles, of whom we read, not that\nthey prostrated themselves in adoration, but that, as they were sitting\nat the table, they took, and did eat. They have the practice of the\napostolic Church, in which Luke states that the communion of believers\nconsisted, not in adoration, but in \u201cthe breaking of bread.\u201d[1313] They\nhave the apostolic doctrine with which Paul instructed the Church of the\nCorinthians, accompanying it with this declaration: \u201cI have received of\nthe Lord that which also I delivered unto you.\u201d[1314]\n\nXXXVI. All these things lead the pious reader to consider how unsafe it\nis, in matters of such importance, to leave the pure word of God for the\nreveries of our own brains. The remarks which have already been made,\nought to relieve our minds from every difficulty on this subject. For,\nin order to a due reception of Christ in the sacrament, it is necessary\nfor pious souls to be elevated to heaven. If it be the design of the\nsacrament to assist the mind of man, which is otherwise weak, that it\nmay be enabled to rise to discover the sublimity of spiritual\nmysteries,\u2014those who confine themselves to the external sign, wander\nfrom the right way of seeking Christ. What, then, shall we deny it to be\na superstitious worship, when men prostrate themselves before a piece of\nbread, to adore Christ in it? There is no doubt that the Council of Nice\nintended to guard against this evil, when it prohibited Christians from\nhaving their attention humbly fixed on the visible signs. And this was\nthe only reason for that custom in the ancient Church, that, before the\nconsecration, one of the deacons should, with an audible voice, admonish\nthe people to have their _hearts above_. The Scripture itself, also, in\naddition to the particular account which it gives us of the ascension of\nChrist, by which he removed his corporeal presence from the view and\nsociety of men, in order to divest us of every carnal idea respecting\nhim, whenever it mentions him, calls us to lift our minds upwards, and\nto seek for him seated \u201cat the right hand of God.\u201d[1315] According to\nthis rule, it was our duty to adore him spiritually in the glory of\nheaven, rather than to invent such a dangerous kind of adoration,\ninvolving such gross and carnal conceptions of God. Wherefore, those who\nhave invented the adoration of the sacrament, have not only dreamed it\nof themselves, without the sanction of the Scripture, in which not the\nleast mention of it can be found, though, if it had been agreeable to\nGod, it would not have been omitted; but even in direct opposition to\nthe Scripture, forsaking the living God, they have fabricated a new\ndeity, according to their own wayward inclinations. For what is\nidolatry, if it be not to worship the gifts instead of the giver\nhimself? In which they have fallen into a double sin; for the honour has\nbeen taken away from God, to be transferred to the creature; and God\nhimself has also been dishonoured by the pollution and profanation of\nhis gift, when his holy sacrament has been made an execrable idol. Let\nus, on the contrary, lest we fall into the same danger, fix our ears,\nour eyes, our minds, and our tongues, entirely on the sacred doctrine of\nGod. For that is the school of the Holy Spirit, the best of all\nteachers; whose instructions require nothing to be added from any other\nquarter, and omit nothing of which we ought not to be willing to remain\nin ignorance.\n\nXXXVII. Now, as superstition, when it has once gone beyond the proper\nlimits, proceeds in sinning without end, they have wandered still\nfurther; they have invented ceremonies altogether incompatible with the\ninstitution of the sacred supper, for the sole purpose of giving divine\nhonours to the sign. When we remonstrate with them, they reply, that\nthey pay this veneration to Christ. In the first place, if this were\ndone in the supper, I would still say that that is the only legitimate\nadoration, which terminates not in the sign, but is directed to Christ\nenthroned in heaven. Now, what pretence have they for alleging that they\nworship Christ in the bread, when they have no promise of such a thing?\nThey consecrate their _host_, as they call it, to carry it about in\nprocession, to display it in pomp, and to exhibit it in a box, to be\nseen, adored, and invoked by the people. I inquire how they consider it\nto be rightly consecrated. They immediately adduce these words: \u201cThis is\nmy body.\u201d I object, that it was said at the same time. \u201cTake and eat.\u201d\nAnd I have sufficient reason for this; for when a promise is annexed to\na precept, it is so included in the precept, that, separated from it, it\nceases to be a promise at all. This shall be further elucidated by a\nsimilar example. The Lord gave a command, when he said, \u201cCall upon me;\u201d\nhe added a promise, \u201cI will deliver thee.\u201d[1316] If any one should\ninvoke Peter or Paul, and boast of this promise, will not his conduct be\nuniversally condemned? And wherein would this differ from the conduct of\nthose who suppress the command to eat, and lay hold of the mutilated\npromise, \u201cThis is my body,\u201d in order to misapply it to ceremonies\nforeign from the institution of Christ? Let us remember, then, that this\npromise is given to those who observe the commandment connected with it,\nbut that they are entirely unsupported by the word of God, who transfer\nthe sacrament to any other usage. We have already shown how the mystery\nof the supper promotes our faith before God. But as God here not only\nrecalls to our remembrance the vast exuberance of his goodness, but\ndelivers it, as it were, into our hands, as we have already declared,\nand excites us to acknowledge it, so he also admonishes us not to be\nungrateful for such a profusion of beneficence, but, on the contrary, to\nmagnify it with the praises it deserves, and to celebrate it with\nthanksgivings. Therefore, when he gave the institution of this sacrament\nto the apostles, he said to them, \u201cThis do in remembrance of me;\u201d[1317]\nwhich Paul explains to be \u201cshowing the Lord\u2019s death;\u201d[1318] that is,\npublicly, and all together, as with one mouth, to confess that all our\nconfidence of life and salvation rests on the death of the Lord; that we\nmay glorify him by our confession, and by our example may exhort others\nto give him the same glory. Here, again, we see the object to which the\nsacrament tends, which is, to exercise us in a remembrance of the death\nof Christ. For the command which we have received, to \u201cshow the Lord\u2019s\ndeath till he come\u201d to judgment, is no other than to declare, by the\nconfession of our lips, what our faith has acknowledged in the\nsacrament, that the death of Christ is our life. This is the second use\nof the sacrament, which relates to external confession.\n\nXXXVIII. In the third place, the Lord intended it to serve us as an\nexhortation, and no other could be better adapted to animate and\ninfluence us in the most powerful manner to purity and sanctity of life,\nas well as to charity, peace, and concord. For there the Lord\ncommunicates his body to us in such a manner that he becomes completely\none with us, and we become one with him. Now, as he has only one body,\nof which he makes us all partakers, it follows, of necessity, that, by\nsuch participation, we also are all made one body; and this union is\nrepresented by the bread which is exhibited in the sacrament. For as it\nis composed of many grains, mixed together in such a manner that one\ncannot be separated or distinguished from another,\u2014in the same manner we\nought, likewise, to be connected and united together, by such an\nagreement of minds, as to admit of no dissension or division between us.\nThis I prefer expressing in the language of Paul: \u201cThe cup of blessing\nwhich we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The\nbread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For\nwe, being many, are one bread and one body; for we are all partakers of\nthat one bread.\u201d[1319] We have derived considerable benefit from the\nsacrament, if this thought be impressed and engraven upon our minds,\nthat it is impossible for us to wound, despise, reject, injure, or in\nany way to offend one of our brethren, but we, at the same time, wound,\ndespise, reject, injure, and offend Christ in him; that we have no\ndiscord with our brethren without being, at the same time, at variance\nwith Christ; that we cannot love Christ without loving him in our\nbrethren; that such care as we take of our own body, we ought to\nexercise the same care of our brethren, who are members of our body;\nthat as no part of our body can be in any pain without every other part\nfeeling correspondent sensations, so we ought not to suffer our brother\nto be afflicted with any calamity without our sympathizing in the same.\nWherefore, it is not without reason that Augustine so frequently calls\nthis sacrament \u201cthe bond of charity.\u201d For what more powerful stimulus\ncould be employed to excite mutual charity among us, than when Christ,\ngiving himself to us, not only invites us by his example mutually to\ndevote ourselves to the promotion of one another\u2019s welfare, but also, by\nmaking himself common to all, makes us all to be one with himself?\n\nXXXIX. This furnishes the best confirmation of what I have stated\nbefore, that there is no true administration of the sacrament without\nthe word. For whatever advantage accrues to us from the sacred supper\nrequires the word; whether we are to be confirmed in faith, exercised in\nconfession, or excited to duty, there is need of preaching. Nothing more\npreposterous, therefore, can be done with respect to the supper, than to\nconvert it into a mute action, as we have seen done under the tyranny of\nthe pope. For they have maintained that all the validity of the\nconsecration depends on the intention of the priests, as if it had\nnothing to do with the people, to whom the mystery ought principally to\nbe explained. They fell into this error, for want of observing that\nthose promises on which the consecration rests, are not directed to the\nelements themselves, but to the persons who receive them. Christ does\nnot address the bread, to command it to become his body; but enjoins his\ndisciples to eat, and promises them the communication of his body and\nblood. Nor does Paul teach any other order than that the promises should\nbe offered to believers, together with the bread and the cup. And this\nis the truth. We are not to imagine any magical incantation, or think it\nsufficient to have muttered over the words, as if they were heard by the\nelements; but we are to understand those words, by which the elements\nare consecrated, to be a lively preaching, which edifies the hearers,\nwhich penetrates their minds, which is deeply impressed upon their\nhearts, which exerts its efficacy in the accomplishment of that which it\npromises. These considerations clearly show that the reservation of the\nsacrament, insisted upon by many persons, for the purpose of\nextraordinary distribution to the sick, is perfectly useless. For either\nthey will receive it without any recital of the institution of Christ,\nor the minister will accompany the sign with a true explication of the\nmystery. If nothing be said, it is an abuse and corruption. If the\npromises are repeated and the mystery declared, that those who are about\nto receive it may communicate with advantage, we have no reason to doubt\nthat this is the true consecration. What end will be answered, then, by\nthe former consecration, which, having been pronounced when the sick\npersons were not present, is of no avail to them? But it will be\nalleged, that those who adopt this practice have the example of the\nancient Church in their favour. This I confess; but in a matter of such\ngreat importance, and in which any error must be highly dangerous, there\nis nothing so safe as to follow the truth itself.\n\nXL. Now, as we perceive this sacred bread of the Lord\u2019s supper to be\nspiritual food, grateful and delicious as well as salutary to the\nsincere worshippers of God, who, in the participation of it, experience\nChrist to be their life, whom it stimulates to thanksgiving, whom it\nexhorts to mutual charity among themselves; so, on the contrary, it is\nchanged into a most noxious poison to all whose faith it does not\nnourish and confirm, and whom it does not excite to thanksgiving and\ncharity. For as corporeal food, when it offends a diseased stomach,\nbecoming itself corrupted, is found rather noxious than nutritious, so\nthis spiritual food, when it meets with a soul polluted by iniquity,\nonly precipitates it into a more dreadful ruin; not, indeed, from any\nfault in the food, but because \u201cunto them that are defiled and\nunbelieving nothing is pure,\u201d[1320] however it may be otherwise\nsanctified by the blessing of the Lord. For, as Paul says, \u201cHe that\neateth and drinketh unworthily is guilty of the body and blood of the\nLord, and eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the\nLord\u2019s body.\u201d[1321] Persons of this description, who, without one\nparticle of faith, or the least feeling of charity, intrude themselves,\nlike so many swine, to seize the supper of the Lord, have no discernment\nof the Lord\u2019s body. For, as they do not believe that body to be their\nlife, they treat it with the utmost dishonour they are capable of\ncasting upon it, robbing it of its dignity, and receiving it in such a\nmanner as to pollute and profane it. And as, amidst their dissension and\nalienation from their brethren, they presume to mingle the sacred symbol\nof Christ\u2019s body with their discords, it is not owing to them that the\nbody of Christ is not divided, and every member severed from the rest.\nTherefore they are justly represented as guilty of the body and blood of\nthe Lord, which they so shamefully pollute with their sacrilegious\nimpiety. By this unworthy eating they receive their own condemnation.\nFor though they have no faith fixed on Christ, yet in their reception of\nthe sacrament they profess that there is no salvation for them any where\nexcept in him, and renounce every other dependence. Wherefore they are\ntheir own accusers; they give testimony against themselves; they seal\ntheir own condemnation. Moreover, while divided and distracted from\ntheir brethren, that is, from the members of Christ, they have no part\nin Christ, yet they testify that the only way of salvation is to\nparticipate of Christ, and to be united to him. For this reason, Paul\ngave the following injunction: \u201cLet a man examine himself, and so let\nhim eat of that bread, and drink of that cup;\u201d[1322] by which, I\napprehend, he meant that every man should retire into himself, and\nconsider whether, with sincere confidence of heart, he relies on the\nsalvation procured by Christ; whether he acknowledges it by the\nconfession of his mouth; whether he aspires after an imitation of Christ\nin the pursuit of integrity and holiness; whether, after the example of\nChrist, he is ready to devote himself to his brethren, and to\ncommunicate himself to them with whom he has a common interest in\nChrist; whether, as he himself is acknowledged by Christ, he in like\nmanner considers all his brethren as members of his body; whether he\ndesires to cherish, preserve, and assist them as his own members. Not\nthat these duties of faith and charity can now be perfect in us; but\nbecause this is the point which we ought to feel the most ardent desires\nand exert the most strenuous efforts to attain, that our faith may be\nmore and more increased, and our charity strengthened from day to day.\n\nXLI. In general, when they have intended to prepare persons for this\nworthy participation of the sacrament, they have dreadfully harassed and\ntortured miserable consciences, and yet have not mentioned a single\nthing which the case required. They have said that those \u201ceat worthily,\u201d\nwho are in a state of grace. To be in a state of grace, they have\nexplained to consist in being pure and cleansed from all sin\u2014a doctrine\nwhich would exclude all the men who now live, or ever have lived upon\nearth, from the benefit of this sacrament. For if it be necessary for us\nto derive our worthiness from ourselves, we are undone; nothing awaits\nus but ruin, confusion, and despair. Though we strive with all our\npowers, we shall gain nothing, at last, but a discovery that we are most\nunworthy, after having laboured to the utmost to find some worthiness.\nTo heal this wound, they have contrived a method of attaining\nworthiness; which is, that having, as far as we can, examined our\nconsciences, and required from ourselves an account of all our actions,\nwe should purge ourselves from our unworthiness by contrition,\nconfession, and satisfaction; but what kind of purgation this is, we\nhave already stated in a place more suitable to the discussion of it. As\nfar as relates to the present subject, I observe that these consolations\nare too poor and unsubstantial for consciences disturbed, distressed,\ndejected, and overwhelmed with a sense of their sins. For if the Lord,\nby his express interdiction, admits none to a participation of the\nsupper, but those who are righteous and innocent, it requires no little\ncare in any individual to attain an assurance of his possession of that\nrighteousness, which he finds to be required by God. Now, what ground of\nassurance have we, that God is satisfied with persons who have done what\nthey could? And even if this were the case, when shall any man be found\nwho can venture to declare that he has done all that he could? Thus,\nwhile no certain assurance of our worthiness can be obtained, the\nentrance to the sacrament will always remain closed by that dreadful\ninterdiction, which denounces that \u201che that eateth and drinketh\nunworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself.\u201d\n\nXLII. Now, it is easy to judge what kind of doctrine this is which\nprevails in the Papacy, and from what author it has proceeded; which by\nits extreme austerity deprives and robs miserable sinners, who are\nalready afflicted with trepidation and sorrow, of the consolation of\nthis sacrament, in which all the comforts of the gospel were set before\nthem. It was certainly impossible for the devil to take a more\ncompendious method of ruining men, than by infatuating them in such a\nmanner as to deprive them of all taste and relish for such food which\ntheir heavenly and most merciful Father had intended for their\nnourishment. That we may not precipitate ourselves into this abyss,\ntherefore, let us remember that this sacred banquet is medicine to the\nsick, comfort to the sinner, alms to the poor; but that it would confer\nno advantage on the healthy, the righteous, and the rich, if any such\ncould be found. For as Christ is given to us in it for food, we\nunderstand, that without him we pine, starve, and faint, as the body\nloses its vigour from want of sustenance. Moreover, as he is given to us\nfor life, we understand that without him we are utterly dead in\nourselves. Wherefore the best and only worthiness that we can present to\nGod, is to offer him our vileness and unworthiness, that he may make us\nworthy of his mercy; to despair in ourselves, that we may find\nconsolation in him; to humble ourselves, that we may be exalted by him;\nto accuse ourselves, that we may be justified by him; likewise to aspire\nto that unity which he enjoins upon us in his supper; and as he makes us\nall to be one in himself, so it should be our desire that we may all\nhave one mind, one heart, and one tongue. If we have these things well\nconsidered and digested in our minds, though we may be disturbed, we\nshall never be subverted by such reflections as this: Needy and\ndestitute of every good, defiled with the pollution of sin, and half\ndead, how could we worthily eat the Lord\u2019s body? We shall rather\nconsider, that we come as paupers to the liberal Benefactor, as patients\nto the Physician, as sinners to the Author of righteousness, as persons\ndead to the fountain of life; that the worthiness which is required by\nGod consists principally in faith, which attributes every thing to\nChrist, and places no dependence on ourselves, and, secondly, in\ncharity, even that charity which it is enough for us to present to God\nin an imperfect state, that he may increase and improve it; for we\ncannot produce it in a state of perfection. Others, who have agreed with\nus that the worthiness which is enjoined consists in faith and charity,\nhave nevertheless fallen into a considerable error respecting the degree\nof that worthiness, requiring a perfection of faith to which nothing can\never approach, and a charity equal to that which Christ has manifested\ntoward us. But by this requisition they exclude all men from access to\nthis sacred supper, as much as the persons to whom we adverted before.\nFor if their opinion were admitted, no person could receive it, but\nunworthily; since all, without a single exception, would be convinced of\ntheir imperfection. And surely it must betray extreme ignorance, not to\nsay stupidity, to require in the reception of the sacrament, that\nperfection which would render the sacrament unnecessary and useless; for\nit was not instituted for the perfect, but for the imperfect and feeble,\nto awaken, excite, stimulate, and exercise their graces of faith and\ncharity, and to correct the defects of both.\n\nXLIII. With respect to the external ceremonial, whether believers take\nthe bread in their hands or not; whether they divide it between them, or\nevery individual eat that which is given to him; whether they return the\ncup into the hand of the deacon, or deliver it to the person who is\nnext; whether the bread be leavened or unleavened; whether the wine be\nred or white; is not of the least importance. These things are\nindifferent, and left to the liberty of the Church. It is certain,\nhowever, that the custom of the ancient Church was, that every one\nshould take the bread into his hand. And Christ said \u201cDivide it among\nyourselves.\u201d[1323] History informs us, that leavened and common bread\nwas used before the time of Alexander, bishop of Rome, who was the first\nadvocate for unleavened bread; but for what reason I know not, unless it\nwas to dazzle the eyes of the people with admiration of a new spectacle,\nrather than to instruct their minds in pure religion. I appeal to all\nwho feel the least concern for piety, whether they do not clearly\nperceive, how much more conspicuously the glory of God appears in this\nuse of the sacrament, and how much greater abundance of spiritual\nconsolation and delight believers enjoy in it, than in those\ninsignificant and theatrical fooleries which only tend to deceive the\nminds of the gazing multitude. This they call keeping the people in\nreligion, when they lead them into any thing they please, under the\nstupefaction and infatuation of superstition. If any one be inclined to\ndefend such inventions by the plea of antiquity, I am equally aware how\nearly chrism and exorcism were used in baptism, and how soon after the\nage of the apostles, corruptions were introduced into the Lord\u2019s supper;\nbut this is the confidence of human presumption, which can never\nrestrain itself from trifling with the mysteries of God. But let us\nremember, that God holds the obedience of his word in such high\nestimation, that it is the standard by which he appoints us to judge\neven his angels and the whole world. Now, leaving all this mass of\nceremonies, let us remark, that the Lord\u2019s supper might be most properly\nadministered, if it were set before the Church very frequently, and at\nleast once in every week in the following manner: The service should\ncommence with public prayer; in the next place, a sermon should be\ndelivered; then, the bread and wine being placed upon the table, the\nminister should recite the institution of the supper, should declare the\npromises which are left to us in it, and, at the same time, should\nexcommunicate all those who are excluded from it by the prohibition of\nthe Lord; after this, prayer should be offered, that with the same\nbenignity with which our Lord has given us this sacred food, he would\nalso teach and enable us to receive it in faith and gratitude of heart,\nand that, as of ourselves we are not worthy, he would, in his mercy,\nmake us worthy of such a feast. Then either some psalms should be sung,\nor a portion of Scripture should be read, and believers, in a becoming\norder, should participate of the sacred banquet, the ministers breaking\nthe bread and distributing it, and presenting the cup, to the people;\nafter the conclusion of the supper, an exhortation should be given to\nsincere faith, and a confession of the same; to charity, and a\ndeportment worthy of Christians. Finally, thanksgivings should be\nrendered, and praises sung, to God; and to close the whole, the Church\nshould be dismissed in peace.\n\nXLIV. The observations which we have already made respecting the\nsacrament, abundantly show that it was not instituted for the purpose of\nbeing received once in a year, and that in a careless and formal manner,\nas is now the general practice; but in order to be frequently celebrated\nby all Christians, that they might often call to mind the sufferings of\nChrist; the recollection of which would sustain and strengthen their\nfaith, would incite them to sing praises to God, and to confess and\ncelebrate his goodness, and would also cherish in their hearts, and\npromote the mutual exercise of that charity, the bond of which they\nwould see in the unity of the body of Christ. For whenever we\ncommunicate in the symbol of the Lord\u2019s body, it is like the interchange\nof a mutual pledge, by which we reciprocally bind ourselves to all the\nduties of charity, that no one among us will do any thing by which he\nmay injure his brother, or will omit any thing by which he can assist\nhim, when necessity requires and opportunity admits. That such was the\npractice of the apostolic Church, is mentioned by Luke, when he says\nthat believers \u201ccontinued steadfastly in the apostles\u2019 doctrine and\nfellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.\u201d[1324] The\ninvariable custom, therefore, was, that no assembly of the Church should\nbe held without the word being preached, prayers being offered, the\nLord\u2019s supper administered, and alms given. That this was the order\nestablished among the Corinthians, may be fairly concluded from the\nEpistles of Paul; and it is well known to have been followed for many\nages after. For hence those ancient canons, which are attributed to\nAnacletus and Calixtus, \u201cthat, after the consecration is finished, all\nshall communicate, on pain of expulsion from the Church.\u201d And the\nancient canons which are ascribed to the apostles, say, \u201cthat those who\ncontinue not to the end, and receive not the sacrament, ought to be\ncorrected as disturbers of the Church.\u201d In the Council of Antioch, also,\nit was decreed, that those who enter into the Church, hear the sermon,\nand retire from the communion, be excluded from the Church till they\nshall have corrected this fault. And though in the first Council of\nToledo, this decree was either mitigated, or at least enacted in a\nmilder form, yet there also it was ordained, that those who shall be\nfound never to communicate after having heard the sermon, be admonished;\nand that, if they obey not the first admonition, they be excommunicated.\n\nXLV. These decrees were evidently passed by the holy fathers with a view\nto retain and perpetuate the frequent celebration of the communion,\nwhich had been transmitted by the apostles themselves, and which they\nperceived to be highly beneficial to believers, but by negligence to be\ngradually falling into general disuse. Augustine testifies respecting\nthe age in which he lived, when he says, \u201cThe sacrament of this thing,\nthat is, of the unity of the body of our Lord, is prepared on the table\nof the Lord, in some places daily, in other places on appointed days, at\nstated intervals of time; and is thence received by some to life, by\nothers to destruction.\u201d And in his first epistle to Januarius: \u201cSome\nreceive the body and blood of the Lord every day, and others receive\nthem on certain days; in some Churches, not a day passes without the\nadministration of the sacrament; in others, it is administered only on\nSaturday and Sunday; and in others only on Sunday.\u201d But the people in\ngeneral, being, as we have observed, sometimes too remiss, the holy\nfathers stimulated them with severe reproofs, that they might not appear\nto connive at such negligence. Of this we have an example in a homily of\nChrysostom, on the Epistle to the Ephesians: \u201cTo him who dishonoured the\nfeast, it is not said, Wherefore didst thou sit down? but, How camest\nthou in hither?[1325] Whoever is present here, and is not a partaker of\nthe mysteries, is wicked and impudent. I appeal to you, if any one be\ninvited to a feast, and come, wash his hands, sit down, and apparently\nmake every preparation for partaking of it, and after all taste\nnothing,\u2014will he not offer an insult both to the feast and to him who\nhas provided it? So you, who appear among them who, by prayer prepare\nthemselves to receive the sacred food, who by the very circumstance of\nnot departing, confess yourself to be one of their number, and after all\ndo not participate with them, would it not have been better for you not\nto have made your appearance among them? You will tell me you are\nunworthy. Neither then were you worthy of the communion of prayer, which\nis a preparation for the reception of the holy mystery.\u201d\n\nXLVI. Augustine and Ambrose unite in condemning the practice which in\ntheir time had already been adopted in the Eastern Churches, for the\npeople to attend as spectators of the celebration of the sacrament, and\nnot to partake of it. And that custom, which enjoins believers to\ncommunicate only once a year, is unquestionably an invention of the\ndevil, whoever were the persons by whom it was introduced. It is said\nthat Zepherinus, bishop of Rome, was the author of that decree; which\nthere is not the least reason for believing to have been such as is now\nrepresented. It is probable that the regulation which he made was not\nill calculated for the interest of the Church under the circumstances of\nthose times. For there is no doubt that the sacred supper was then set\nbefore the faithful whenever they assembled for worship; nor is there\nany more doubt that the principal part of them used to communicate; but\nas it would scarcely ever happen that all could communicate together,\nand it was necessary that those who were mixed with unbelievers and\nidolaters, should testify their faith by some external sign,\u2014that holy\nman, for the sake of order and discipline, appointed that day for all\nthe Christians at Rome to make a public confession of their faith by a\nparticipation of the Lord\u2019s supper. The regulation of Zepherinus was\ngood in itself, but was grossly perverted by his successors, when they\nmade a certain law that there should be one communion in a year; the\nconsequence of which has been, that almost all men, when they have\ncommunicated once, resign themselves to lethargic repose, as if they had\nfairly excused themselves for all the rest of the year. A very different\npractice ought to have been pursued. At least once in every week the\ntable of the Lord ought to have been spread before each congregation of\nChristians, and the promises to have been declared for their spiritual\nnourishment; no person ought to have been compelled to partake, but all\nought to have been exhorted and stimulated, and those who were\nnegligent, to have been reproved. Then all, like persons famished, would\nhave assembled in crowds to such a banquet. I have sufficient reason for\ncomplaining that it was the artifice of the devil that introduced this\ncustom, which, by prescribing one day in a year, renders men slothful\nand careless all the rest of the time. We see that this abuse had\nalready begun to prevail in the time of Chrysostom, but we see at the\nsame time how greatly it displeased him. For in the place which I have\njust quoted, he severely complains of a great inequality in this matter,\nthat oftentimes people would not come to the sacrament all the rest of\nthe year, notwithstanding they were prepared, but that they would come\nat Easter even without preparation. Then he exclaims, \u201cO custom! O\npresumption! In vain, then, is the daily oblation; in vain do we stand\nat the altar. There is no one to partake with us.\u201d So far is such a\npractice from being sanctioned by the authority of Chrysostom.\n\nXLVII. From the same source proceeded another regulation, which has\nrobbed or deprived the principal part of the people of God of one half\nof the sacred supper; I mean the symbol of the blood, which has been\ninterdicted to the laity and the profane,\u2014for by these titles they\ndistinguish the Lord\u2019s heritage,\u2014and has become the peculiar privilege\nof the few who have received ecclesiastical unction and tonsure. The\nordinance of the eternal God is, \u201cDrink ye all of it;\u201d which man has\nrepealed and abrogated by a new and contrary law, ordaining that all\nshall not drink of it. And these legislators, that they may not appear\nto resist their God without reason, plead the dangers which might result\nif this sacred cup were indiscriminately presented to all; as though\nthose dangers had not been foreseen and considered by the eternal wisdom\nof God. In the next place, they argue with great subtlety, that one is\nsufficient for both. For, if it be the body, they say, it is the whole\nof Christ, who cannot now be separated from his body. The body,\ntherefore, contains the blood. See how human reason is at variance with\nGod, when it has once been left to its own vagaries. Exhibiting the\nbread, our Lord says, \u201cThis is my body;\u201d exhibiting the cup, he says,\n\u201cThis is my blood.\u201d The audacity of human reason contradicts this, and\naffirms that the bread is the blood, and that the wine is the body; as\nif the Lord had distinguished his body from his blood, both by words and\nby signs, without any cause, and as if it had ever been heard that the\nbody or blood of Christ was called God and man. Certainly, if he had\nintended to designate his whole person, he might have said, \u201cIt is I,\u201d\nas the Scripture tells us he did on other occasions; and not, \u201cThis is\nmy body; this is my blood.\u201d But, with a view to aid the weakness of our\nfaith, he exhibits the bread and the cup separately, to teach us that he\nis sufficient for drink as well as for food. Now, let one of these parts\nbe taken away, and we shall find only half of our nourishment in him.\nThough it were true, then, as they pretend, that the blood is in the\nbread, and the body in the cup, yet they defraud the souls of believers\nof that confirmation which Christ has delivered as necessary for them.\nTherefore, leaving their subtleties, let us hold fast the benefit which\narises from the double pledge which Christ has ordained.\n\nXLVIII. I am aware of the cavils advanced on this subject by the\nministers of Satan, who are accustomed to treat the Scripture with\ncontempt. In the first place, they plead, that a simple act affords no\nsufficient ground from which to deduce a rule of perpetual obligation on\nthe observance of the Church. But it is false to call it a simple act;\nfor Christ not only gave the cup to his apostles, but also commanded\nthem to do the same in time to come. For it is the language of command,\n\u201cDrink ye all of it.\u201d And Paul mentions its having been practised in\nsuch a way as fully implies its being a positive ordinance. The second\nsubterfuge is, that Christ admitted none but the apostles to a\nparticipation of this supper, whom he had already chosen and admitted\ninto the order of sacrificing priests. But I would wish them to give me\nanswers to five questions, from which they will not be able to escape,\nbut their misrepresentations will be easily refuted. First; By what\noracle have they obtained this solution, so inconsistent with the word\nof God? The Scripture mentions twelve who sat down with Jesus; but it\ndoes not obscure the dignity of Christ so as to call them sacrificing\npriests\u2014a name which I shall notice in the proper place. Though he then\ngave the sacrament to the twelve, yet he commanded that they should do\nthe same; that is, that they should distribute it among them in a\nsimilar manner. Secondly; why, in that purer period, for almost a\nthousand years after the apostles, were all, without exception, admitted\nto the participation of both symbols? Was the ancient Church ignorant\nwhat guests Christ had admitted to his supper? Any hesitation or evasion\nwould betray the most consummate impudence. Ecclesiastical histories and\nworks of the fathers are still extant, which furnish clear testimonies\nof this fact. Tertullian says, \u201cThe flesh is fed with the body and blood\nof Christ, that the soul may be nourished by God.\u201d Ambrose said to\nTheodosius, \u201cWith such hands how will you receive the sacred body of the\nLord? With what audacity will you drink his sacred blood?\u201d Jerome says,\n\u201cThe priests consecrate the eucharist and distribute the Lord\u2019s blood to\nthe people.\u201d Chrysostom says, \u201cIt is not as it was under the ancient\nlaw, when the priest ate one part, and the people another; but to all is\npresented one body and one cup. Every thing in the eucharist is common\nto the priest and to the people.\u201d And the same is attested in various\nplaces by Augustine.\n\nXLIX. But why do I dispute about a thing that is so evident? Let any one\nread all the Greek and Latin fathers, and he will find them abound with\nsuch testimonies. Nor did this custom fall into disuse while a particle\nof purity remained in the Church. Gregory, who may be justly called the\nlast bishop of Rome, shows that it was observed in his time. He says,\n\u201cYou have now learned what the blood of the Lamb is, not by hearing, but\nby drinking. His blood is drunk by the faithful.\u201d And it even continued\nfor four hundred years after his death, notwithstanding the universal\ndegeneracy which had taken place. Nor was it considered merely as a\ncustom, but as an inviolable law. For the Divine institution was then\nreverenced, and no doubt was entertained of the criminality of\nseparating things which the Lord had united. For Gelasius, bishop of\nRome, speaks in the following manner: \u201cWe have understood that some,\nonly receiving the Lord\u2019s body, abstain from the cup; who, as they\nappear to be enslaved by an unaccountable superstition, should, without\ndoubt, either receive the sacrament entire, or entirely abstain from it.\nFor no division of this mystery can be made without great sacrilege.\u201d\nAttention was paid to those reasons of Cyprian, which surely ought to be\nsufficient to influence a Christian mind. He says, \u201cHow do we teach or\nstimulate them to shed their blood in the confession of Christ, if we\nrefuse his blood to them who are about to engage in the conflict? Or how\ndo we prepare them for the cup of martyrdom, if we do not first admit\nthem, by the right of communion, to drink the cup of the Lord in the\nChurch?\u201d The canonists restrict the decree of Gelasius to the priests,\nbut this is too puerile a cavil to need any refutation.\n\nL. Thirdly; Why did Christ, when he presented the bread, simply say,\n\u201cTake, eat;\u201d but when he presented the cup, \u201cDrink ye _all_ of it;\u201d as\nif he expressly intended to guard against the subtlety of Satan?\nFourthly; If, as our adversaries pretend, our Lord admitted to his\nsupper none but sacrificing priests, what man can be found so\npresumptuous as to invite to a participation of it strangers whom the\nLord has excluded? and to a participation of that gift, over which they\ncould have no power, without any command from him who alone could give\nit? And with what confidence do they now take upon them to distribute to\nthe people the symbol of the body of Christ, if they have neither the\ncommand nor example of the Lord? Fifthly; Did Paul affirm what was\nfalse, when he said to the Corinthians, \u201cI have received of the Lord\nthat which also I delivered to you?\u201d[1326] For he afterwards declares\nwhat he had delivered, which was, that all, without any distinction,\nshould communicate in both symbols. If Paul had \u201creceived of the Lord,\u201d\nthat all were to be admitted without any distinction, let them consider\nfrom whom they have received, who exclude almost all the people of God;\nfor they cannot now pretend their doctrine to have originated from God,\nwith whom is \u201cnot yea and nay.\u201d[1327] And yet they dare to shelter such\nabominations under the name of the Church, and to defend them under that\npretext; as if the Church could consist of those antichrists, who so\neasily trample under foot, mutilate, and abolish the doctrine and\ninstitutions of Christ; or as if the apostolic Church, in which true\nreligion displayed all its influence, were not the true Church.\n\nFootnote 1238:\n\n  Matt. xxvi. 26, 28. Mark xiv. 22, 24. Luke xxii. 19, 20. 1 Cor. xi.\n  24, 25.\n\nFootnote 1239:\n\n  John vi. 35, 55-58.\n\nFootnote 1240:\n\n  John vi. 51.\n\nFootnote 1241:\n\n  Eph. iii. 17.\n\nFootnote 1242:\n\n  John vi. 35.\n\nFootnote 1243:\n\n  John vi. 53.\n\nFootnote 1244:\n\n  Acts ii. 41.\n\nFootnote 1245:\n\n  Luke xxii. 20.\n\nFootnote 1246:\n\n  1 John i. 1-4.\n\nFootnote 1247:\n\n  John vi. 51.\n\nFootnote 1248:\n\n  John vi. 55.\n\nFootnote 1249:\n\n  John v. 26.\n\nFootnote 1250:\n\n  Eph. i. 23.\n\nFootnote 1251:\n\n  Eph. iv. 15, 16.\n\nFootnote 1252:\n\n  1 Cor. vi. 15.\n\nFootnote 1253:\n\n  Eph. v. 30.\n\nFootnote 1254:\n\n  Eph. v. 32.\n\nFootnote 1255:\n\n  1 Cor. x. 16.\n\nFootnote 1256:\n\n  Rom. viii. 9, 11.\n\nFootnote 1257:\n\n  John vi. 35, 50.\n\nFootnote 1258:\n\n  1 Cor. x. 17.\n\nFootnote 1259:\n\n  1 Cor. x. 4.\n\nFootnote 1260:\n\n  Exod. iv. 2-4; vii. 10, 12.\n\nFootnote 1261:\n\n  1 Cor. x. 16.\n\nFootnote 1262:\n\n  1 Cor. xi. 26.\n\nFootnote 1263:\n\n  Acts ii. 42.\n\nFootnote 1264:\n\n  Jer. xi. 19, (according to the Vulgate and Septuagint.)\n\nFootnote 1265:\n\n  Psalm lxix. 21.\n\nFootnote 1266:\n\n  Isaiah liii. 2, 4.\n\nFootnote 1267:\n\n  Matt. xxvi. 26-28. Mark xiv. 22-24. Luke xxii. 19, 20. 1 Cor. xi.\n  23-25.\n\nFootnote 1268:\n\n  Gen. xvii. 10.\n\nFootnote 1269:\n\n  Exod. xii. 11.\n\nFootnote 1270:\n\n  Exod. et Lev. passim.\n\nFootnote 1271:\n\n  1 Cor. x. 4.\n\nFootnote 1272:\n\n  Exod. iii. 2.\n\nFootnote 1273:\n\n  Psalm lxxxiv. 7; xlii. 2.\n\nFootnote 1274:\n\n  Matt. iii. 16.\n\nFootnote 1275:\n\n  1 Cor. x. 4.\n\nFootnote 1276:\n\n  1 Cor. x. 16.\n\nFootnote 1277:\n\n  Gen. xvii. 10. Exod. xii. 11.\n\nFootnote 1278:\n\n  1 Cor. x. 4.\n\nFootnote 1279:\n\n  John vii. 39.\n\nFootnote 1280:\n\n  Titus iii. 2.\n\nFootnote 1281:\n\n  1 Cor. xii. 12.\n\nFootnote 1282:\n\n  Heb. ii. 14; iv. 15.\n\nFootnote 1283:\n\n  Acts i. 11.\n\nFootnote 1284:\n\n  1 Cor. xv. 47.\n\nFootnote 1285:\n\n  Phil. ii. 7.\n\nFootnote 1286:\n\n  James i. 21.\n\nFootnote 1287:\n\n  Luke i. 34.\n\nFootnote 1288:\n\n  John xiv. 2, 3, 28.\n\nFootnote 1289:\n\n  Matt. xxvi. 11.\n\nFootnote 1290:\n\n  Mark xvi. 19. Luke xxiv. 51. Acts i. 9.\n\nFootnote 1291:\n\n  Phil. iii. 20.\n\nFootnote 1292:\n\n  Acts i. 11.\n\nFootnote 1293:\n\n  Acts iii. 21.\n\nFootnote 1294:\n\n  Luke xxiv. 39.\n\nFootnote 1295:\n\n  Phil. iii. 20, 21.\n\nFootnote 1296:\n\n  John xx. 17.\n\nFootnote 1297:\n\n  Acts vii. 55.\n\nFootnote 1298:\n\n  Acts xxii. 18. 1 Cor. xv. 8.\n\nFootnote 1299:\n\n  Luke xxiv. 31.\n\nFootnote 1300:\n\n  Luke xxiv. 16.\n\nFootnote 1301:\n\n  Matt. xxviii. 20.\n\nFootnote 1302:\n\n  John iii. 13; i. 18.\n\nFootnote 1303:\n\n  1 Cor. ii. 8.\n\nFootnote 1304:\n\n  1 John iv. 3.\n\nFootnote 1305:\n\n  John vi. 56.\n\nFootnote 1306:\n\n  Matt. xiii. 4-7.\n\nFootnote 1307:\n\n  1 Cor. xi. 27.\n\nFootnote 1308:\n\n  Matt. vii. 6.\n\nFootnote 1309:\n\n  John vi. 54.\n\nFootnote 1310:\n\n  2 Cor. xii. 7.\n\nFootnote 1311:\n\n  1 Cor. xi. 29.\n\nFootnote 1312:\n\n  John vi. 56.\n\nFootnote 1313:\n\n  Acts ii. 42.\n\nFootnote 1314:\n\n  1 Cor. xi. 23.\n\nFootnote 1315:\n\n  Col. iii. 1.\n\nFootnote 1316:\n\n  Psalm l. 15.\n\nFootnote 1317:\n\n  Luke xxii. 10.\n\nFootnote 1318:\n\n  1 Cor. xi. 26.\n\nFootnote 1319:\n\n  1 Cor. x. 16, 17.\n\nFootnote 1320:\n\n  Titus i. 15.\n\nFootnote 1321:\n\n  1 Cor. xi. 27, 29.\n\nFootnote 1322:\n\n  1 Cor. xi. 28.\n\nFootnote 1323:\n\n  Luke xxii. 17.\n\nFootnote 1324:\n\n  Acts ii. 42.\n\nFootnote 1325:\n\n  Matt. xxii. 12.\n\nFootnote 1326:\n\n  1 Cor. xi. 23.\n\nFootnote 1327:\n\n  2 Cor. i. 18.\n\n\n\n\n                             CHAPTER XVIII.\nTHE PAPAL MASS NOT ONLY A SACRILEGIOUS PROFANATION OF THE LORD\u2019S SUPPER,\n                    BUT A TOTAL ANNIHILATION OF IT.\n\n\nWith these, and similar inventions, Satan has endeavoured to obscure,\ncorrupt, and adulterate the sacred supper of Christ, that, at least, its\npurity might not be preserved in the Church. But the perfection of the\ndreadful abomination was his establishment of a sign, by which it might\nbe not only obscured and perverted, but altogether obliterated and\nabolished, so as to disappear from the view, and to depart from the\nremembrance of men. I refer to that most pestilent error with which he\nhas blinded almost the whole world, persuading it to believe that the\nmass is a sacrifice and oblation to procure the remission of sins. How\nthis dogma was at first understood by the sounder schoolmen, who did not\nfall into all the absurdities of their successors, I shall not stay to\ninquire, but shall take leave of them and their thorny subtleties;\nwhich, however they may be defended by subterfuges and cavils, ought to\nbe rejected by all good men, because they merely serve to obscure the\nlustre of the sacred supper. Leaving them, therefore, I wish the readers\nto understand that I am now combating that opinion with which the Roman\nantichrist and his agents have infected the whole world; namely, that\nthe mass is an act by which the priest who offers Christ, and others who\nparticipate in the oblation, merit the favour of God; or that it is an\nexpiatory victim by which they reconcile God to them. Nor has this been\nmerely an opinion generally received by the multitude; but the act\nitself is so ordered, as to be a kind of expiation, to make satisfaction\nto God for the sins of the living and the dead. This is fully expressed\nalso in the words which they use; nor can any thing else be concluded\nfrom its daily observance. I know how deeply this pest has stricken its\nroots, what a plausible appearance of goodness it assumes, how it\nshelters itself under the name of Christ, and how multitudes believe the\nwhole substance of faith to be comprehended under the single word\n_mass_. But when it shall have been most clearly demonstrated by the\nword of God, that this mass, however it may be varnished and adorned,\noffers the greatest insult to Christ, suppresses and conceals his cross,\nconsigns his death to oblivion, deprives us of the benefit resulting\nfrom it, and invalidates and destroys the sacrament which was left as a\nmemorial of that death,\u2014will there be any roots too deep for this most\npowerful axe\u2014I mean the word of God\u2014to cut in pieces and eradicate? Will\nthere be any varnish too specious for this light to detect the evil\nwhich lurks behind it?\n\nII. Let us proceed, therefore, to establish what we have asserted; in\nthe first place, that the mass offers an intolerable blasphemy and\ninsult to Christ. For he was constituted by his Father a priest and a\nhigh-priest, not for a limited time, like those who are recorded to have\nbeen consecrated priests under the Old Testament, who, having a mortal\nlife, could not have an immortal priesthood; wherefore, there was need\nof successors, from time to time, to fill the places of those who died;\nbut Christ, who is immortal, requires no vicar to be substituted in his\nplace. Therefore he was designated by the Father as \u201ca priest for ever,\nafter the order of Melchisedec;\u201d that he might for ever execute a\npermanent priesthood. This mystery had long before been prefigured in\nMelchisedec, whom the Scripture has introduced once as \u201cthe priest of\nthe Most High God,\u201d but never mentions him afterwards, as if there had\nbeen no end to his life. From this resemblance Christ is called a priest\nafter his order.[1328] Now, those who sacrifice every day must\nnecessarily appoint priests to conduct the oblations, and those priests\nmust be substituted in the room of Christ, as his successors and vicars.\nBy this substitution they not only despoil Christ of his due honour, and\nrob him of the prerogative of an eternal priesthood, but endeavour to\ndegrade him from the right hand of the Father, where he cannot sit in\nthe enjoyment of immortality, unless he also remain an eternal priest.\nNor let them plead that their sacrificing priests are not substituted in\nthe place of Christ, as though he were dead, but are merely assistants\nin his eternal priesthood, which does not, on this account, cease to\nremain; for the language of the apostle is too precise for them to avail\nthemselves of such an evasion; when he says that \u201cthey truly were many\npriests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of\ndeath.\u201d[1329] Christ, therefore, whose continuance is not prevented by\ndeath, is only one, and needs no companions. Yet they have the\neffrontery to arm themselves with the example of Melchisedec in defence\nof their impiety. For, because he is said to have \u201cbrought forth bread\nand wine,\u201d they conclude this to have been a prefiguration of their\nmass, as though the resemblance between him and Christ consisted in the\noblation of bread and wine; which is too unsubstantial and frivolous to\nneed any refutation. Melchisedec gave bread and wine to Abraham and his\ncompanions, to refresh them when they were fatigued on their return from\nbattle. What has this to do with a sacrifice? Moses praises the humanity\nand liberality of the pious king; these men presumptuously fabricate a\nmystery, of which the Scripture makes no mention. Yet they varnish their\nerror with another pretext, because the historian immediately afterwards\nsays, \u201cAnd he was the priest of the Most High God.\u201d I answer, that they\nmisapply to the bread and wine what the apostle refers to the\nbenediction, \u201cFor this Melchisedec, priest of the Most High God, met\nAbraham and blessed him;\u201d from which the same apostle, than whom it is\nunnecessary to seek for a better expositor, argues his superior dignity;\n\u201cfor without all contradiction, the less is blessed of the\nbetter.\u201d[1330] But, if the offering of Melchisedec had been a figure of\nthe sacrifice of the mass, is it credible that the apostle, who\ndiscusses all the minutest circumstances, would have forgotten a thing\nof such high importance? It will be in vain for them, with all their\nsophistry, to attempt to overturn the argument which the apostle himself\nadduces, that the right and dignity of priesthood ceases among mortal\nmen, because Christ, who is immortal, is the alone and perpetual priest.\n\nIII. A second property of the mass we have stated to be, that it\nsuppresses and conceals the cross and passion of Christ. It is beyond\nall contradiction, that the cross of Christ is subverted as soon as ever\nan altar is erected; for if Christ offered up himself a sacrifice on the\ncross, to sanctify us for ever, and to obtain eternal redemption for us,\nthe virtue and efficacy of that sacrifice must certainly continue\nwithout any end.[1331] Otherwise, we should have no more honourable\nideas of Christ, than of the animal victims which were sacrificed under\nthe law, the oblations of which are proved to have been weak and\ninefficacious, by the circumstance of their frequent repetition.\nWherefore, it must be acknowledged, either that the sacrifice which\nChrist accomplished on the cross wanted the virtue of eternal\npurification, or that Christ has offered up one perfect sacrifice, once\nfor all ages. This is what the apostle says that this great high-priest,\neven Christ, \u201cnow once in the end of the world, hath appeared to put\naway sin by the sacrifice of himself.\u201d Again: \u201cBy the will of God we are\nsanctified, through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ, once for\nall.\u201d Again: \u201cThat by one offering Christ hath perfected for ever them\nthat are sanctified.\u201d To which he subjoins this remarkable observation:\n\u201cThat where remission of iniquities is, there is no more offering for\nsin.\u201d[1332] This was likewise signified by the last words of Christ,\nwhen, with his expiring breath he said, \u201cIt is finished.\u201d[1333] We are\naccustomed to consider the last words of dying persons as oracular.\nChrist, at the moment of his death, declared that by his own sacrifice\nevery thing necessary to our salvation had been accomplished and\nfinished. To such a sacrifice, the perfection of which he so explicitly\ndeclares, shall it be lawful for us to make innumerable additions every\nday, as though it were imperfect? While God\u2019s most holy word not only\naffirms, but proclaims and protests, that this sacrifice was once\nperfect, and that its virtue is eternal,\u2014do not they who require another\nsacrifice charge this with imperfection and inefficacy? But what is the\ntendency of the mass, which admits of a hundred thousand sacrifices\nbeing offered every day, except it be to obscure and suppress the\npassion of Christ, by which he offered himself as the alone sacrifice to\nthe Father? Who, that is not blind, does not see that such an opposition\nto the clear and manifest truth must have arisen from the audacity of\nSatan? I am aware of the fallacies with which that father of falsehood\nis accustomed to varnish over this fraud; as, that these are not various\nor different sacrifices, but only a repetition of that one sacrifice.\nBut such illusions are easily dissipated. For, through the whole\nargument, the apostle is contending, not only that there are no other\nsacrifices, but that that one sacrifice was offered once, and is never\nto be repeated. The more artful sophisters have recourse to a deeper\nsubterfuge; that the mass is not a repetition of that sacrifice, but an\napplication of it. This sophistry also may be confuted, without any more\ndifficulty than the former. For Christ once offered up himself, not that\nhis sacrifice might be daily ratified by new oblations, but that the\nbenefit of it might be communicated to us by the preaching of the\ngospel, and the administration of the sacred supper. Thus Paul says that\n\u201cChrist our passover is sacrificed for us,\u201d and commands us to feast on\nhim.[1334] This, I say, is the way in which the sacrifice of the cross\nof our Lord Jesus Christ is rightly applied to us, when it is\ncommunicated to us for our enjoyment, and we receive it with true faith.\n\nIV. But it is worth while to hear on what other foundation they rest the\nsacrifice of the mass. They apply to this purpose the prophecy of\nMalachi, in which the Lord promises, that \u201cfrom the rising of the sun\neven unto the going down of the same, incense shall be offered unto\u201d his\n\u201cname, and a pure offering.\u201d[1335] As though it were a new or unusual\nthing for the prophets, when they speak of the calling of the Gentiles,\nto designate the spiritual worship of God, to which they exhort them, by\nthe external ceremonies of the law; in order to show, in a more familiar\nmanner, to the men of their own times, that the Gentiles were to be\nintroduced to a participation of the true religion; as it is their\ninvariable practice, on all occasions, to describe the realities which\nhave been exhibited in the gospel, under the types and figures of the\ndispensation under which they lived. Thus, conversion to the Lord they\nexpress by going up to Jerusalem; adoration of God, by oblations of\nvarious gifts; the more extensive knowledge to be bestowed on believers,\nin the kingdom of Christ, by dreams and visions.[1336] The prophecy\nwhich they adduce, therefore, is similar to another prediction of\nIsaiah, where he foretells the erection of three altars, in Assyria,\nEgypt, and Judea.[1337] I ask the Romanists, first, whether they do not\nadmit this prediction to have been accomplished in the kingdom of\nChrist; secondly, where are these altars, or when were they ever\nerected; thirdly, whether they think that those two kingdoms were\ndestined to have their respective temples, like that at Jerusalem. A due\nconsideration of these things, I think, will induce them to acknowledge,\nthat the prophet, under types adapted to his own time, was predicting\nthe spiritual worship of God, which was to be propagated all over the\nworld. This is our solution of the passage which they adduce from\nMalachi; but as examples of this mode of expression are of such frequent\noccurrence, I shall not employ myself in a further enumeration of them.\nHere, also, they are miserably deceived, in acknowledging no sacrifice\nbut that of the mass; whereas, believers do in reality now sacrifice to\nthe Lord, and offer a pure oblation, of which we shall presently treat.\n\nV. I now proceed to the third view of the mass, under which I am to show\nhow it obliterates and expunges from the memory of mankind the true and\nalone death of Jesus Christ. For as among men the confirmation of a\ntestament depends on the death of the testator, so also our Lord, by his\ndeath, has confirmed the testament in which he has given us remission of\nsins, and everlasting righteousness. Those who dare to attempt any\nvariation or innovation in this testament, thereby deny his death, and\nrepresent it as of no value. Now, what is the mass, but a new and\ntotally different testament? For does not every separate mass promise a\nnew remission of sins, and a new acquisition of righteousness; so that\nthere are now as many testaments as masses? Let Christ, therefore, come\nagain, and by another death ratify this new testament, or rather, by\ninnumerable deaths, confirm these innumerable testaments of masses. Have\nI not truly said, then, at the beginning, that the true and alone death\nof Christ is obliterated and consigned to oblivion by the masses? And is\nnot the direct tendency of the mass, to cause Christ, if it were\npossible, to be put to death again? \u201cFor where a testament is,\u201d says the\napostle, \u201cthere must also, of necessity, be the death of the\ntestator.\u201d[1338] The mass pretends to exhibit a new testament of Christ;\ntherefore it requires his death. Moreover the victim which is offered\nmust, of necessity, be slain and immolated. If Christ be sacrificed in\nevery mass, he must be cruelly murdered in a thousand separate places at\nonce. This is not _my_ argument; it is the reasoning of the apostle: \u201cIt\nwas not necessary that he should offer himself often; for then must he\noften have suffered since the foundation of the world.\u201d[1339] In reply\nto this, I confess, they are ready to charge us with calumny; alleging\nthat we impute to them sentiments which they never have held, nor ever\ncan hold. We know, indeed, that the life and death of Christ are not in\ntheir power; and whether they intend to murder him, we do not inquire;\nwe only mean to show the absurdities which follow from their impious and\nabominable doctrine, and this we have proved from the mouth of the\napostle. They may reply a hundred times, if they please, that this\nsacrifice is without blood; but I shall deny that sacrifices can change\ntheir nature, at the caprice of men; for thus the sacred and inviolable\ninstitution of God would fall to the ground. Hence it follows, that this\nprinciple of the apostle can never be shaken, that \u201cwithout shedding of\nblood is no remission.\u201d[1340]\n\nVI. We are now to treat of the fourth property of the mass, which is, to\nprevent us from perceiving and reflecting on the death of Christ, and\nthereby to deprive us of the benefit resulting from it. For who can\nconsider himself as redeemed by the death of Christ, when he sees a new\nredemption in the mass? Who can be assured that his sins are remitted,\nwhen he sees another remission? It is not a sufficient answer, to say,\nthat we obtain remission of sins in the mass, only because it has been\nalready procured by the death of Christ. For this is no other than\npretending that Christ has redeemed us in order that we may redeem\nourselves. For this is the doctrine which has been disseminated by the\nministers of Satan, and which they now defend by clamours, and fire, and\nsword; that when we offer up Christ to his Father, in the sacrifice of\nthe mass, we, by that act of oblation, obtain remission of sins, and\nbecome partakers of the passion of Christ. What remains, then, to the\npassion of Christ, but to be an example of redemption, by which we may\nlearn to be our own redeemers? Christ himself, when he seals the\nassurance of pardon in the sacred supper, does not command his disciples\nto rest in this act, but refers them to the sacrifice of his death;\nsignifying that the supper is a monument, or memorial, appointed to\nteach us that the expiatory victim by which God was to be appeased ought\nto be offered but once. Nor is it sufficient to know that Christ is the\nsole victim, unless we also know that there is only one oblation, so\nthat our faith may be fixed upon his cross.\n\nVII. I come now to the concluding observation; that the sacred supper,\nin which our Lord had left us the memorial of his passion impressed and\nengraven, has, by the erection of the mass, been removed, abolished, and\ndestroyed. For the supper itself is a gift of God, which ought to be\nreceived with thanksgiving. The sacrifice of the mass is pretended to be\na price given to God, and received by him as a satisfaction. As far as\n_giving_ differs from _receiving_, so far does the sacrifice of the mass\ndiffer from the sacrament of the supper. And this is the most miserable\ningratitude of man, that where the profusion of the Divine goodness\nought to have been acknowledged with thanksgivings, there he makes God\nhis debtor. The sacrament promised, that by the death of Christ we are\nnot only restored to life, but are perpetually vivified, because every\npart of our salvation was then accomplished. The sacrifice of the mass\nproclaims a very different doctrine; that it is necessary for Christ to\nbe sacrificed every day, in order to be of any advantage to us. The\nsupper ought to be distributed in the public congregation of the Church,\nto instruct us in the communion by which we are all connected together\nin Christ Jesus. The sacrifice of the mass dissolves and destroys this\ncommunion. For the reception of this error rendered it necessary that\nthere should be priests to sacrifice for the people; and the supper, as\nif it had been resigned to them, ceased to be administered to the Church\nof believers, according to the commandment of the Lord. A way was opened\nfor the admission of private masses, which represented a kind of\nexcommunication, rather than that communion which had been instituted by\nour Lord, when the mass-priest separates himself from the whole\ncongregation of believers, to devour his sacrifice alone. That no person\nmay be deceived, I call it a private mass, wherever there is no\nparticipation of the Lord\u2019s supper among believers, whatever number of\npersons may be present as spectators of it.\n\nVIII. With respect to the word _mass_ itself, I have never been able\ncertainly to determine whence it originated; only I think it may\nprobably have been derived from the oblations which used to be made at\nthe sacrament. Hence the ancient fathers generally use it in the plural\nnumber. But to forbear all controversy respecting the term, I say that\nprivate masses are diametrically repugnant to the institution of Christ,\nand are consequently an impious profanation of the sacred supper. For\nwhat has the Lord commanded us? Is it not to take and divide it among\nus?[1341] What observance of the command does Paul inculcate? Is it not\nthe breaking of the bread, which is the communion of the body of\nChrist?[1342] When one man takes it, therefore, without any\ndistribution, what resemblance does this bear to the command? But it is\nalleged, that this one man does it in the name of the whole Church. I\nask, by what authority? Is not this an open mockery of God, when one\nperson does separately, by himself, that which ought not to have been\ndone but among many? The words of Christ, and of Paul, are sufficiently\nclear to authorize the conclusion, that wherever there is no breaking of\nthe bread for common distribution among believers, there is not the\nsupper of the Lord, but a false and preposterous imitation of it. But a\nfalse imitation is a corruption; and the corruption of so great a\nmystery cannot take place without impiety. Private masses, therefore,\nare an impious abuse. And as one abuse in religion soon produces\nanother, after the introduction of this custom of offering without\ncommunicating, they began by degrees to have innumerable masses in all\nthe corners of the temples, and thus to divide the people from each\nother, who ought to have united in one assembly, to celebrate the\nmystery of their union. Now, let the Romanists deny, if they can, that\nthey are guilty of idolatry in exhibiting bread in their masses, to be\nworshipped instead of Christ. In vain do they boast of those promises of\nthe presence of Christ; for however they may be understood, they\ncertainly were not given in order that impure and profane men, whenever\nthey please, and for whatever improper use, may transmute bread into the\nbody of Christ; but in order that believers, religiously observing the\ncommand of Christ, in celebrating the supper, may enjoy a true\nparticipation of him in it.\n\nIX. In the purer times of the Church, this corruption was unknown. For,\nhowever the more impudent of our adversaries endeavour to misrepresent\nthis matter, yet it is beyond all doubt that all antiquity is against\nthem, as we have already evinced in other points, and may be more fully\ndetermined by a diligent perusal of the ancient fathers. But before I\nconclude this subject, I will ask our advocates for masses, since they\nknow that \u201cthe Lord hath\u201d not \u201cas great delight in sacrifices, as in\nobeying the voice of the Lord,\u201d and that \u201cto obey is better than\nsacrifice,\u201d[1343] how they can believe this kind of sacrificing to be\nacceptable to God, for which they have no command, and which they do not\nfind to be sanctioned by a single syllable of the Scripture. Moreover,\nsince they hear the apostle say, that \u201cno man taketh\u201d the name and\n\u201chonour\u201d of the priesthood \u201cunto himself, but he that is called of God,\nas was Aaron,\u201d and that even \u201cChrist glorified not himself to be made a\nhigh-priest,\u201d but obeyed the call of his Father;[1344] either they must\nprove God to be the author and institutor of their priesthood, or they\nmust confess the honour not to be of God, into which they have\npresumptuously and wickedly obtruded themselves, without any call. But\nthey cannot produce a tittle which affords the least support to their\npriesthood. What, then, will become of their sacrifices, since no\nsacrifices can be offered without a priest?\n\nX. If any one should bring forward mutilated passages, extracted from\ndifferent parts of the writings of the fathers, and contend, on their\nauthority, that the sacrifice which is offered in the supper ought to be\nunderstood in a different manner from the representation we have given\nof it, he shall receive the following brief reply: If the question\nrelate to an approbation of this notion of a sacrifice which the Papists\nhave invented in the mass, the ancient fathers are very far from\ncountenancing such a sacrilege. They do, indeed, use the word\n_sacrifice_, but they at the same time fully declare, that they mean\nnothing more than the commemoration of that true and only sacrifice\nwhich Christ, whom they invariably speak of as our only Priest,\ncompleted on the cross. Augustine says, \u201cThe Hebrews, in the animal\nvictims which they offered to God, celebrated the prophecy of the future\nvictim which Christ has since offered; Christians, by the holy oblation\nand participation of the body of Christ, celebrate the remembrance of\nthe sacrifice which is already completed.\u201d Here he evidently inculcates\nthe same sentiment that is expressed more at large in the Treatise, on\nFaith, which has been attributed to him, though it is doubtful who was\nthe author, addressed to Peter the Deacon; in which we find the\nfollowing passage: \u201cHold this most firmly, and admit not the least\ndoubt, that the only begotten Son of God himself, being made flesh for\nus, hath offered himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a\nsweet-smelling savour; to whom, with the Father and the Holy Spirit,\nanimals were sacrificed in the time of the Old Testament; and to whom\nnow, with the Father and the Holy Spirit, (with whom he has one and the\nsame Divinity,) the holy Church, throughout the world, ceases not to\noffer the sacrifice of bread and wine. For in those carnal victims there\nwas a prefiguration of the flesh of Christ, which he himself was to\noffer for our sins, and of his blood, which he was to shed for the\nremission of our sins. But in the present sacrifice, there is a\nthanksgiving and commemoration of the flesh of Christ, which he has\noffered, and of his blood, which he has shed for us.\u201d Hence Augustine\nhimself, in various passages, explains it to be nothing more than a\nsacrifice of praise. And it is a remark often found in his writings,\nthat the Lord\u2019s supper is called a sacrifice, for no other reason than\nbecause it is a memorial, image, and attestation, of that singular,\ntrue, and only sacrifice, by which Christ has redeemed us. There is also\na remarkable passage in his Treatise on the Trinity, where, after having\ntreated of the only sacrifice, he thus concludes: \u201cIn a sacrifice, four\nthings are to be considered\u2014to whom it is offered, by whom it is\noffered, what is offered, and for whom it is offered. The alone and true\nMediator, by a sacrifice of peace, reconciling us to God, remains one\nwith him to whom he has offered it; makes them for whom he has offered\nit one in himself; is the one who alone has offered it; and is himself\nthe oblation which he has offered.\u201d Chrysostom also speaks to the same\npurpose. And they ascribe the honour of the priesthood so exclusively to\nChrist, that Augustine declares, that if any one should set up a bishop\nas an intercessor between God and man, it would be the language of\nAntichrist.\n\nXI. Yet we do not deny that the oblation of Christ is there exhibited to\nus in such a manner, that the view of his cross is almost placed before\nour eyes; as the apostle says, that by the preaching of the cross to the\nGalatians, \u201cChrist had been evidently set forth before their eyes,\ncrucified among them.\u201d[1345] But as I perceive that those ancient\nfathers misapplied this memorial to a purpose inconsistent with the\ninstitution of the Lord, because the supper, as celebrated by them,\nrepresented I know not what appearance of a reiterated, or at least\nrenewed oblation, the safest way for pious minds will be to acquiesce in\nthe pure and simple ordinance of the Lord, whose supper this sacrament\nis called, because it ought to be regulated by his sole authority.\nFinding them to have retained orthodox and pious sentiments of this\nwhole mystery, and not detecting them of having intended the least\nderogation from the one and alone sacrifice of Christ, I dare not\ncondemn them for impiety; yet I think it impossible to exculpate them\nfrom having committed some error in the external form. For they imitated\nthe Jewish mode of sacrificing, more than Christ had commanded, or the\nnature of the gospel admitted. The censure which they have deserved,\ntherefore, is for this preposterous conformity to the Old Testament;\nthat, not content with the simple and genuine institution of Christ,\nthey have symbolized too much with the shadows of the law.\n\nXII. If any person will attentively examine, he will observe this\ndistinction clearly marked by the word of the Lord, between the Mosaic\nsacrifices and our eucharist; that though those sacrifices represented\nto the Jewish people the same efficacy of the death of Christ which is\nnow exhibited to us in the Lord\u2019s supper, yet the mode of representation\nwas different. For the Jewish priests were commanded to prefigure the\nsacrifice which was to be accomplished by Christ; a victim was presented\nin the place of Christ himself; there was an altar on which it was to be\nimmolated; in short, every thing was conducted in such a manner as to\nset before the eyes of the people a representation of the sacrifice\nwhich was to be offered to God as an atonement for sins. But since that\nsacrifice has been accomplished, the Lord has prescribed to us a\ndifferent method, in order to communicate to believers the benefit of\nthe sacrifice which has been offered to him by his Son. Therefore he has\ngiven us a table at which we are to feast, not an altar upon which any\nvictim is to be offered: he has not consecrated priests to offer\nsacrifices, but ministers to distribute the sacred banquet. In\nproportion to the superior sublimity and sanctity of the mystery, with\nthe greater care and reverence it ought to be treated. The safest\ncourse, therefore, is to relinquish all the presumption of human reason,\nand to adhere strictly to what the Scripture enjoins. And surely, if we\nconsider that it is the supper of the Lord, and not of men, there is no\ncause why we should suffer ourselves to be moved a hair\u2019s breadth from\nthe scriptural rule by any authority of men or prescription of years.\nTherefore, when the apostle was desirous of purifying it from all the\nfaults which had already crept into the Church at Corinth, he adopted\nthe best and readiest method, by recalling it to the one original\ninstitution, which he shows ought to be regarded as its perpetual rule.\n\nXIII. That no wrangler may take occasion to oppose us from the terms\n_sacrifice_ and _priest_, I will briefly state what I have meant by\nthese terms all through this argument. Some extend the word _sacrifice_\nto all religions ceremonies and actions; but for this I see no reason.\nWe know that, by the constant usage of the Scripture, the word\n_sacrifice_ is applied to what the Greeks call sometimes \u03b8\u03c5\u03c3\u03b9\u03b1,\nsometimes \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c3\u03c6\u03bf\u03c1\u03b1, and sometimes \u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03c4\u03b7, which, taken generally,\ncomprehends whatever is offered to God. Wherefore it is necessary for us\nto make a distinction, but such a distinction as may be consistent with\nthe sacrifices of the Mosaic law; under the shadows of which the Lord\ndesigned to represent to his people all the truth of spiritual\nsacrifices. Though there were various kinds of them, yet they may all be\nreferred to two classes. For either they were oblations made for sin in\na way of satisfaction, by which guilt was expiated before God, or they\nwere symbols of Divine worship and attestations of devotion. This second\nclass comprehended three kinds of sacrifices: some were offered in a way\nof supplication, to implore the favour of God; some in a way of\nthanksgiving, to testify the gratitude of the mind for benefits\nreceived; and some as simple expressions of piety, to renew the\nconfirmation of the covenant: to this class belonged burnt-offerings and\ndrink-offerings, first-fruits and peace-offerings. Therefore let _us_\nalso divide sacrifices into two kinds, and for the sake of distinction\ncall one the _sacrifice of worship_ and _piety_, because it consists in\nthe veneration and service of God, which he demands and receives from\nbelievers; or it may be called, if you prefer it, the _sacrifice of\nthanksgiving_; for it is presented to God by none but persons who,\nloaded with his immense benefits, devote themselves and all their\nactions to him in return. The other may be called the _sacrifice of\npropitiation_ or _expiation_. A sacrifice of expiation is that which is\noffered to appease the wrath of God, to satisfy his justice, and thereby\nto purify and cleanse from sins, that the sinner, delivered from the\ndefilement of iniquity, and restored to the purity of righteousness, may\nbe re-admitted to the favour of God. This was the designation, under the\nlaw, of those victims which were offered for the expiation of sins; not\nthat they were sufficient to effect the restoration of the favour of\nGod, or the obliteration of iniquity, but because they prefigured that\ntrue sacrifice which at length was actually accomplished by Christ\nalone; by him alone, because it could be made by no other; and once for\nall, because the virtue and efficacy of that one sacrifice is eternal;\nas Christ himself declared, when he said, \u201cIt is finished;\u201d[1346] that\nis to say, whatever was necessary to reconcile us to the Father, and to\nobtain remission of sins, righteousness, and salvation, was all effected\nand completed by that one oblation of himself, which was so perfect as\nto leave no room for any other sacrifice afterwards.\n\nXIV. Wherefore, I conclude, that it is a most criminal insult, and\nintolerable blasphemy, both against Christ himself, and against the\nsacrifice which he completed on our behalf by his death upon the cross,\nfor any man to repeat any oblation with a view to procure the pardon of\nsins, propitiate God, and obtain righteousness. But what is the object\nof the mass, except it be that by the merit of a new oblation we may be\nmade partakers of the passion of Christ? And that there might be no\nlimits to their folly, they have not been satisfied with affirming it to\nbe a common sacrifice offered equally for the whole Church, without\nadding, that it was in their power to make a peculiar application of it\nto any individual they chose, or rather to every one who was willing to\npurchase such a commodity with ready money. Though they could not reach\nthe price of Judas, yet, to exemplify some characteristic of their\nauthor, they have retained the resemblance of number. Judas sold Jesus\nfor thirty pieces of silver; these men, as far as in them lies, sell\nhim, in French money, for thirty pieces of copper; Judas sold him but\nonce; they sell him as often as they meet with a purchaser. In this\nsense, we deny that they are priests; that they can intercede with God\non behalf of the people by such an oblation; that they can appease the\nwrath of God, or obtain the remission of sins. For Christ is the sole\nPriest and High-Priest of the New Testament, to whom all the ancient\npriesthoods have been transferred, and in whom they are all terminated\nand closed. And even if the Scripture had made no mention of the eternal\npriesthood of Christ, yet as God, since the abrogation of the former\npriesthoods, has instituted no other, the argument of the apostle is\nirrefragable, that \u201cno man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that\nis called of God.\u201d[1347] With what effrontery, then, do these\nsacrilegious mortals, who boast of being the executioners of Christ,\ndare to call themselves priests of the living God!\n\nXV. There is a beautiful passage in Plato, in which he treats of the\nancient expiations among the heathen, and ridicules the foolish\nconfidence of wicked and profligate men, who thought that such disguises\nwould conceal their crimes from the view of their gods, and, as if they\nhad made a compromise with their gods, indulged themselves in their\nvices with the greater security. This passage almost seems as if it had\nbeen written with a view to the missal expiation as it is now practised\nin the world. To defraud and circumvent another person, every one knows\nto be unlawful. To injure widows, to plunder orphans, to harass the\npoor, to obtain the property of others by wicked arts, to seize any\none\u2019s fortune by perjuries and frauds, to oppress a neighbour with\nviolence and tyrannical terror, are universally acknowledged to be\nenormous crimes. How, then, do so many persons dare to commit all these\nsins, as if they might perpetrate them with impunity? If we duly\nconsider, we shall find that they derive fresh encouragement from no\nother cause than the confidence which they feel that they shall be able\nto satisfy God by the sacrifice of the mass, as a complete discharge of\nall their obligations to him, or at least that it affords them an easy\nmode of compromising with him. Plato afterwards goes on to ridicule the\ngross stupidity of those who expect by such expiations to be delivered\nfrom the punishments which they would otherwise have to suffer in hell.\nAnd what is the design of the obits, or anniversary obsequies, and the\ngreater part of the masses, but that those who all their lifetime have\nbeen the most cruel of tyrants, the most rapacious of robbers, or\nabandoned to every enormity, as if redeemed with this price, may escape\nthe fire of purgatory?\n\nXVI. Under the other kind of sacrifices, which we have called _the\nsacrifice of thanksgiving_, are included all the offices of charity,\nwhich when we perform to our brethren, we honour the Lord himself in his\nmembers; and likewise all our prayers, praises, thanksgivings, and every\nthing that we do in the service of God; all which are dependent on a\ngreater sacrifice, by which we are consecrated in soul and body as holy\ntemples to the Lord. It is not enough for our external actions to be\nemployed in his service: it is necessary that first ourselves, and then\nall our works, be consecrated and dedicated to him; that whatever\nbelongs to us may conduce to his glory, and discover a zeal for its\nadvancement. This kind of sacrifice has no tendency to appease the wrath\nof God, to procure remission of sins, or to obtain righteousness: its\nsole object is to magnify and exalt the glory of God. For it cannot be\nacceptable and pleasing to God, except from the hands of those whom he\nhas already favoured with the remission of their sins, reconciled to\nhimself, and absolved from guilt; and it is so necessary to the Church\nas to be altogether indispensable. Therefore it will continue to be\noffered for ever, as long as the people of God shall exist; as we have\nalready seen from the prophet. For so far are we from wishing to abolish\nit, that in that sense we are pleased to understand the following\nprediction: \u201cFrom the rising of the sun, even unto the going down of the\nsame, my name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place\nincense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering; for my name\nshall be great among the heathen, saith the Lord of hosts.\u201d[1348] So\nPaul enjoins us to \u201cpresent\u201d our \u201cbodies, a living sacrifice, holy,\nacceptable unto God,\u201d which is our \u201creasonable service.\u201d[1349] He has\nexpressed himself with the strictest propriety, by adding that this is\nour reasonable service; for he intended a spiritual kind of Divine\nworship, which he tacitly opposed to the carnal sacrifices of the Mosaic\nlaw. So \u201cto do good, and to communicate,\u201d are called \u201csacrifices with\nwhich God is well pleased.\u201d[1350] So the liberality of the Philippians\nin supplying the wants of Paul was \u201can odour of a sweet smell, a\nsacrifice acceptable and well pleasing to God.\u201d[1351] So all the good\nworks of believers are spiritual sacrifices.\n\nXVII. Why do I multiply quotations? This form of expression is\nperpetually occurring in the Scriptures. And even while the people were\nkept under the external discipline of the law, it was sufficiently\ndeclared by the prophets that those carnal sacrifices contained a\nreality and truth which is common to the Christian Church, as well as to\nthe nation of the Jews. For this reason David prayed, \u201cLet my prayer be\nset forth before thee as incense; and the lifting up of my hands as the\nevening sacrifice.\u201d[1352] And Hosea called thanksgivings \u201cthe calves of\nour lips,\u201d[1353] which David calls \u201coffering thanksgiving\u201d and \u201coffering\npraise.\u201d[1354] In imitation of the Psalmist, the apostle himself says,\n\u201cLet us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually;\u201d and by way of\nexplanation adds, \u201cthat is, the fruit of our lips,\u201d confessing or giving\n\u201cthanks to his name.\u201d[1355] This kind of sacrifice is indispensable in\nthe supper of the Lord, in which, while we commemorate and declare his\ndeath, and give thanks, we do no other than offer the sacrifice of\npraise. From this sacrificial employment, all Christians are called \u201ca\nroyal priesthood;\u201d[1356] because, as the apostle says, \u201cBy Christ we\noffer the sacrifice of praise to God, that is, the fruit of our lips,\ngiving thanks to his name.\u201d For we do not appear in the presence of God\nwith our oblations without an intercessor; Christ is the Mediator, by\nwhom we offer ourselves and all that we have to the Father. He is our\nHigh Priest, who, having entered into the celestial sanctuary, opens the\nway of access for us. He is our altar, upon which we place our\noblations, that whatever we venture to do, we may attempt in him. In a\nword, it is he that \u201chath made us kings and priests unto God.\u201d[1357]\n\nXVIII. What remains, then, but for the blind to see, the deaf to hear,\nand even children to understand, this abomination of the mass? which,\nbeing presented in a vessel of gold, has so inebriated and stupefied all\nthe kings and people of the earth, from the highest to the lowest, that,\nmore senseless than the brutes themselves, they have placed the whole of\ntheir salvation in this fatal gulf. Surely Satan never employed a more\npowerful engine to assail and conquer the kingdom of Christ. This is the\nHelen, for which the enemies of the truth in the present day contend\nwith cruelty, rage, and fury; a Helen, indeed, with which they so\npollute themselves with spiritual fornication, which is the most\nexecrable of all. Here I touch not, even with my little finger, the\ngross abuses which they might pretend to be profanations of the purity\nof their holy mass; what a scandalous traffic they carry on, what sordid\ngains they make by their masses, with what enormous rapacity they\ngratify their avarice. I only point out, and that in few and plain\nwords, the true nature of the most sanctimonious sanctity of the mass,\non account of which it has attracted so much admiration and veneration\nfor so many ages. For an illustration of such great mysteries\nproportioned to their dignity, would require a larger treatise; and I am\nunwilling to introduce those disgusting corruptions which are\nuniversally notorious; that all men may understand that the mass,\nconsidered in its choicest and most estimable purity, without any of its\nappendages, from the beginning to the end, is full of every species of\nimpiety, blasphemy, idolatry, and sacrilege.\n\nXIX. The readers may now see, collected into a brief summary, almost\nevery thing that I have thought important to be known respecting these\ntwo sacraments; the use of which has been enjoined on the Christian\nChurch from the commencement of the New Testament until the end of time;\nthat is to say, baptism, to be a kind of entrance into the Church, and\nan initiatory profession of faith; and the Lord\u2019s supper, to be a\ncontinual nourishment, with which Christ spiritually feeds his family of\nbelievers. Wherefore, as there is but \u201cone God, one Christ, one faith,\u201d\none Church, the body of Christ, so there is only \u201cone baptism\u201d and that\nis never repeated; but the supper is frequently distributed, that those\nwho have once been admitted into the Church, may understand that they\nare continually nourished by Christ. Beside these two, as no other\nsacrament has been instituted by God, so no other ought to be\nacknowledged by the Church of believers. For that it is not left to the\nwill of man to institute new sacraments, will be easily understood if we\nremember what has already been very plainly stated\u2014that sacraments are\nappointed by God for the purpose of instructing us respecting some\npromise of his, and assuring us of his good-will towards us; and if we\nalso consider, that no one has been the counsellor of God, capable of\naffording us any certainty respecting his will,[1358] or furnishing us\nany assurance of his disposition towards us, what he chooses to give or\nto deny us. Hence it follows, that no one can institute a sign to be a\ntestimony respecting any determination or promise of his; he alone can\nfurnish us a testimony respecting himself by giving a sign. I will\nexpress myself in terms more concise, and perhaps more homely, but more\nexplicit\u2014that there can be no sacrament unaccompanied with a promise of\nsalvation. All mankind, collected in one assembly, can promise us\nnothing respecting our salvation. Therefore they can never institute or\nestablish a sacrament.\n\nXX. Let the Christian Church, therefore, be content with these two, and\nnot only neither admit nor acknowledge any other at present, but neither\ndesire nor expect any other to the end of the world. For as the Jews,\nbeside the ordinary sacraments given to them, had also several others,\ndiffering according to the varying circumstances of different periods,\nsuch as the manna, the water issuing from the rock, the brazen serpent,\nand the like, they were admonished by this variation not to rest in such\nfigures, which were of short duration, but to expect from God something\nbetter, which should undergo no change and come to no end. But our case\nis very different: to us Christ has been revealed, \u201cin whom are hid all\nthe treasures of wisdom and knowledge,\u201d[1359] in such abundance and\nprofusion, that to hope or desire any new accession to these treasures\nwould really be to displease God, and provoke his wrath against us. We\nmust hunger after Christ, we must seek, contemplate, and learn him\nalone, till the dawning of that great day, when our Lord will fully\nmanifest the glory of his kingdom, and reveal himself to us, so that \u201cwe\nshall see him as he is.\u201d[1360] And for this reason, the dispensation\nunder which we live is designated in the Scriptures as \u201cthe last time,\u201d\n\u201cthese last times,\u201d \u201cthe last days,\u201d[1361] that no one may deceive\nhimself with a vain expectation of any new doctrine or revelation. For\n\u201cGod, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto\nthe fathers by the prophets, hath, in these last days, spoken unto us by\nhis Son,\u201d[1362] who alone is able to \u201creveal the Father,\u201d[1363] and who,\nindeed, \u201chath declared him\u201d[1364] fully, as far as is necessary for our\nhappiness, while \u201cnow we see\u201d him \u201cthrough a glass darkly.\u201d[1365] As men\nare not left at liberty to institute new sacraments in the Church of\nGod, so it were to be wished that as little as possible of human\ninvention should be mixed with those which have been instituted by God.\nFor as wine is diluted and lost by an infusion of water, and as a whole\nmass of meal contracts acidity from a sprinkling of leaven, so the\npurity of Divine mysteries is only polluted when man makes any addition\nof his own. And yet we see, as the sacraments are observed in the\npresent day, how very far they have degenerated from their original\npurity. There is every where an excess of pageantries, ceremonies, and\ngesticulations; but no consideration or mention of the word of God,\nwithout which even the sacraments themselves cease to be sacraments. And\nthe very ceremonies which have been instituted by God are not to be\ndiscerned among such a multitude of others, by which they are\noverwhelmed. In baptism, how little is seen of that which ought to be\nthe only conspicuous object\u2014I mean baptism itself? And the Lord\u2019s supper\nhas been completely buried since it has been transformed into the mass;\nexcept that it is exhibited once a year, but in a partial and mutilated\nform.\n\nFootnote 1328:\n\n  Gen. xiv. 18. Psalm cx. 4. Heb. v. 5, 6, 10; vii. 17, 21, 23, 24; ix.\n  11; x. 21.\n\nFootnote 1329:\n\n  Heb. vii. 23.\n\nFootnote 1330:\n\n  Heb. vii. 1, 7.\n\nFootnote 1331:\n\n  Heb. vii. 27; x. 10, 14; ix. 12.\n\nFootnote 1332:\n\n  Heb. ix. 26; x. 10; xiv. 18.\n\nFootnote 1333:\n\n  John xix. 30.\n\nFootnote 1334:\n\n  1 Cor. v. 7, 8.\n\nFootnote 1335:\n\n  Mal. i. 11.\n\nFootnote 1336:\n\n  Isaiah xix. 23. Joel ii. 28.\n\nFootnote 1337:\n\n  Isaiah xix. 19, 23.\n\nFootnote 1338:\n\n  Heb. ix. 16.\n\nFootnote 1339:\n\n  Heb. ix. 23, 25, 26.\n\nFootnote 1340:\n\n  Heb. ix. 22.\n\nFootnote 1341:\n\n  Luke xxii. 17.\n\nFootnote 1342:\n\n  1 Cor. x. 16.\n\nFootnote 1343:\n\n  1 Sam. xv. 22.\n\nFootnote 1344:\n\n  Heb. v. 4, 5.\n\nFootnote 1345:\n\n  Gal. iii. 1.\n\nFootnote 1346:\n\n  John xix. 30.\n\nFootnote 1347:\n\n  Heb. v. 4.\n\nFootnote 1348:\n\n  Mal. i. 11.\n\nFootnote 1349:\n\n  Rom. xii. 1.\n\nFootnote 1350:\n\n  Heb. xiii. 16.\n\nFootnote 1351:\n\n  Phil. iv. 18.\n\nFootnote 1352:\n\n  Psalm cxli. 2.\n\nFootnote 1353:\n\n  Hosea xiv. 2.\n\nFootnote 1354:\n\n  Psalm l. 14, 23.\n\nFootnote 1355:\n\n  Heb. xiii. 15.\n\nFootnote 1356:\n\n  1 Peter ii. 9.\n\nFootnote 1357:\n\n  Rev. i. 6.\n\nFootnote 1358:\n\n  Isaiah xl. 14. Rom. xi. 34.\n\nFootnote 1359:\n\n  Col. ii. 3.\n\nFootnote 1360:\n\n  1 John iii. 2.\n\nFootnote 1361:\n\n  1 John ii. 18. 1 Peter i. 20. Acts ii. 17.\n\nFootnote 1362:\n\n  Heb. i. 1, 2.\n\nFootnote 1363:\n\n  Luke x. 22.\n\nFootnote 1364:\n\n  John i. 18.\n\nFootnote 1365:\n\n  1 Cor. xiii. 12.\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER XIX.\n THE FIVE OTHER CEREMONIES, FALSELY CALLED SACRAMENTS, PROVED NOT TO BE\n                  SACRAMENTS; THEIR NATURE EXPLAINED.\n\n\nThe preceding discussion respecting the sacraments might satisfy persons\nof docile and sober minds, that they ought not to carry their curiosity\nany further, or without the sanction of the word of God, to receive any\nother sacraments beside those two which they know to have been\ninstituted by the Lord. But as the opinion of seven sacraments has been\nso generally admitted in the common conversation of mankind, and\npervaded the controversies of the schools, and the sermons of the\npulpit,\u2014as it has gathered strength from its antiquity, and still keeps\nits hold on the minds of men,\u2014I have thought I should perform a useful\nservice by entering into a closer and distinct examination of the five\nceremonies, which are commonly numbered among the true and genuine\nsacraments of the Lord, by clearing away every fallacy, and exhibiting\nto the view of plain Christians the real nature of those ceremonies, and\nhow falsely they have hitherto been considered as sacraments. Here, in\nthe first place, I wish to declare to all believers, that I am not\ninduced to enter on this controversy respecting the term, by the least\ndesire of contention, but that I am urged by important reasons to resist\nthe abuse of it. I am aware that Christians have power over names as\nwell as things, and may therefore apply words to things at their own\npleasure, provided they retain a pious meaning, even though there be\nsome impropriety of expression. All this I admit, though it would be\nbetter for words to be subject to things, than for things to be subject\nto words. The case of the term _sacrament_, however, is different. For\nthose who maintain seven sacraments, give them all the same\ndefinition\u2014that they are visible forms of invisible grace; they make\nthem all alike vessels of the Holy Spirit, instruments of communicating\nrighteousness, causes of obtaining grace. And the Master of the\nSentences, Lombard, denies that the sacraments of the Mosaic law are\nproperly designated by this appellation; because they did not\ncommunicate that which they prefigured. Is it to be endured, that those\nsymbols, which the Lord consecrated with his own mouth, and which he\nadorned with excellent promises, should not be acknowledged as\nsacraments; and, at the same time, that this honour should be\ntransferred to those rites which are merely inventions of men, or, at\nleast, are observed without any express command of God? Either,\ntherefore, let them change their definition, or abstain from this abuse\nof the term, which afterwards generates false and absurd opinions.\nExtreme unction, they say, is a figure and cause of invisible grace,\nbecause it is a sacrament. If we ought by no means to admit their\ninference from the term, it certainly behoves us to lose no time in\nresisting their application of the term itself, that we may not be\nchargeable with giving any occasion to such an error. Again: to prove\nthat ceremony to be a sacrament, they allege this reason\u2014that it\nconsists of the external sign and the word of God. If we find neither\ncommand nor promise respecting it, can we do otherwise than oppose it?\n\nII. Now, it appears that we are not debating about the word, but raising\na necessary and useful controversy respecting the thing itself. We must\nstrenuously maintain, therefore, what we have already established by\nirrefragable argument that the power to institute sacraments belongs to\nGod alone; for a sacrament ought to exhibit the certain promise of God,\nfor the assurance and consolation of the consciences of believers; which\ncould never receive such assurance and consolation from man. A sacrament\nought to be a testimony to us of the good-will of God towards us\u2014a\ntestimony which no man or angel can ever give, as none has been \u201chis\ncounsellor.\u201d It is he alone, therefore, who, with legitimate authority,\ntestifies to us concerning himself by means of his word. A sacrament is\na seal by which the testament or promise of God is sealed. But it could\nnot be sealed by corporeal things and the elements of this world, unless\nthey were marked out and appointed for this purpose by the power of God.\nTherefore man cannot institute a sacrament; because it is not in human\npower to cause such great and Divine mysteries to be concealed under\nsuch mean symbols. \u201cThe word of God must precede,\u201d as is excellently\nremarked by Augustine, \u201cin order to make a sacrament to be a sacrament.\u201d\nMoreover, if we would avoid falling into many absurdities, it is\nrequisite to preserve some distinction between a sacrament and other\nceremonies. The apostles prayed on bended knees; shall we, therefore,\nnever kneel without making it a sacrament? The early Christians are said\nto have turned their faces towards the east when they prayed; shall\nlooking towards the east, then, be regarded as a sacrament? Paul says,\n\u201cI will that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands,\u201d[1366] and the\nprayers of the saints appear to have been often made with uplifted\nhands; shall elevation of hands also be made a sacrament? On this\nprinciple all the gestures of the saints would become sacraments. I\nwould not insist on these things, however, if they were not connected\nwith those greater inconveniences.\n\nIII. If they wish to press us with the authority of the ancient Church,\nI assert that this is a groundless pretence. For the number of seven\nsacraments can nowhere be found in the ecclesiastical writers, nor is it\nclear when it was introduced. I grant, indeed, that the fathers\nsometimes make too free a use of the word sacrament; but they use it\nindifferently to signify all ceremonies and external rites, and all\nexercises of piety. But, when they speak of those signs which we ought\nto regard as testimonies of the grace of God, they are content with\nthese two, baptism and the eucharist. That this may not be supposed to\nbe a false allegation, I shall here cite a few testimonies from\nAugustine. To Januarius he says, \u201cFirst, I wish you to know what is the\nprincipal point of this controversy\u2014that our Lord Jesus Christ, as he\nsays in the gospel, has laid upon us an easy yoke and a light burden.\nAnd, therefore, he has linked together the society of the Christian\nChurch by sacraments, very few in number, most easy to observe, and\nexcellent in signification. Such are baptism, consecrated in the name of\nthe Trinity, and the communion of the body and blood of the Lord, and if\nthere be any other enjoined in the canonical Scriptures.\u201d Again, in his\ntreatise On the Christian Doctrine: \u201cSince the resurrection of our Lord,\nour Lord himself, and the practice of his apostles, instead of many\nsigns, have given us few, and those most easy in performance, most\nexcellent in signification, and most pure in observance; such are\nbaptism, and the celebration of the body and blood of the Lord.\u201d Why\ndoes he make no mention here of the sacred or septenary number? Is it\nprobable that he would have omitted it, if it had then been instituted\nin the Church; especially as, in other cases, he was more curious in the\nobservation of numbers than was at all necessary? And, when he names\nbaptism and the Lord\u2019s supper, and is silent respecting any others, does\nhe not sufficiently indicate, that these two mysteries possess superior\nand peculiar dignity, and that all other ceremonies occupy an inferior\nstation? Wherefore I affirm that these advocates for seven sacraments\nare not only unsupported by the word of the Lord, but also by the\nconsent of the ancient Church, however they may boast of such consent.\nLet us now proceed to the particular ceremonies.\n\n\n\n\n                             CONFIRMATION.\n\n\nIV. It was an ancient custom in the Church for the children of\nChristians, after they were come to years of discretion, to be presented\nto the bishop in order to fulfil that duty which was required of adults\nwho offered themselves to baptism. For such persons were placed among\nthe catechumens, till, being duly instructed in the mysteries of\nChristianity, they were enabled to make a confession of their faith\nbefore the bishop and all the people. Therefore those who had been\nbaptized in their infancy, because they had not then made such a\nconfession of faith before the Church, at the close of childhood, or the\ncommencement of adolescence, were again presented by their parents, and\nwere examined by the bishop according to the form of the catechism which\nwas then in common use. That this exercise, which deserved to be\nregarded as sacred and solemn, might have the greater dignity and\nreverence, they also practised the ceremony of imposition of hands. Thus\nthe youth, after having given satisfaction respecting his faith, was\ndismissed with a solemn benediction. This custom is frequently mentioned\nby the ancient writers. Leo, the pope, says, \u201cIf any one be converted\nfrom heresy, let him not be baptized again; but let the influence of the\nSpirit, which he wanted among the heretics, be communicated to him by\nthe imposition of the hands of the bishop.\u201d Here our adversaries will\nexclaim that any ceremony, by which the Holy Spirit is conferred, is\nproperly denominated a sacrament. But the meaning of Leo in these words\nis sufficiently unfolded by himself in another place: \u201cWhoever is\nbaptized among heretics, let him not be rebaptized; but let him be\nconfirmed by imposition of hands with invocation of the Holy Spirit;\nbecause he has received the mere form of baptism, without the\nsanctification.\u201d It is also mentioned by Jerome against the Luciferians.\nAnd though I confess that Jerome is not altogether correct in stating it\nto have been a custom of the apostles, yet he is very far from the\nabsurdities now maintained by the Romanists; and he even corrects that\nvery statement by adding, that this benediction was committed wholly to\nthe bishops, \u201crather in honour of the priesthood than from necessity\nimposed by any law.\u201d Such imposition of hands, therefore, as is simply\nconnected with benediction, I highly approve, and wish it were now\nrestored to its primitive use, uncorrupted by superstition.\n\nV. Succeeding times have almost obliterated that ancient practice, and\nintroduced I know not what counterfeit confirmation as a sacrament of\nGod. They have pretended that the virtue of confirmation is to give the\nHoly Spirit for the augmentation of grace, who in baptism is given for\ninnocence; to strengthen for warfare those who in baptism had been\nregenerated to life. This confirmation is performed by unction and the\nfollowing form of words: \u201cI sign thee with the sign of the cross, and\nconfirm thee with the chrism of salvation, in the name of the Father,\nand of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.\u201d All this sounds very\nbeautifully and pleasantly. But where is the word of God which promises\nthe presence of the Holy Spirit in this ceremony? They cannot allege a\nsingle iota. How, then, will they assure us that their chrism is the\nvessel of the Holy Spirit? We see oil, a thick and viscid liquid, and we\nsee nothing besides. Augustine says, \u201cLet the word be added to the\nelement, and it will become a sacrament.\u201d Let the Romanists produce this\nword, if they wish us to contemplate in the oil any thing beyond the oil\nitself. If they acknowledged themselves ministers of the sacraments, as\nthey ought to do, there would be no need of any further contention. The\nfirst law of a minister is to undertake nothing without a command. Now,\nlet them produce any command for this service, and I will not add\nanother word on the subject. If they have no command, they can have no\nexcuse for such sacrilegious audacity. On the same principle, our Lord\ninterrogated the Pharisees: \u201cThe baptism of John, whence was it? from\nheaven or of men?\u201d[1367] If they had answered, From men, he would have\nextorted a confession that it was vain and frivolous; if, From heaven,\nthey would be constrained to admit the doctrine of John. To avoid too\ngreat an injury to John, therefore, they did not dare to confess it was\nfrom men. So, if confirmation be \u201cof men,\u201d it is evinced to be vain and\nfrivolous; if they wish to persuade us that it is from heaven, let them\nprove it.\n\nVI. They defend themselves, indeed, by the example of the apostles, whom\nthey consider as having done nothing without sufficient reason. This\nconsideration is correct; nor would they receive any reprehension from\nus, if they showed themselves imitators of the apostles. But what was\nthe practice of the apostles? Luke relates, that \u201cwhen the apostles,\nwhich were at Jerusalem, heard that Samaria had received the word of\nGod, they sent unto them Peter and John; who, when they were come down,\nprayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost; for as yet he\nwas fallen upon none of them; only they were baptized in the name of the\nLord Jesus. Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the\nHoly Ghost.\u201d[1368] And this imposition of hands is mentioned by the\nsacred historian on several occasions. I perceive what the apostles\ndid\u2014that they faithfully executed their ministry. It was the Lord\u2019s\nwill, that those visible and wonderful graces of the Holy Spirit, which\nhe then poured out upon his people, should be administered and\ndistributed by his apostles with imposition of hands. Now, I do not\nconceive that the imposition of hands concealed any higher mystery, but\nam of opinion that this ceremony was employed by them as an external\nexpression of their commending, and, as it were, presenting to God, the\nperson upon whom they laid their hands. If the ministry which was then\nexecuted by the apostles were still continued in the Church, imposition\nof hands ought also to be still observed; but since such grace is no\nlonger conferred, of what use is the imposition of hands? It is true\nthat the people of God still enjoy the presence of the Holy Spirit,\nwhose guidance and direction are indispensable to the existence of the\nChurch. For we have the eternal promise, which can never fail, and in\nwhich Christ has said, \u201cIf any man thirst, let him come unto me, and\ndrink living water.\u201d[1369] But those miraculous powers and manifest\noperations, which were distributed by imposition of hands, have ceased;\nand it was right that they should continue but for a time. For it was\nnecessary that the first preaching of the gospel, and the kingdom of\nChrist, at its commencement, should be illustrated and magnified by\nmiracles never seen or heard before: the subsequent cessation of which\ndoes not argue the Lord\u2019s desertion of his Church, but is equivalent to\na declaration from him that the magnificence of his reign and the\ndignity of his word had been sufficiently manifested. In what respect,\nthen, will these impostors affirm that they imitate the apostles? They\nshould have effected, by imposition of hands, that the evident power of\nthe Spirit might immediately show itself. This they do not practise.\nWhy, then, do they boast that they are countenanced by the imposition of\nhands, which we find was used by the apostles, but for a totally\ndifferent purpose.\n\nVII. This is just as reasonable as it would be for any one to affirm the\nafflation, with which the Lord breathed upon his disciples, to be a\nsacrament by which the Holy Spirit is conferred.[1370] But though the\nLord did this once, he has never directed it to be done by us. In the\nsame manner, the apostles practised imposition of hands during that\nperiod in which the Lord was pleased to dispense the visible graces of\nthe Holy Spirit in compliance with their prayers; not in order that\npersons in succeeding times might counterfeit a vain and useless sign,\nas a mere piece of mimicry destitute of any reality. Besides, even if\nthey could prove themselves to imitate the apostles in the imposition of\nhands, in which they have nothing similar to the apostles, except this\npreposterous mimicry, whence do they derive their oil, which they call\nthe oil of salvation? Who has taught them to seek salvation in oil? Who\nhas taught them to attribute to it the property of imparting spiritual\nstrength? Is it Paul, who calls us off from the elements of this world,\nand severely condemns an attachment to such observances?[1371] On the\ncontrary, I fearlessly pronounce, not of myself, but from the Lord, that\nthose who call oil the oil of salvation, abjure the salvation which is\nin Christ, reject Christ, and have no part in the kingdom of God. For\noil is for the belly, and the belly for oil; the Lord shall destroy\nboth; all these weak elements \u201cwhich perish with the using,\u201d[1372] have\nno connection with the kingdom of God, which is spiritual, and shall\nnever perish. What, then, it will be said, do you apply the same rule to\nthe water with which we are baptized, and to the bread and wine used in\nthe Lord\u2019s supper? I answer, that in sacraments of Divine appointment,\ntwo things are to be regarded\u2014the substance of the corporeal symbol\nwhich is proposed to us, and the character impressed upon it by the word\nof God, in which consists all its virtue. Therefore, as the bread, and\nwine, and water, which are presented to our view in the sacraments,\nretain their natural substance, that observation of Paul is always\napplicable: \u201cMeats for the belly, and the belly for meats; but God shall\ndestroy both it and them;\u201d[1373] for they pass and vanish away with the\nfashion of this world. But as they are sanctified by the word of God to\nbe sacraments, they do not confine us to the flesh, but impart to us\ntrue and spiritual instruction.\n\nVIII. Let us examine still more narrowly how many monsters are fostered\nby this oil. The dispensers of it say, that the Holy Spirit is given, in\nbaptism for innocence, in confirmation for an augmentation of grace;\nthat in baptism we are regenerated to life, and that by confirmation we\nare armed for warfare; and they have so far lost all shame, as to deny\nthat baptism can be rightly performed without confirmation. What\ncorruption! Are we not, then, \u201cin baptism buried with Christ, planted\ntogether in the likeness of his death,\u201d that we may be \u201calso in the\nlikeness of his resurrection?\u201d Now this fellowship with the death and\nlife of Christ, Paul explains to consist in the mortification of the\nflesh, and the vivification of the Spirit; \u201cthat our old man is\ncrucified with him, that we should walk in newness of life.\u201d[1374] What\nis it to be armed for the spiritual warfare, if this be not? If they\ndeemed it of no importance to trample under foot the word of God, why\ndid they not at least reverence the Church, to which they wish to appear\nso uniformly obsequious? But what can be produced more severe against\nthis doctrine of theirs, than the following decree of the Council of\nMilevum? \u201cWhoever asserts that baptism is only given for the remission\nof sins, and not for assistance of future grace, let him be accursed.\u201d\nWhen Luke, in a passage which we have already cited, speaks of some as\nhaving been \u201cbaptized in the name of the Lord Jesus,\u201d[1375] who had not\nreceived the Holy Ghost, he does not absolutely deny that any gift of\nthe Spirit had been imparted to those persons who had believed in Christ\nwith the heart, and had confessed him with the mouth; he intends that\ngift of the Spirit which communicated his manifest powers and visible\ngraces. So the apostles are said to have received the Holy Spirit on the\nday of Pentecost; though Christ had long before declared to them, \u201cIt is\nnot ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father, which speaketh in\nyou.\u201d[1376] Let all who are of God, here observe the malicious and\npestilent artifice of Satan. That which was truly given in baptism, he\nfalsely asserts to be given in his confirmation, with the crafty design\nof seducing us unawares from baptism. Who can doubt, now, that this is\nthe doctrine of Satan, which severs from baptism the promises which\nbelong to that sacrament, and transfers them to something else? It is\nnow discovered on what kind of a foundation this famous unction rests.\nThe word of God is, that \u201cas many as have been baptized into Christ,\nhave put on Christ,\u201d[1377] with his gifts. The word of these anointers\nis, That we have received no promise in baptism to arm us for the\nspiritual warfare. The word of God is the voice of truth; consequently\nthe word of the anointers must be the voice of falsehood. I can,\ntherefore, give a more correct definition of this confirmation than they\nhave yet given of it; namely, that it is a manifest insult against\nbaptism, obscuring and even abolishing its use; that it is a deceitful\npromise of the devil, seducing us from the truth of God; or, if the\nfollowing be preferred, that it is oil polluted with the falsehood of\nthe devil, to darken and deceive the minds of the simple.\n\nIX. They further assert that all believers after baptism ought to\nreceive the Holy Spirit by imposition of hands, that they may be found\ncomplete Christians; for that no one can be altogether a Christian who\nis never anointed with episcopal confirmation. These are their own\nwords. But I thought that all things relating to Christianity had been\ncomprehended and declared in the Scriptures. Now, it seems, the true\nform of religion is to be sought and learned from some other quarter.\nThe wisdom of God, therefore, celestial truth, all the doctrine of\nChrist, only _begins_ to make Christians; oil _completes_ them. Such a\nsentiment condemns all the apostles, and a number of martyrs who, it is\ncertain, had never received this unction. For the holy chrism, the\nperfusion of which would complete their Christianity, or rather make\nthem Christians from being no Christians at all, had not then been\nmanufactured. But these chrismatics abundantly confute themselves,\nwithout my saying a word. For how small a part of their people do they\nanoint after baptism? Why, then, do they suffer such semi-Christians in\ntheir own community, from an imperfection which they might easily\nremedy? Why do they, with such supine negligence, suffer them to omit\nthat which cannot be omitted without great criminality? Why do they not\nmore rigidly insist upon a thing so necessary and indispensable to\nsalvation, unless any one be prevented by sudden death? Surely while\nthey suffer it to be so easily despised, they tacitly confess it not to\nbe of so much importance as they pretend it to be.\n\nX. In the last place, they determine that this sacred unction ought to\nbe held in greater reverence than baptism; because it is only dispensed\nby the hands of the greatest prelates, whereas baptism is commonly\nadministered by all priests. Must they not be considered as evidently\nmad, who discover such fondness for their own inventions, that, in\ncomparison with them, they presume to undervalue the sacred institutions\nof God? Sacrilegious mouth, dost thou dare to place an unction, which is\nonly defiled with thy fetid breath, and enchanted by the muttering of a\nfew words, on a level with the sacrament of Christ, and to compare it\nwith water sanctified by the word of God? But this would not satisfy thy\npresumption; thou hast even given it the preference! These are the\nresponses of the Holy See; they are the oracles of the apostolic tripod.\nBut some of them have begun to moderate this infatuation, which even in\ntheir opinion was carried beyond all due limits. Confirmation is to be\nregarded, they say, with greater reverence than baptism; not, perhaps,\nfor the greater virtue and advantage that it confers, but because it is\ndispensed by persons of superior dignity, and is applied to the nobler\npart of the body, that is, the forehead; or because it contributes a\ngreater augmentation of virtues, though baptism is more available to\nremission. But in the first reason, do they not betray themselves to be\nDonatists, who estimate the virtue of the sacrament by the dignity or\nworthiness of the minister? I will grant, however, that confirmation be\nconsidered as more excellent from the dignity of episcopal hands. But if\nany one inquire of them how such a prerogative has been conferred on\nbishops, what reason will they assign but their own pleasure? They\nallege, that the apostles alone exercised that right, being the sole\ndispensers of the Holy Spirit. Are bishops the only apostles; or are\nthey apostles at all? Let us, however, grant that also; why do they not\non the same principle contend that none but bishops ought to touch the\nsacrament of the blood in the Lord\u2019s supper; which they refuse to the\nlaity, because the Lord, as they say, only gave it to the apostles? If\nour Lord gave it to the apostles alone, why do they not infer, Therefore\nit ought now to be given to bishops alone? But in this case they make\nthe apostles simple presbyters; now, they are hurried away with an\nextravagant notion suddenly to create them bishops. Lastly, Ananias was\nnot an apostle; yet to him Paul was sent, that he might receive his\nsight, be baptized, and be filled with the Holy Ghost.[1378] I will add\none question more: If this was the peculiar office of bishops by a\nDivine right, why have they dared to transfer it to common presbyters,\nas we read in one of the epistles of Gregory?\n\nXI. How frivolous and foolish is the second reason, That they call their\nconfirmation more excellent than the baptism instituted by God, because\nin confirmation the forehead is anointed with oil, and in baptism the\ncrown of the head; as though baptism were performed with oil, and not\nwith water! I appeal to all believers, whether these deceivers do not\ndirect all their efforts to this one object; to corrupt the purity of\nthe sacraments by the leaven of their false doctrine. I have already\nremarked, in another part of this book, that in the sacraments it is\nscarcely possible to discern that which is of Divine institution among\nthe multiplicity of human inventions. If any one did not give credit to\nthat observation of mine, let him now at least believe his own masters.\nBy their passing over the water without the least notice, it appears\nthat the only thing to which they attribute much importance in baptism,\nis their own oil. We, therefore, on the contrary, affirm, that in\nbaptism the forehead also is laved with water. In comparison with this,\nwe esteem all their oil perfectly worthless, whether in baptism or in\nconfirmation. If any one allege that it is sold for more, this accession\nof price would only corrupt the good, if it contained any; an imposture\nof the foulest kind can never be legalized by robbery. In the third\nreason, they expose their impiety, when they pretend that a greater\naugmentation of virtues is conferred in confirmation than in baptism.\nThe apostles, by imposition of hands, dispensed the visible graces of\nthe Spirit. In what respect does their unction appear to be productive\nof any advantage? Let us leave these moderators, therefore, who cover\none sacrilege with a number of others. It is a Gordian knot, which it is\nbetter to cut asunder than to spend much labour to untie.\n\nXII. Now, when they find themselves stripped of the word of God, and of\nevery probable argument, they resort to their usual pretext, that it is\na very ancient usage, and confirmed by the consent of many ages. Though\nthis allegation were true, it would not at all serve their cause. A\nsacrament is not from earth, but from heaven; not of men, but of God\nalone. If they wish their confirmation to be regarded as a sacrament,\nthey must prove God to be the Author of it. But why do they allege\nantiquity, seeing that the ancient fathers, whenever they mean to\nexpress themselves with strict propriety, nowhere enumerate more than\ntwo sacraments? If it were necessary to fortify our faith by the\nauthority of men, we have an impregnable fortress, that those\nceremonies, which our adversaries falsely pretend to be sacraments, were\nnever acknowledged as sacraments by the ancients. The fathers speak of\nimposition of hands; but do they call it a sacrament? Augustine\nexplicitly affirms that it is no other than prayer. Here let them not\noppose me with their foolish distinctions, that Augustine applied this\nremark to imposition of hands, not as practised in confirmation, but as\nused for the purpose of healing, or of reconciliation. The book is\nextant, and is in many hands. If I pervert the passage to any meaning\ndifferent from that of Augustine himself, I am content to submit to\ntheir severest censure and contempt. For he is speaking of schismatics,\nwho returned to the unity of the Church; and denies that they have any\nneed of the reiteration of baptism, for that imposition of hands was\nsufficient, in order that, by the bond of peace, the Lord might give\nthem his Holy Spirit. And as it might appear unreasonable to repeat\nimposition of hands rather than baptism, he shows the difference. \u201cFor\nwhat,\u201d he says, \u201cis imposition of hands, but prayer over a man?\u201d And\nthat this was his meaning, is evident from another passage, where he\nsays, \u201cWe lay hands upon reclaimed heretics, for the union of charity,\nwhich is the principal gift of the Holy Spirit, and without which\nwhatever else may be holy in man is unavailing to salvation.\u201d\n\nXIII. I sincerely wish that we retained the custom, which I have stated\nwas practised among the ancients before this abortive image of a\nsacrament made its appearance. For it was not such a confirmation as the\nRomanists pretend, which cannot be mentioned without injury to baptism;\nbut a catechetical exercise, in which children or youths used to deliver\nan account of their faith in the presence of the Church. Now, it would\nbe the best mode of catechetical instruction, if a formulary were\nwritten for this purpose, containing and stating, in a familiar manner,\nall the articles of our religion, in which the universal Church of\nbelievers ought to agree, without any controversy: a boy of ten years of\nage might present himself to make a confession of his faith; he might be\nquestioned on all the articles, and might give suitable answers: if he\nwere ignorant of any, or did not fully understand them, he should be\ntaught. Thus the Church would witness his profession of the only true\nand pure faith, in which all the community of believers unanimously\nworship the one God. If this discipline were observed in the present\nday, it would certainly sharpen the inactivity of some parents, who\ncarelessly neglect the instruction of their children as a thing in which\nthey have no concern, but which, in that case, they could not omit\nwithout public disgrace; there would be more harmony of faith among\nChristian people, nor would many betray such great ignorance and want of\ninformation; some would not be so easily carried away with novel and\nstrange tenets; in short, all would have a regular acquaintance with\nChristian doctrine.\n\n\n\n\n                                PENANCE.\n\n\nXIV. In the next place, they add penance; of which they treat in such a\nconfused and disorderly manner, that the consciences of men can deduce\nno certain or solid conclusion respecting their doctrine. In another\npart of this treatise, we have stated at large what we learn from the\nScriptures respecting repentance, and likewise what is inculcated on\nthat subject by the Romanists. Our present business is only to inquire\nbriefly into the reasons of those persons who promulgated the opinion\nwhich has prevailed for a long period in the churches and in the\nschools, that penance is a sacrament. In the first place, I will make a\nfew remarks on the practice of the ancient Church, the pretence of which\nthey have abused for the introduction and establishment of their foolish\ninvention. The order observed by the ancients in public penitence was,\nthat persons who had completed the satisfactions enjoined upon them,\nwere reconciled to the Church by solemn imposition of hands. This was a\nsign of absolution, to encourage the sinner himself with an assurance of\npardon before God, and to admonish the Church that they ought to\nobliterate the memory of his offence, and kindly to receive him into\nfavour. This Cyprian often calls \u201cgiving peace.\u201d To increase the\nimportance of this act, and give it a greater recommendation among the\npeople, it was ordained that it should always be done by the authority\nof a bishop. Hence that decree of the second Council of Carthage: \u201cLet\nno presbyter be permitted to reconcile a penitent publicly at the mass.\u201d\nAnd another decree of the Council of Arausium: \u201cLet those who, during\nthe period of their penitence, depart out of this life, be admitted to\nthe communion without the reconciliatory imposition of hands. If they\nrecover from their illness, let them complete the period of their\npenitence, and then let them receive from the bishop the reconciliatory\nimposition of hands.\u201d Also the decree of the third Council of Carthage:\n\u201cLet not a presbyter reconcile a penitent without the authority of the\nbishop.\u201d The design of all these decrees was, to prevent the severity\nwhich they wished to preserve in this matter from falling into disuse.\nTherefore they committed it to the cognizance of the bishop, who was\nlikely to be more circumspect in conducting the examination. But Cyprian\nstates that it was not the bishop alone who laid hands on the penitent,\nbut that all the clergy also united in this act. These are his words:\n\u201cThey do penance for a proper time, and then they come to the communion,\nand are restored to the right of communion by the imposition of the\nhands of the bishop and clergy.\u201d Afterwards, in process of time, the\ncustom was corrupted, so that they used this ceremony in private\nabsolutions, without any public expression of penitence. Hence that\ndistinction in Gratian, between public and private reconciliation. I\nconsider that ancient custom, which is mentioned by Cyprian, to have\nbeen holy and useful to the Church, and could wish it were revived in\nthe present day. This more recent one, though I venture not to condemn\nor censure it with severity, yet I consider less necessary. We see,\nhowever, that imposition of hands on repentance is a ceremony of human,\nnot of Divine institution, and is to be placed among indifferent things\nand external exercises, such as are not to be despised, but ought to\nhold a station far below the sacraments, which are enjoined upon us by\nthe word of God.\n\nXV. Now, the Romish theologians and schoolmen, who are in the habit of\ncorrupting every thing by misinterpretation, take very great pains here\nto discover a sacrament, but to no purpose. Nor ought this to be\nwondered at, for they seek it where it is not to be found. When they\nhave done their best, they leave the subject perplexed, doubtful,\nuncertain, and confounded with a variety of opinions. They say, then,\nthat external penitence is a sacrament, and if it be so, that it ought\nto be considered as a sign of internal penitence, that is, of contrition\nof heart, which is the substance of the sacrament; or that both together\nconstitute the sacrament, not two sacraments, but one complete one; but\nthat external penitence is merely the sacrament; while that which is\ninternal is both the sacrament and the substance of the sacrament; and\nremission of sins is the substance only, and not the sacrament. Let\nthose who bear in mind the definition of a sacrament which we have\nalready given, apply it to the examination of this pretended sacrament,\nand they will find that it is not an external ceremony instituted by God\nfor the confirmation of our faith. If they plead that my definition is\nnot a law which they are bound to obey, let them hear Augustine, whom\nthey profess to regard with the greatest reverence. He says, \u201cVisible\nsacraments are instituted for carnal persons, that by the steps of the\nsacraments they may be led from those things which are visible to the\neye, to those which are intelligible to the mind.\u201d What resemblance to\nthis do they themselves see, or are they able to point out to others, in\nthat which they call the sacrament of penance? The same writer says in\nanother place, \u201cIt is therefore called a sacrament, because one thing is\nseen, another is understood in it. That which is seen has corporeal\nform; that which is understood has spiritual fruit.\u201d These things are\nnot at all applicable to the sacrament of penance, which they have\ninvented, in which there is no corporeal form to represent any spiritual\nfruit.\n\nXVI. And to vanquish these champions on their own ground, if any\nsacrament be sought for here, would it not be far more plausible to say\nthat the sacrament consists in the absolution of the priest, rather than\nin penitence, either internal or external? For it would be easy to say,\nthat this is a ceremony appointed for the confirmation of our faith in\nthe remission of sins, and has what they call the promise of the keys:\n\u201cWhatsoever ye shall bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven; and\nwhatsoever ye shall loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven.\u201d[1379]\nBut some would have objected, that many who are absolved by priests,\nderive no such benefits from their absolution; whereas, upon their\nprinciple, the sacraments of the new law actually accomplish that which\nthey represent. To this it might be replied, that, as in the eucharist\nthere is a twofold eating,\u2014sacramental, which is equally common to the\ngood and the wicked; and spiritual, which is peculiar to the good\u2014why\nmight they not also imagine the reception of a twofold absolution? Yet I\nhave never yet been able to comprehend what they intended by that\nprinciple of theirs, respecting the efficacious virtue of the sacraments\nof the new law; which we have proved to be altogether at variance with\nthe truth of God, when we professedly discussed that subject. Here I\nonly mean to show that this difficulty is no objection to their calling\nsacerdotal absolution a sacrament. For they might answer, in the\nlanguage of Augustine, \u201cThat sanctification is sometimes without the\nvisible sacrament, and that the visible sacrament is sometimes\nunaccompanied by internal sanctification.\u201d Again: \u201cThat the sacraments\neffect that which they represent in the elect alone.\u201d Again: \u201cThat some\npersons put on Christ as far as the reception of the sacrament, and\nothers even to sanctification;\u201d that the former is equally the case with\nthe good and evil; and the latter with none but the good. Surely they\nhave betrayed more than the weakness of children, and shown themselves\nblind to the broad day, who, in the midst of such difficulty and\nperplexity, have not discovered a thing so plain and obvious to every\none.\n\nXVII. Yet let them not flatter themselves, for in whatever part they\nplace their sacrament, I deny that it ought to be considered as a\nsacrament at all; first, because it is not accompanied with any special\npromise of God, which is the only foundation of a sacrament; secondly,\nbecause all the ceremony exhibited here is the mere invention of men;\nwhereas it has been already ascertained that sacramental ceremonies\ncannot be instituted, except by God himself. All that they have\nfabricated, therefore, respecting the sacrament of penance, is nothing\nbut falsehood and imposture. This counterfeit sacrament they have\nadorned with a suitable title, calling it \u201ca second plank after a\nshipwreck;\u201d for that, if any one by sin has soiled the garment of\ninnocence received in baptism, he may purify it by penance. But this,\nthey say, is the language of Jerome. Whose language soever it may be, it\ncannot be exculpated from manifest impiety, if it be explained according\nto their notion of it. As if baptism were effaced by sin, and ought not\nrather to be recalled to the memory of the sinner whenever he thinks of\nremission of sins, that it may serve to comfort his mind, inspire him\nwith courage, and confirm his confidence of obtaining the remission of\nsins, which was promised to him in baptism. But that which Jerome has\nexpressed with some degree of harshness and impropriety, that baptism,\nfrom which those who deserve to be excommunicated from the Church have\nfallen away, is repaired by penitence, these admirable expositors apply\nto their impiety. We shall speak with the greatest propriety, therefore,\nif we call baptism the sacrament of penitence; since it is given for a\nconfirmation of grace, and seal of confidence, to those who meditate\nrepentance. And this must not be considered as an invention of ours,\nfor, beside its conformity to the language of Scripture, it appears to\nhave been generally received in the ancient Church as an indubitable\naxiom. For in the treatise on Faith addressed to Peter, which is\nattributed to Augustine, it is called \u201cthe sacrament of faith and\nrepentance.\u201d And why do we resort to uncertain testimonies? Nothing can\nbe required more explicit than what is recited by the evangelists, that\n\u201cJohn did preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of\nsins.\u201d[1380]\n\n\n\n\n                            EXTREME UNCTION.\n\n\nXVIII. The third counterfeit sacrament is extreme unction; which is\nnever performed but by a priest, and that in the last moments of life,\nwith oil consecrated by a bishop, and the following form of words: \u201cBy\nthis holy unction, and by his most tender mercy, may God pardon thee\nwhatever sin thou hast committed by sight, by hearing, by smell, by\ntaste, and by touch.\u201d They pretend that it has two virtues\u2014remission of\nsins, and relief from bodily disease, if that be expedient, or otherwise\nthe salvation of the soul. They say that the institution of it is\nestablished by James, who says, \u201cIs any sick among you? let him call for\nthe elders of the Church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with\noil in the name of the Lord; and the prayer of faith shall save the\nsick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins,\nthey shall be forgiven him.\u201d[1381] This unction of theirs is of the same\nkind as we have already proved their imposition of hands to be: it is a\nmere hypocritical farce, by which, without any reason, and without any\nadvantage, they affect to mimic the apostles. It is related by Mark,\nthat the apostles, at their first mission, according to the command\nwhich they had received from the Lord, raised the dead, ejected demons,\ncleansed lepers, healed the sick, and that in the cure of the sick they\nmade use of oil. \u201cThey anointed with oil,\u201d he says, \u201cmany that were\nsick, and healed them.\u201d[1382] James had this in view when he directed\nthe elders of the Church to be sent for to anoint the sick. That such\nceremonies concealed no higher mystery, will easily be concluded by any\nattentive observers of the great liberty used by our Lord and his\napostles in external things. When our Lord was about to restore sight to\na blind man, he made clay of dust and spittle; some he healed with a\ntouch, others with a word. In the same manner, the apostles cured some\nmaladies with a mere word, others with a touch, others with unction. But\nit may be alleged that it is probable that this unction, like the other\nmethods, was not employed without reason. This I confess; not, however,\nthat they used it as an instrument of cure, but merely as a sign, to\ninstruct the ignorance of the simple whence such virtue proceeded, that\nthey might not ascribe the praise of it to the apostles. Now, it is very\ncommon in the Scriptures for the Holy Spirit and his gifts to be\nsignified by oil. But that grace of healing has disappeared, like all\nthe other miraculous powers, which the Lord was pleased to exhibit for a\ntime, that he might render the preaching of the gospel, which was then\nnew, the object of admiration for ever. Even though we should fully\ngrant, therefore, that unction was a sacrament of the powers which were\nadministered by the instrumentality of the apostles, it has nothing to\ndo with us, to whom the administration of those powers has not been\ncommitted.\n\nXIX. And what greater reason have they to make a sacrament of this\nunction than of all the other signs or symbols which are mentioned in\nthe Scriptures? Why do not they appoint some pool of Siloam, in which\nthe sick may bathe themselves at certain seasons?[1383] That, they say,\nwould be a vain attempt. Surely not more in vain than unction. Why do\nthey not \u201cfall upon and embrace\u201d the dead, because Paul resuscitated a\ndeceased young man by such means?[1384] Why is not clay, composed of\nspittle and dust, converted into a sacrament? All the others, they say,\nwere single examples, but the use of unction is commanded by James. I\nreply, that James was speaking in reference to that period in which this\nbenediction of God was still enjoyed by the Church. They affirm, indeed,\nthat there is even now the same virtue in their unction; but we find it\nto be otherwise by experience. Let no one now wonder how they have so\nconfidently deluded souls, whom they know to be stupid and blind when\ndeprived of the word of God, which is their life and light, since they\nare not at all ashamed to attempt to deceive the living and observing\nsenses of the body. They make themselves ridiculous, therefore, when\nthey boast that they are endued with the gift of healing. The Lord is\nundoubtedly present with his people to assist them in all ages; and,\nwhenever it is necessary, he heals their diseases as much as he did in\nancient times; but he does not display those visible powers, or dispense\nmiracles by the hands of apostles; because that gift was only of\ntemporary duration, and was soon lost, in some measure, by the\ningratitude of men.\n\nXX. As the apostles, therefore, had sufficient cause for using the\nsymbol of oil as an evident testimony that the gift of healing, which\nhad been committed to them, was not a power of their own, but of the\nHoly Spirit, so, on the other hand, they do a great injury to the Holy\nSpirit who represent a fetid oil, destitute of all efficacy, as his\npower. This is just as if any one were to affirm, that all oil is the\npower of the Holy Spirit, because it is called by that name in the\nScripture; or that every dove is the Holy Spirit, because he appeared\nunder that form. But let them look to these things. For us, it is\nsufficient, at present, that we see beyond all doubt that their unction\nis not a sacrament, being a ceremony which is neither of God\u2019s\ninstitution, nor accompanied with any promise from him. For when we\nrequire these two things in a sacrament, that it be a ceremony\ninstituted by God, and that it have some promise of God, we at the same\ntime require that the ceremony be enjoined upon us, and that the promise\nhave reference to us. For no one contends that circumcision is now a\nsacrament of the Christian Church, notwithstanding it was instituted by\nGod, and had a promise annexed to it; because it is not enjoined upon\nus, nor is the promise which was subjoined to it given to us on that\ncondition. That the promise which they presumptuously boast of in their\nunction is not given to us, we have clearly proved, and they themselves\ndeclare by experience. The ceremony ought not to have been used, except\nby those who were endued with the gift of healing; and not by these\nbutchers, who are more capable of killing and murdering than of healing.\n\nXXI. Even if they had established, what they are very far from having\nestablished, that the injunction of James respecting unction is\napplicable to the present age, still they would have made but little\nprogress in defending their unction with which they have hitherto\nbesmeared us. James directs that all sick persons be anointed; these men\nbedaub with their unguent not sick persons, but half-dead corpses, when\ntheir souls are at the point of departing from them. If in their\nsacrament they have a present medicine, by which they can either\nalleviate the anguish of disease, or at least communicate some\nconsolation to the soul, they are cruel never to apply the remedy in\ntime. James directs, that the sick person be anointed by the elders of\nthe Church; these men admit no anointer but a priest. Their explanation\nthat the term _elders_ denotes priests, and the plural number is used\nfor the sake of dignity, is frivolous in the extreme; as though the\nChurches in that age abounded with priests, to be able to march in a\nlong procession, carrying their box of consecrated oil. When James\nsimply commands that sick persons be anointed, he appears to me to\nintend no other unction than of common oil; nor is any other mentioned\nin the narrative of Mark. These men deign to use no oil which has not\nbeen consecrated by the bishop; that is, warmed with his breath,\nenchanted by his muttering, and nine times saluted by him on bended\nknees; three times, _Hail, holy oil_; three times, _Hail, holy chrism_;\nthree times, _Hail, holy balm_. From whom have they derived such\nincantations? James says, that when the elders shall have prayed over\nthe sick person, anointing him with oil, if he have committed sins they\nshall be forgiven him; that, being absolved from guilt, he may obtain\nrelief from pain; not meaning that sins are effaced by unction, but that\nthe prayers of the believers, by which the afflicted brother shall have\nbeen commended to God, shall not be in vain. These men impiously\npretend, that sins are remitted by their holy, or, to speak more\nproperly, abominable unction. See what lengths they will go, when they\nshall be allowed to abuse that passage of James by their absurd\ninterpretation. And we need not labour any longer in the proof; even\ntheir own histories relieve us from this difficulty. For they relate,\nthat Pope Innocent, who presided over the Church of Rome in the time of\nAugustine, decreed that not only elders, but also all Christians, should\nuse oil, in case of illness, for the purpose of anointing themselves or\ntheir friends.\n\n\n\n\n                         ECCLESIASTICAL ORDERS.\n\n\nXXII. The fourth place in their catalogue is occupied by the sacrament\nof orders; but this is so fertile that it is the parent of seven little\nsacraments which arise out of it. Now, it is truly ridiculous for them\nto affirm, that there are _seven_ sacraments, and when they proceed to\nspecify them, to enumerate _thirteen_. Nor can they plead, that the\nseven sacraments of orders are only one sacrament, because they all\nbelong to one priesthood, and form, as it were, so many steps to it.\nFor, as it appears that in all of them there are different ceremonies,\nand they themselves say that there are different graces, no person can\ndoubt that, if their principles be admitted, they ought to be called\nseven sacraments. And why do we controvert it as a doubtful thing, when\nthey themselves plainly and distinctly declare that there are seven? In\nthe first place, we will briefly suggest by the way what numerous and\ngreat absurdities they obtrude upon us, when they wish us to receive\ntheir orders as sacraments; and then we will inquire, whether the\nceremony which the churches use in ordaining ministers ought to be\ncalled a sacrament at all. They mention seven ecclesiastical orders or\ndegrees, which they dignify with the name of sacrament. They\nare\u2014beadles, readers, exorcists, acolothists, subdeacons, deacons,\npriests. And they are seven, it is said, on account of the sevenfold\ngrace of the Holy Spirit, with which those who are promoted to them\nought to be endued; but it is increased, and more abundantly\ncommunicated to them, in their promotion. Now, the number itself is\nconsecrated by a perverse interpretation of the Scripture; because they\nthink they have read in Isaiah of seven virtues of the Holy Spirit;\nthough, in truth, that prophet mentions only six, and had no intention\nof enumerating them all in that passage; for in other passages of\nScripture, he is called \u201cthe Spirit of life, of holiness, and of\nadoption,\u201d as he is there called \u201cthe Spirit of wisdom and\nunderstanding, the Spirit of counsel and might, the Spirit of knowledge,\nand of the fear of the Lord.\u201d[1385] Other persons of greater subtlety\nlimit not the orders to seven, but extend them to nine, in resemblance,\nthey say, of the church triumphant. And they are not agreed among\nthemselves; for some represent the clerical tonsure to be the first\norder of all, and the episcopate the last: others exclude the tonsure,\nand place the archiepiscopal office among the orders. Isidore\ndistinguishes them in a different way; for he makes psalmists and\nreaders two separate orders, appointing the former to the chantings, and\nthe latter to the reading of the Scriptures, for the instruction of the\npeople. And this distinction is observed in the canons. In such a\ndiversity, what do they wish us to pursue or to avoid? Shall we say that\nthere are seven orders? So teaches the master of the sentences, Lombard;\nbut the most illuminated doctors determine otherwise; and these doctors\ndiffer among themselves. Moreover, the most sacred canons call us\nanother way. This is the harmony exhibited by men, when they discuss\nDivine subjects without the word of God.\n\nXXIII. But this surpasses all folly, that in every one of their orders\nthey make Christ a colleague with them. First, they say, he executed the\noffice of beadle, when he made a whip of small cords, and drove all the\nbuyers and sellers out of the temple. He showed himself to be a beadle,\nwhen he said, \u201cI am the door.\u201d He assumed the place of a reader, when he\nread a passage of Isaiah in the synagogue. He discharged the function of\nan exorcist, when, applying spittle to the ears and tongue of a man who\nwas deaf and dumb, he restored his hearing and speech. He declared\nhimself to be an acolothist in these words: \u201cHe that followeth me shall\nnot walk in darkness.\u201d He discharged the duty of a subdeacon, when he\ngirded himself with a towel, and washed the feet of his disciples. He\nsustained the character of a deacon, when he distributed his body and\nblood in the supper. He acted the part of a priest, when he offered\nhimself on the cross a sacrifice to the Father. It is impossible to hear\nthese things without laughing, so that I wonder they were written\nwithout laughing; at least, if those who wrote them were men. But the\nmost remarkable of all is, the subtlety with which they reason on the\nword _acolothist_, which they call _ceroferarius_, a taper-bearer; a\nterm of magic, I suppose, certainly unknown in any nation or language;\nwhereas the Greek word \u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2, _acolothist_, simply signifies a\n_follower_ or _attendant_. But I should justly incur ridicule myself, if\nI were to dwell on a serious refutation of such things, they are so\nfrivolous and ludicrous.\n\nXXIV. To prevent them, however, from continuing their impositions on\nsilly women, it is necessary, as we proceed, to expose their vanity.\nThey create with great pomp and solemnity their readers, psalmists,\nbeadles, acolothists, to discharge those offices in which they employ\neither boys, or at least those whom they call laymen. For who, in most\ncases, lights the wax tapers, who pours wine and water out of the\nflagon, but a boy, or some mean layman, who gets his livelihood by it?\nDo not the same persons chant? Do they not open and shut the doors of\nthe churches? For who ever saw in their temples an acolothist or beadle\nperforming his office? On the contrary, he who, when a boy, discharged\nthe duty of an acolothist, as soon as he is admitted into that order,\nceases to be what he begins to be called; so that it should seem to be\ntheir deliberate intention to discard the office when they assume the\ntitle. We see what need they have to be consecrated by sacraments, and\nto receive the Holy Spirit; it is, that they may do nothing. If they\nallege, that this arises from the perverseness of the present age, that\nmen desert and neglect their official duties, let them at the same time\nconfess, that their holy orders, which they so wonderfully extol, are of\nno use or benefit to the Church in the present day, and that their whole\nChurch is filled with a curse, since it permits boys and laymen to\nhandle the tapers and flagons, which none are worthy of touching except\nthose who have been consecrated as acolothists; and since it leaves boys\nto chant those services, which ought never to be heard but from a\nconsecrated mouth. But for what purpose do they consecrate their\nexorcists? I know that the Jews had their exorcists; but I find that\nthey derived their name from the exorcisms which they practised.\nRespecting these counterfeit exorcists, who ever heard of their\nexhibiting one specimen of their profession? It is pretended that they\nare invested with power to lay hands upon maniacs, demoniacs, and\ncatechumens; but they cannot persuade the demons that they are endued\nwith such power; not only because the demons do not submit to their\ncommands, but because they even exercise dominion over them. For\nscarcely one in ten can be found among them who is not influenced by an\nevil spirit. Whatever ridiculous pretensions they may set up respecting\ntheir contemptible orders, are the mere compositions of ignorance and\nfalsehood. Of the ancient acolothists, beadles, and readers, we have\nspoken already, when we discussed the order of the Church. Our present\ndesign is only to combat that novel invention of a sevenfold sacrament\nin ecclesiastical orders; on which not a syllable is any where to be\nfound, except among those sapient theologues, the Sorbonists and\nCanonists.\n\nXXV. Let us now examine the ceremonies which they employ. In the first\nplace, all whom they enrol in their army they initiate into the rank of\nclergy by a common sign. They shave them on the crown of the head, that\nthe crown may denote regal dignity; because ecclesiastics ought to be\nkings, to rule themselves and others, according to the language in which\nPeter addresses them: \u201cYe are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a\nholy nation, a peculiar people.\u201d But it was sacrilege for them to\narrogate exclusively to themselves that which is attributed to the whole\nChurch, and proudly to glory in the title which they had stolen from the\nbelievers. Peter addresses the whole Church; they misapply his words to\na few shavelings, as if they were the only holy persons, as if they\nalone had been redeemed by the blood of Christ, as if they alone had\nbeen made by him kings and priests unto God. They proceed to assign\nother reasons; that the top of their head is laid bare, to show that\ntheir mind is free to the Lord, and can with open face contemplate the\nglory of God; or to indicate that the faults of their mouth and eyes\nought to be cut off. Or the tonsure of the crown signifies the\nrelinquishment and renunciation of temporal things; and the hair left\nround the crown denotes the relics of property which are reserved for\ntheir sustenance. Every thing is symbolical; because, with respect to\nthem, the veil of the temple has not yet been rent asunder. Therefore,\nhaving persuaded themselves that they have completely discharged their\nduties, when they have represented such things by their shaven crown,\nthey, in reality, fulfil none of them. How long will they impose upon us\nwith such deceptions and falsehoods? Ecclesiastics, by shaving off a few\nhairs, signify that they have relinquished an abundance of temporal\npossessions, to be at liberty to contemplate the glory of God, and that\nthey have mortified the inordinate propensities of their ears and eyes;\nbut there is no class of men more rapacious, ignorant, or libidinous.\nWhy do they not make an actual exhibition of sanctity, rather than\ncounterfeit the appearance of it by false and delusive symbols?\n\nXXVI. When they say that their clerical tonsure derives its origin and\nreason from the Nazarites, what is this but declaring that their\nmysteries have sprung from Jewish ceremonies, or, rather, are mere\nJudaism? But when they add, that Priscilla, Aquila, and Paul himself,\nafter having made a vow, shaved their heads in order to purify\nthemselves, they betray their gross ignorance. For this is nowhere said\nof Priscilla; and there is some uncertainty even respecting Aquila; for\nthat tonsure may as well be referred to Paul as to Aquila.[1386] But not\nto leave them what they require, that they have an example of this\ntonsure in Paul, it ought to be observed by the plain reader, that Paul\nnever shaved his head with a view to any sanctity, but merely to\naccommodate himself to the weakness of his brethren. I am accustomed to\ncall vows of this kind vows of charity, and not of piety; that is to\nsay, they were not made for any purpose of religion, or as acts of\nservice to God, but in order to bear the ignorance of weak brethren; as\nthe apostle himself says: \u201cUnto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might\ngain the Jews.\u201d[1387] Therefore he did this act, and that once, and for\na short period, that he might accommodate himself to the Jews. When\nthese men desire, without any cause, to imitate the purifications of the\nNazarites, what is this but raising up a new Judaism by a culpable\naffectation of emulating that which is abolished? The same superstition\ndictated that decretal epistle which prohibits ecclesiastics, according\nto the apostle, to let their hair grow, but enjoins them to shave in a\ncircular form; as though the apostle, when he mentioned what is becoming\nto all men, were concerned about the circular tonsure of the clergy.\nHence the readers may form some opinion of the importance and dignity of\nother succeeding mysteries, to which there is such an introduction.\n\nXXVII. The true origin of the clerical tonsure is very evident from the\ntestimony of Augustine. As, in that age, no persons suffered their hair\nto grow long, but such as were effeminate, and affected an elegance and\ndelicacy not sufficiently manly, it was thought that it would be a bad\nexample to permit this custom in the clergy. They were, therefore,\ncommanded to shave their heads, that they might exhibit no appearance of\neffeminate ornament. The tonsure then became so common, that some monks,\nto display their superior sanctity by something remarkable and\ndistinguished from others, left their hair to grow very long.\nAfterwards, when the custom of wearing long hair was revived, and\nseveral nations were converted to Christianity, who had always been\naccustomed to wear their hair, as France, Germany, and England, it is\nprobable that ecclesiastics every where shaved their heads, that they\nmight not appear to be fond of the ornament of hair. At length, in a\nmore corrupt age, when all the ancient institutions were either\nperverted or degenerated into superstition, because they saw no reason\nin the clerical tonsure (for they had retained nothing but a foolish\nimitation of their predecessors,) they had recourse to a mystery, which\nthey now superstitiously obtrude upon us as a proof of their sacrament.\nBeadles, at their consecration, receive the keys of the Church, as a\nsign that the custody of it is committed to them. Readers are presented\nwith the Holy Bible. To exorcists are given the forms of exorcisms to be\nused over catechumens and maniacs. Acolothists receive their tapers and\nflagons. These are the ceremonies which, if we believe them, contain\nsuch secret virtue as to be, not only signs and tokens, but even causes,\nof an invisible grace. For, according to their definition, all this is\nassumed when they insist on their being numbered among the sacraments.\nBut, to conclude in a few words, I maintain it to be absurd for\ncanonists and scholastic theologues to give the title of sacraments to\nthese, which they themselves call _lesser orders_; since, even according\nto their own confession, they were unknown to the primitive Church, and\nwere invented many years after. But, as sacraments contain some promises\nof God, they cannot be instituted by men or angels, but by God alone,\nwhose prerogative it is to give the promise.\n\nXXVIII. There remain three orders, which they call _greater orders_; of\nwhich sub-deaconry, they say, was transferred to this class after the\nnumber of the lesser orders began to increase. As they think that they\nhave a testimony for these from the word of God, they peculiarly\ndenominate them, for the sake of honour, _holy orders_. But we must now\nexamine how perversely they abuse the Divine appointments of God in\ntheir own vindication. We will begin with the order of presbyters, or\npriests. For by these two names they signify one thing; and these are\nthe appellations which they apply to those whose office, they say, it\nis, to offer the sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ upon the\naltar, to say prayers and to pronounce benedictions on the gifts of God.\nTherefore, at their ordination, they receive a chalice, with the patine\nand host, as symbols of the power committed to them to offer expiatory\nsacrifices to God; and their hands are anointed with oil, as a symbol to\nshow that they are invested with power to consecrate. The ceremonies we\nshall notice hereafter. Of the thing itself, I affirm, that it is so far\nfrom having a syllable of the Divine word to support it, that it was\nimpossible for them to have introduced a viler corruption of the order\ninstituted by God. In the first place, it ought to be taken for granted,\nas we have shown in the preceding chapter, on the Papal Mass, that great\ninjury is done to Christ by all those who call themselves priests to\noffer sacrifices of expiation. He was constituted and consecrated by the\nFather, with an oath, a priest after the order of Melchisedec, without\nend, and without a successor. He once offered a sacrifice of eternal\nexpiation and reconciliation; and now, having entered into the sanctuary\nof heaven, intercedes for us. In him we are all priests; but it is only\nto offer to God praises and thanksgivings, in short, ourselves and all\nthat belongs to us. It was his province alone, by his oblation, to\nappease God and expiate sins. When these men usurp that office to\nthemselves, what follows, but that their priesthood is chargeable with\nimpiety and sacrilege? They certainly betray the greatest effrontery\nwhen they dare to dignify it with the title of a sacrament. The\nimposition of hands, which is used at the introduction of the true\npresbyters and ministers of the Church into their office, I have no\nobjection to consider as a sacrament; for, in the first place, that\nceremony is taken from the Scripture, and, in the next place, it is\ndeclared by Paul to be not unnecessary or useless, but a faithful symbol\nof spiritual grace.[1388] I have not enumerated it as the third among\nthe sacraments, because it is not ordinary or common to all believers,\nbut a special rite for a particular office. The ascription of this\nhonour to the Christian ministry, however, furnishes no reason for the\npride of Romish priests; for Christ has commanded the ordination of\nministers to dispense his gospel and his mysteries, not the inauguration\nof priests to offer sacrifices. He has commissioned them to preach the\ngospel and to feed his flock, and not to immolate victims. He has\npromised them the grace of the Holy Spirit, not in order to effect an\nexpiation for sins, but rightly to sustain and conduct the government of\nthe Church.\n\nXXIX. There is an excellent correspondence between the ceremonies and\nthe thing itself. Our Lord, when he sent forth his disciples to preach\nthe gospel, \u201cbreathed upon them;\u201d[1389] by that symbol representing the\npower of the Holy Spirit which he imparted to them. These sapient\ntheologues retain the _breathing_, and, as if they disgorged the Holy\nSpirit from their throats, they mutter over the priests whom they\nordain, _Receive ye the Holy Ghost_. Thus they leave nothing that they\ndo not preposterously counterfeit, I do not say like comedians, whose\ngesticulations are not without art and meaning, but like apes, who\nimitate every thing without any taste or design. We observe, they say,\nthe example of our Lord. But our Lord did many things which he never\nintended to be examples to us. He said to his disciples, \u201cReceive ye the\nHoly Ghost.\u201d He said to Lazarus, \u201cLazarus, Come forth.\u201d[1390] He said to\nthe paralytic, \u201cArise and walk.\u201d[1391] Why do not they say the same to\nall deceased persons and paralytics? When he breathed upon his apostles,\nand filled them with the grace of the Holy Spirit, he exhibited a\nspecimen of his Divine power. If they attempt to do the same, they\nemulate God, and, as it were, challenge him to contend with them; but\nthey are very far from producing a similar effect, and the foolish\nmimicry is a mere mockery of Christ. They have the effrontery, indeed,\nto dare to assert, that they confer the Holy Ghost; but how far this is\ntrue is shown by experience, which proves, that those who are\nconsecrated priests, from being horses become asses, and are changed\nfrom fools to madmen. Nor do I contend with them on this account; I only\ncondemn the ceremony itself, which ought not to be made a precedent,\nsince it was used by Christ as a special sign of a particular miracle;\nso far is their pretence of imitating him from justifying their conduct.\n\nXXX. But from whom have they received the unction? Their answer is, that\nthey have received it from the sons of Aaron, from whom also their order\nderived its origin. Thus they always prefer defending themselves by\nimproper examples, to confessing that which they practise without just\nreason to be their own invention; but at the same time, they do not\nconsider that, in professing themselves successors of the sons of Aaron,\nthey do an injury to the priesthood of Christ; which was the only thing\nadumbrated and prefigured by all the ancient priesthoods. In him,\ntherefore, they were all accomplished and concluded; in him they ceased,\nas we have more than once already stated, and the Epistle to the Hebrews\ndeclares without the help of any comment. But, if they are so highly\ndelighted with the Mosaic ceremonies, why do they not take oxen, and\ncalves, and lambs, and offer them as sacrifices? They have, indeed, a\ngreat part of the ancient tabernacle, and of all the Jewish worship; but\ntheir religion is still deficient in that they do not sacrifice animal\nvictims. Who does not see that this custom of anointing is far more\npernicious than circumcision; especially when it is attended with\nsuperstition and a pharisaical opinion of the merit of the act? The Jews\nplaced a confidence of righteousness in circumcision; in unction these\nmen place spiritual graces. Therefore, while they desire to be imitators\nof the Levites, they become apostates from Christ, and renounce the\noffice of pastors.\n\nXXXI. This is their consecrated oil, which, it is pretended, impresses a\ncharacter never to be effaced; as though oil could not be cleansed away\nwith dust and salt, or, if it be more adhesive, with soap. But this\ncharacter, they say, is spiritual. What connection has oil with the\nsoul? Have they forgotten an observation, which they often quote to us\nfrom Augustine\u2014That, if the word be separated from the water, it will be\nnothing but water, and that it is the word which makes it a sacrament?\nWhat word will they show in their unction? Will they produce the command\nwhich was given to Moses to anoint the sons of Aaron? But in that case\nthere was also a command given respecting the coat, the ephod, the\nmitre, the holy crown, with which Aaron was to be adorned; and\nrespecting the coats, girdles, and mitres, with which his sons were to\nbe invested. It was commanded to kill a bullock, to burn his fat, to cut\none ram asunder and burn it, to sanctify their ears and garments with\nthe blood of another ram; and numerous other observances, which I wonder\nhow it is that they have entirely omitted, and taken only the anointing\noil. But if they are fond of being sprinkled, why are they sprinkled\nwith oil rather than with blood? They attempt, indeed, a most ingenious\nthing; to frame one religion out of a number of fragments collected\ntogether from Christianity, Judaism, and Paganism. Their unction,\ntherefore, is quite fetid, for want of the salt, the word of God. There\nremains imposition of hands, which I confess to be a sacrament in true\nand legitimate ordinations, but I deny that it has any place in this\nfarce, in which they neither obey the command of Christ, nor regard the\nend to which the promise ought to lead us. If they wish the sign not to\nbe refused to them, they must apply it to the very object to which it\nwas dedicated.\n\nXXXII. Respecting the order of deacons, also, I should have no\ncontroversy with them, if that office were restored to its primitive\npurity, as it existed under the apostles, and in the purer times of the\nChurch. But what resemblance to it is to be found among those whom the\nRomanists pretend to be deacons? I speak not of the persons, lest they\nshould complain that it is unjust to estimate their doctrine by the\nfaults of individuals; but I contend that, taking their deacons exactly\nas their doctrine describes them to us, it is absurd to fetch any\ntestimony in their favour from the examples of those who were appointed\ndeacons by the apostolic Church. They say that it belongs to their\ndeacons to assist the priests, to minister in every thing that is done\nin the sacraments, as in baptism, in chrism, to pour the wine into the\nchalice, to place the bread in the patine; to lay and dispose the\noblations upon the altar, to prepare and cover the table of the Lord, to\nbear the cross, to read and chant the gospel and epistle to the people.\nIs there in all this a single word of the true duty of deacons? Now, let\nus hear how they are inaugurated. On the deacon who is ordained the\nbishop alone lays his hand; on his left shoulder he places a stole, to\nteach him that he has taken upon him the light yoke of the Lord, to\nsubject to the fear of God every thing belonging to the left side. He\ngives him the text of the gospel, that he may know himself to be a\nherald of it. And what have these things to do with deacons? It is no\nbetter than if any one pretended to ordain apostles, while he only\nappointed them to burn incense, to adorn the images, to trim the lamps,\nto sweep the Churches, to catch mice, and to drive out dogs. Who could\nsuffer such persons to be called apostles, and to be compared with the\napostles of Christ? Let them never again falsely represent those as\ndeacons, whom they merely appoint to act a part in their farcical\nexhibitions. The very name which they bear sufficiently declares the\nnature of their office. For they call them Levites, and wish to deduce\ntheir origin from the sons of Levi. This I have no objection to their\ndoing, provided they drop their pretensions to Christianity.\n\nXXXIII. Of what use is it to say any thing respecting sub-deacons? In\nancient times they actually had the care of the poor. The Romanists\nattribute to them I know not what nugatory functions; as to bring the\nchalice and patine, the flagon with water, and the towel to the altar,\nto pour out water for washing the hands of the priests, and similar\nservices. When they speak of the sub-deacons receiving and bringing\noblations, they mean those which they devour as consecrated to their\nuse. With this office the ceremony of their initiation perfectly\ncorresponds: they receive from the bishop the patine and chalice, from\nthe archdeacon the flagon with water, the manual, and similar trumpery.\nThey require us to confess the Holy Ghost to be contained in these\nfooleries. What pious person can bear to admit this? But to come to an\nend, we may draw the same conclusion respecting them as respecting the\nrest; nor is it necessary to repeat any more of what we have already\nstated. This will be sufficient for persons of modest and docile minds,\nto whom this book is addressed; that there is no sacrament of God, which\ndoes not exhibit a ceremony annexed to a promise, or rather which does\nnot present a promise in a ceremony. In this case not a syllable is to\nbe found of any certain promise; and, therefore, it is in vain to seek\nfor a ceremony to confirm the promise. And of all the ceremonies which\nthey use, not one appears to have been instituted by God; therefore\nthere can be no sacrament.\n\n\n\n\n                               MATRIMONY.\n\n\nXXXIV. The last of their sacraments is matrimony, which all confess to\nhave been instituted by God, but which no one, till the time of Gregory,\never discovered to have been enjoined as a sacrament. And what man, in\nhis sober senses, would ever have taken it into his head? It is alleged\nto be a good and holy ordinance of God; and so agriculture,\narchitecture, shoemaking, and many other things, are legitimate\nordinances of God, and yet they are not sacraments. For it is required\nin a sacrament, not only that it be a work of God, but that it be an\nexternal ceremony appointed by God for the confirmation of a promise.\nThat there is nothing of this kind in matrimony even children can judge.\nBut, they say, it is a sign of a sacred thing, that is, of the spiritual\nunion of Christ with the Church. If by the word _sign_, they mean a\nsymbol presented to us by God to support our faith, they are very far\nfrom the truth. If by a sign they merely understand that which is\nadduced as a similitude, I will show how acutely they reason. Paul says,\n\u201cOne star differeth from another star in glory: so also is the\nresurrection of the dead.\u201d[1392] Here is one sacrament. Christ says,\n\u201cThe kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed.\u201d Here is\nanother. Again: \u201cThe kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven.\u201d[1393] Here\nis a third. Isaiah says, \u201cBehold, the Lord shall feed his flock like a\nshepherd.\u201d[1394] Here is a fourth. Again: \u201cThe Lord shall go forth as a\nmighty man.\u201d[1395] Here is a fifth. And what end will there be? Upon\nthis principle, every thing will be a sacrament; as many parables and\nsimilitudes as there are in the Scripture, there will be so many\nsacraments. Even theft will be a sacrament; because it is written, \u201cThe\nday of the Lord cometh as a thief.\u201d[1396] Who can bear the foolish\nbabblings of these sophists? I confess indeed, that, whenever we see a\nvine, it is very desirable to recall to remembrance the language of\nChrist: \u201cI am the vine, ye are the branches, and my Father is the\nhusbandman.\u201d[1397] Whenever we meet a shepherd with his flock, it is\ngood for us to remember another declaration of our Lord: \u201cI am the good\nshepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.\u201d[1398] But if\nany one should class such similitudes among the sacraments, it would\nargue a want of mental sanity.\n\nXXXV. They obtrude upon us the language of Paul, in which, they say, he\nexpressly calls matrimony a sacrament. \u201cHe that loveth his wife, loveth\nhimself. For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and\ncherisheth it, even as the Lord the Church; for we are members of his\nbody, of his flesh, and his bones; for this cause shall a man leave his\nfather and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall\nbe one flesh. This is a great mystery (or _sacrament_, as the word is\nrendered in the Vulgate;) but I speak concerning Christ and the\nChurch.\u201d[1399] But to treat the Scriptures in this manner, is to\nconfound heaven and earth together. To show to husbands what peculiar\naffection they ought to bear to their wives, Paul proposes Christ to\nthem as an example. For as he has poured forth all the treasures of his\nkindness upon the Church, which he had espoused to himself, so the\napostle would have every man to evince a similar affection towards his\nwife. It follows, \u201cHe that loveth his wife, loveth himself; even as the\nLord the Church.\u201d Now, to declare how Christ has loved the Church, even\nas himself, and how he has made himself one with the Church his spouse,\nPaul applies to him what Moses relates Adam to have spoken of himself.\nFor when Eve was brought into his presence, knowing her to have been\nformed out of his side, he said, \u201cThis is bone of my bones, and flesh of\nmy flesh.\u201d[1400] Paul testifies that all this has been spiritually\nfulfilled in Christ and us, when he says, \u201cWe are members of his body,\nof his flesh, and of his bones,\u201d and consequently \u201cone flesh\u201d with him.\nAt length he concludes with an exclamation, \u201cThis is a great mystery;\u201d\nand, that no one might be deceived by an ambiguity of language, he\nexpressly states, that he intends not the conjugal union of man and\nwoman, but the spiritual marriage of Christ and his Church: \u201cI speak\nconcerning Christ and the Church.\u201d And, indeed, it is a great mystery\nthat Christ has suffered a rib to be taken from him, of which we might\nbe formed: that is to say, though he was strong, he voluntarily became\nweak, that we might be strengthened with his might; so that now we\n\u201clive, yet not\u201d we, \u201cbut Christ liveth in\u201d us.[1401]\n\nXXXVI. They have been deceived by the word _sacrament_ in the Vulgate\nversion. But was it reasonable that the whole Church should suffer the\npunishment of their ignorance? Paul has used the word \u03bc\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd,\n_mystery_\u2014a word which the translator might have retained, _mysterium_\nbeing not unfamiliar to Latin ears, or he might have rendered it\n_arcanum_, secret; he preferred, however, to use the word _sacramentum_,\nsacrament, but in the same sense in which Paul has used the Greek word\n\u03bc\u03c5\u03c3\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd, _mystery_. Now, let them go and clamorously rail against the\ncritical knowledge of languages, through ignorance of which they have so\nlong been most shamefully deceived in a thing so easy and obvious to\nevery one. But why do they so strenuously insist on the word _sacrament_\nin this one passage, and pass it over in so many others without the\nleast notice? For that translator has used it twice in the First Epistle\nto Timothy,[1402] and in another place in this Epistle to the\nEphesians,[1403] and in every other case where the word _mystery_\noccurs. Let this oversight, however, be forgiven them; liars ought, at\nleast, to have good memories. For, after having dignified matrimony with\nthe title of a sacrament, what brainless versatility is it for them to\nstigmatize it with the characters of impurity, pollution, and carnal\ndefilement! What an absurdity is it to exclude priests from a sacrament!\nIf they deny that they are interdicted from the sacrament, but only from\nthe conjugal intercourse, I shall not be satisfied with this evasion.\nFor they inculcate that the conjugal intercourse itself is part of the\nsacrament, and that it represents the union which we have with Christ in\nconformity of nature; because it is by that intercourse that a husband\nand wife become one flesh. Here some of them have found two sacraments;\none, of God and the soul, in the man and woman when betrothed; the\nother, of Christ and the Church, in the husband and wife. The conjugal\nintercourse, upon their principles, however, is a sacrament, from which\nno Christian ought to be prohibited; unless the sacraments of Christians\nare so incompatible, that they cannot consist together. There is also\nanother absurdity in their doctrine. They affirm that the grace of the\nHoly Spirit is conferred in every sacrament; they acknowledge that the\nconjugal intercourse is a sacrament; yet they deny that the Holy Spirit\nis ever present in that intercourse.\n\nXXXVII. And, not to deceive the Church in one thing only, what a long\nseries of errors, falsehoods, frauds, and iniquities, have they joined\nto that false principle! It may truly be affirmed that, when they made\nmatrimony into a sacrament, they only sought a den of all abominations.\nFor, when they had once established this notion, they assumed to\nthemselves the cognizance of matrimonial causes; for matrimony was a\nspiritual thing, and not to be meddled with before lay judges. Then they\nmade laws for the confirmation of their tyranny; and some of them\nmanifestly impious towards God, and others most unjust towards men. Such\nas, that marriages contracted between young persons subject to the\nauthority of parents, without the consent of their parents, remain valid\nand permanent; that no marriages be lawful between persons related, even\nto the seventh degree; and that, if any such be contracted, they be\ndissolved, (and the degrees themselves they state in opposition to the\nlaws of all nations, and to the institution of Moses, so that what they\ncall the fourth degree is, in reality, the seventh;) that it be unlawful\nfor a man, who has repudiated his wife for adultery, to marry another;\nthat spiritual relatives be not united in marriage; that no marriages be\ncelebrated from Septuagesima, or the third Sunday before Lent, to the\noctaves of Easter, or eight days after that festival; for three weeks\nbefore the nativity of John the Baptist, or Midsummer-day, instead of\nwhich three weeks they now substitute the Whitsun week, and the two\nweeks which precede it; or from Advent to the Epiphany; and innumerable\nother regulations, which it would be tedious to enumerate. We must now\nquit their corruptions, in which we have been detained longer than I\ncould wish: but I think I have gained some advantage by stripping these\nasses, in some measure, of the lion\u2019s skin, and so far unmasking their\nprinciples, and exposing them to the world in their true colours.\n\nFootnote 1366:\n\n  1 Tim. ii. 8.\n\nFootnote 1367:\n\n  Matt. xxi. 25.\n\nFootnote 1368:\n\n  Acts viii. 14-17.\n\nFootnote 1369:\n\n  John vii. 37, 38.\n\nFootnote 1370:\n\n  John xx. 22.\n\nFootnote 1371:\n\n  Gal. iv. 9. Col. ii. 20.\n\nFootnote 1372:\n\n  Col. ii. 22.\n\nFootnote 1373:\n\n  1 Cor. vi. 13.\n\nFootnote 1374:\n\n  Rom. vi. 4-6.\n\nFootnote 1375:\n\n  Acts viii. 16. xix. 5.\n\nFootnote 1376:\n\n  Acts ii. 4, &c. Matt. x. 20.\n\nFootnote 1377:\n\n  Gal. iii. 27.\n\nFootnote 1378:\n\n  Acts ix. 17, 18.\n\nFootnote 1379:\n\n  Matt. xviii. 18.\n\nFootnote 1380:\n\n  Matt. iii. 1-6. Luke iii. 3.\n\nFootnote 1381:\n\n  James v. 14, 15.\n\nFootnote 1382:\n\n  Mark vi. 13.\n\nFootnote 1383:\n\n  John ix. 7.\n\nFootnote 1384:\n\n  Acts xx. 10.\n\nFootnote 1385:\n\n  Ezek. i. 20. Rom. i. 4; viii. 15. Isaiah xi. 2, 3.\n\nFootnote 1386:\n\n  Acts xviii. 18.\n\nFootnote 1387:\n\n  1 Cor. ix. 20.\n\nFootnote 1388:\n\n  1 Tim. iv. 14.\n\nFootnote 1389:\n\n  John xx. 22.\n\nFootnote 1390:\n\n  John xi. 43.\n\nFootnote 1391:\n\n  Matt. ix. 5. John v. 8.\n\nFootnote 1392:\n\n  1 Cor. xv. 41, 42.\n\nFootnote 1393:\n\n  Matt. xiii. 31, 33.\n\nFootnote 1394:\n\n  Isaiah xl. 10, 11.\n\nFootnote 1395:\n\n  Isaiah xlii. 13.\n\nFootnote 1396:\n\n  1 Thess. v. 2.\n\nFootnote 1397:\n\n  John xv. 1, 5.\n\nFootnote 1398:\n\n  John x. 11.\n\nFootnote 1399:\n\n  Ephes. v. 28-32.\n\nFootnote 1400:\n\n  Gen. ii. 23.\n\nFootnote 1401:\n\n  Gal. ii. 20.\n\nFootnote 1402:\n\n  1 Tim. iii. 9, 16.\n\nFootnote 1403:\n\n  Ephes. iii. 9.\n\n\n\n\n                              CHAPTER XX.\n                          ON CIVIL GOVERNMENT.\n\n\nHaving already stated that man is the subject of two kinds of\ngovernment, and having sufficiently discussed that which is situated in\nthe soul, or the inner man, and relates to eternal life,\u2014we are, in this\nchapter, to say something of the other kind, which relates to civil\njustice, and the regulation of the external conduct. For, though the\nnature of this argument seems to have no connection with the spiritual\ndoctrine of faith which I have undertaken to discuss, the sequel will\nshow that I have sufficient reason for connecting them together, and,\nindeed, that necessity obliges me to it; especially since, on the one\nhand, infatuated and barbarous men madly endeavour to subvert this\nordinance established by God; and, on the other hand, the flatterers of\nprinces, extolling their power beyond all just bounds, hesitate not to\noppose it to the authority of God himself. Unless both these errors be\nresisted, the purity of the faith will be destroyed. Besides, it is of\nno small importance for us to know what benevolent provision God has\nmade for mankind in this instance, that we may be stimulated by a\ngreater degree of pious zeal to testify our gratitude. In the first\nplace, before we enter on the subject itself, it is necessary for us to\nrecur to the distinction which we have already established, lest we fall\ninto an error very common in the world, and injudiciously confound\ntogether these two things, the nature of which is altogether different.\nFor some men, when they hear that the gospel promises a liberty which\nacknowledges no king or magistrate among men, but submits to Christ\nalone, think they can enjoy no advantage of their liberty, while they\nsee any power exalted above them. They imagine, therefore, that nothing\nwill prosper, unless the whole world be modelled in a new form, without\nany tribunals, or laws, or magistrates, or any thing of a similar kind,\nwhich they consider injurious to their liberty. But he who knows how to\ndistinguish between the body and the soul, between this present\ntransitory life and the future eternal one, will find no difficulty in\nunderstanding, that the spiritual kingdom of Christ and civil government\nare things very different and remote from each other. Since it is a\nJewish folly, therefore, to seek and include the kingdom of Christ under\nthe elements of this world, let us, on the contrary, considering what\nthe Scripture clearly inculcates, that the benefit which is received\nfrom the grace of Christ is spiritual; let us, I say, remember to\nconfine within its proper limits all this liberty which is promised and\noffered to us in him. For why is it that the same apostle, who, in one\nplace, exhorts to \u201cstand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made\nus free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage,\u201d[1404] in\nanother, enjoins servants to \u201ccare not for\u201d their servile\ncondition;[1405] except that spiritual liberty may very well consist\nwith civil servitude? In this sense we are likewise to understand him in\nthese passages: \u201cThere is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond\nnor free, there is neither male nor female.\u201d[1406] Again: \u201cThere is\nneither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian,\nScythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all;\u201d[1407] in which\nhe signifies, that it is of no importance, what is our condition among\nmen, or under the laws of what nation we live, as the kingdom of Christ\nconsists not in these things.\n\nII. Yet this distinction does not lead us to consider the whole system\nof civil government as a polluted thing, which has nothing to do with\nChristian men. Some fanatics, who are pleased with nothing but liberty,\nor rather licentiousness without any restraint, do indeed boast and\nvociferate, That since we are dead with Christ to the elements of this\nworld, and, being translated into the kingdom of God, sit among the\ncelestials, it is a degradation to us, and far beneath our dignity, to\nbe occupied with those secular and impure cares which relate to things\naltogether uninteresting to a Christian man. Of what use, they ask, are\nlaws without judgments and tribunals? But what have judgments to do with\na Christian man? And if it be unlawful to kill, of what use are laws and\njudgments to us? But as we have just suggested that this kind of\ngovernment is distinct from that spiritual and internal reign of Christ,\nso it ought to be known that they are in no respect at variance with\neach other. For that spiritual reign, even now upon earth, commences\nwithin us some preludes of the heavenly kingdom, and in this mortal and\ntransitory life affords us some prelibations of immortal and\nincorruptible blessedness; but this civil government is designed, as\nlong as we live in this world, to cherish and support the external\nworship of God, to preserve the pure doctrine of religion, to defend the\nconstitution of the Church, to regulate our lives in a manner requisite\nfor the society of men, to form our manners to civil justice, to promote\nour concord with each other, and to establish general peace and\ntranquillity; all which I confess to be superfluous, if the kingdom of\nGod, as it now exists in us, extinguishes the present life. But if it is\nthe will of God, that while we are aspiring towards our true country, we\nbe pilgrims on the earth, and if such aids are necessary to our\npilgrimage, they who take them from man deprive him of his human nature.\nThey plead that there should be so much perfection in the Church of God,\nthat its order would suffice to supply the place of all laws; but they\nfoolishly imagine a perfection which can never be found in any community\nof men. For since the insolence of the wicked is so great, and their\niniquity so obstinate that it can scarcely be restrained by all the\nseverity of the laws, what may we expect they would do, if they found\nthemselves at liberty to perpetrate crimes with impunity, whose outrages\neven the arm of power cannot altogether prevent?\n\nIII. But for speaking of the exercise of civil polity, there will be\nanother place more suitable. At present we only wish it to be\nunderstood, that to entertain a thought of its extermination, is inhuman\nbarbarism; it is equally as necessary to mankind as bread and water,\nlight and air, and far more excellent. For it not only tends to secure\nthe accommodations arising from all these things, that men may breathe,\neat, drink, and be sustained in life, though it comprehends all these\nthings while it causes them to live together, yet, I say, this is not\nits only tendency; its objects also are, that idolatry, sacrileges\nagainst the name of God, blasphemies against his truth, and other\noffences against religion, may not openly appear and be disseminated\namong the people; that the public tranquillity may not be disturbed;\nthat every person may enjoy his property without molestation; that men\nmay transact their business together without fraud or injustice; that\nintegrity and modesty may be cultivated among them; in short, that there\nmay be a public form of religion among Christians, and that humanity may\nbe maintained among men. Nor let any one think it strange that I now\nrefer to human polity the charge of the due maintenance of religion,\nwhich I may appear to have placed beyond the jurisdiction of men. For I\ndo not allow men to make laws respecting religion and the worship of God\nnow, any more than I did before; though I approve of civil government,\nwhich provides that the true religion which is contained in the law of\nGod, be not violated, and polluted by public blasphemies, with impunity.\nBut the perspicuity of order will assist the readers to attain a clearer\nunderstanding of what sentiments ought to be entertained respecting the\nwhole system of civil administration, if we enter on a discussion of\neach branch of it. These are three: The magistrate, who is the guardian\nand conservator of the laws: The laws, according to which he governs:\nThe people, who are governed by the laws, and obey the magistrate. Let\nus, therefore, examine, first, the function of a magistrate, whether it\nbe a legitimate calling and approved by God, the nature of the duty, and\nthe extent of the power; secondly, by what laws Christian government\nought to be regulated; and lastly, what advantage the people derive from\nthe laws, and what obedience they owe to the magistrate.\n\nIV. The Lord has not only testified that the function of magistrates has\nhis approbation and acceptance, but has eminently commended it to us, by\ndignifying it with the most honourable titles. We will mention a few of\nthem. When all who sustain the magistracy are called \u201cgods,\u201d[1408] it\nought not to be considered as an appellation of trivial importance; for\nit implies, that they have their command from God, that they are\ninvested with his authority, and are altogether his representatives, and\nact as his vicegerents. This is not an invention of mine, but the\ninterpretation of Christ, who says, \u201cIf he called them gods, unto whom\nthe word of God came, and the Scripture cannot be broken.\u201d[1409] What is\nthe meaning of this, but that their commission has been given to them by\nGod, to serve him in their office, and, as Moses and Jehoshaphat said to\nthe judges whom they appointed, to \u201cjudge not for man, but for the\nLord?\u201d[1410] To the same purpose is the declaration of the wisdom of God\nby the mouth of Solomon: \u201cBy me kings reign, and princes decree justice.\nBy me princes rule, and nobles, even all the judges of the earth.\u201d[1411]\nThis is just as if it had been affirmed, that the authority possessed by\nkings and other governors over all things upon earth is not a\nconsequence of the perverseness of men, but of the providence and holy\nordinance of God, who has been pleased to regulate human affairs in this\nmanner; forasmuch as he is present, and also presides among them, in\nmaking laws and in executing equitable judgments. This is clearly taught\nby Paul, when he enumerates governments (\u1f41 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u1f31\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2)[1412] among the\ngifts of God, which, being variously distributed according to the\ndiversity of grace, ought to be employed by the servants of Christ to\nthe edification of the Church. For though in that place he is properly\nspeaking of the council of elders, who were appointed in the primitive\nChurch to preside over the regulation of the public discipline, the same\noffice which in writing to the Corinthians he calls \u03ba\u03c5\u03b2\u03b5\u03c1\u03bd\u03b7\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03c2,\n\u201cgovernments,\u201d[1413] yet, as we see that civil government tends to\npromote the same object, there is no doubt that he recommends to his\nevery kind of just authority. But he does this in a manner much more\nexplicit, where he enters on a full discussion of that subject. For he\nsays, \u201cThere is no power but of God; the powers that be are ordained of\nGod. Rulers are ministers of God, revengers to execute wrath upon him\nthat doeth evil. Do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of\nthe same.\u201d[1414] This is corroborated by the examples of holy men; of\nwhom some have been kings, as David, Josiah, Hezekiah; some have been\nviceroys, as Joseph and Daniel; some have held civil offices in a\ncommonwealth, as Moses, Joshua, and the Judges; whose functions God\ndeclared to be approved by him. Wherefore no doubt ought now to be\nentertained by any person that civil magistracy is a calling not only\nholy and legitimate, but far the most sacred and honourable in human\nlife.\n\nV. Those who would wish to introduce anarchy, reply, that though, in\nancient times, kings and judges presided over a rude people, that\nservile kind of government is now quite incompatible with the perfection\nwhich accompanies the gospel of Christ. Here they betray not only their\nignorance, but their diabolical pride, in boasting of perfection, of\nwhich not the smallest particle can be discovered in them. But whatever\ntheir characters may be, they are easily refuted. For, when David\nexhorts kings and judges to kiss the Son of God,[1415] he does not\ncommand them to abdicate their authority and retire to private life, but\nto submit to Christ the power with which they are invested, that he\nalone may have the pre\u00ebminence over all. In like manner Isaiah, when he\npredicts that \u201ckings shall be nursing-fathers and queens\nnursing-mothers\u201d to the Church,[1416] does not depose them from their\nthrones; but rather establishes them by an honourable title, as patrons\nand protectors of the pious worshippers of God; for that prophecy\nrelates to the advent of Christ. I purposely omit numerous testimonies,\nwhich often occur, and especially in the Psalms, in which the rights of\nall governors are asserted. But the most remarkable of all is that\npassage where Paul, admonishing Timothy that in the public congregation,\n\u201csupplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made\nfor kings and for all that are in authority,\u201d assigns as a reason, \u201cthat\nwe may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and\nhonesty;\u201d[1417] language in which he recommends the state of the Church\nto their patronage and defence.\n\nVI. This consideration ought continually to occupy the magistrates\nthemselves, since it is calculated to furnish them with a powerful\nstimulus, by which they may be excited to their duty, and to afford them\npeculiar consolation, by which the difficulties of their office, which\ncertainly are many and arduous, may be alleviated. For what an ardent\npursuit of integrity, prudence, clemency, moderation, and innocence\nought they to prescribe to themselves, who are conscious of having been\nconstituted ministers of the Divine justice! With what confidence will\nthey admit iniquity to their tribunal, which they understand to be the\nthrone of the living God? With what audacity will they pronounce an\nunjust sentence with that mouth which they know to be the destined organ\nof Divine truth? With what conscience will they subscribe to impious\ndecrees with that hand which they know to be appointed to register the\nedicts of God? In short, if they remember that they are the vicegerents\nof God, it behoves them to watch with all care, earnestness, and\ndiligence, that in their administration they may exhibit to men an\nimage, as it were, of the providence, care, goodness, benevolence, and\njustice of God. And they must constantly bear this in mind, that if in\nall cases \u201che be cursed that doeth the work of the Lord\ndeceitfully,\u201d[1418] a far heavier curse awaits those who act\nfraudulently in a righteous calling. Therefore, when Moses and\nJehoshaphat wished to exhort their judges to the discharge of their\nduty, they had nothing to suggest more efficacious than the principle\nwhich we have already mentioned. Moses says, \u201cJudge righteously between\nevery man and his brother, and the stranger that is with him. For the\njudgment is God\u2019s.\u201d[1419] Jehoshaphat says, \u201cTake heed what ye do; for\nye judge not for man, but for the Lord, who is with you in the judgment.\nWherefore now let the fear of the Lord be upon you: take heed and do it;\nfor there is no iniquity with the Lord our God.\u201d[1420] And in another\nplace it is said, \u201cGod standeth in the congregation of the mighty: he\njudgeth among the gods;\u201d[1421] that they may be animated to their duty,\nwhen they understand that they are delegated by God, to whom they must\none day render an account of their administration. And this admonition\nis entitled to have considerable weight with them; for if they fail in\ntheir duty, they not only injure men by criminally distressing them, but\neven offend God by polluting his sacred judgments. On the other hand, it\nopens a source of peculiar consolation to them to reflect, that they are\nnot employed in profane things, or occupations unsuitable to a servant\nof God, but in a most sacred function, inasmuch as they execute a Divine\ncommission.\n\nVII. Those who are not restrained by so many testimonies of Scripture,\nbut still dare to stigmatize this sacred ministry as a thing\nincompatible with religion and Christian piety, do they not offer an\ninsult to God himself, who cannot but be involved in the reproach cast\nupon his ministry? And in fact they do not reject magistrates, but they\nreject God, \u201cthat he should not reign over them.\u201d[1422] For if this was\ntruly asserted by the Lord respecting the people of Israel, because they\nrefused the government of Samuel, why shall it not now be affirmed with\nequal truth of those who take the liberty to outrage all the authorities\nwhich God has instituted? But they object that our Lord said to his\ndisciples, \u201cThe kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them: but\nye shall not be so; but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the\nyounger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve:\u201d[1423] and they\ncontend that these words prohibit the exercise of royalty, or any other\nauthority, by any Christians. Admirable expositors! A contention had\narisen among the disciples \u201cwhich of them should be accounted the\ngreatest.\u201d To repress this vain ambition, our Lord taught them that\ntheir ministry was not like temporal kingdoms, in which one person has\nthe pre\u00ebminence over all others. Now, what dishonour does this\ncomparison cast upon regal dignity? What does it prove at all, except\nthat the regal office is not the apostolic ministry? Moreover, though\nthere are various forms of magistracy, yet there is no difference in\nthis respect, but we ought to receive them all as ordinances of God. For\nPaul comprehends them all together, when he says, that \u201cthere is no\npower but of God;\u201d and that which was furthest from giving general\nsatisfaction, is recommended to us in a remarkable manner beyond all\nothers; namely, the government of one man; which, as it is attended with\nthe common servitude of all, except the single individual to whose will\nall others are subjected, has never been so highly approved by heroic\nand noble minds. But the Scripture, on the contrary, to correct these\nunjust sentiments, expressly affirms, that it is by the providence of\nDivine wisdom that kings reign, and particularly commands us to \u201chonour\nthe king.\u201d[1424]\n\nVIII. And for private men, who have no authority to deliberate on the\nregulation of any public affairs, it would surely be a vain occupation\nto dispute which would be the best form of government in the place where\nthey live. Besides, this could not be simply determined, as an abstract\nquestion, without great impropriety, since the principle to guide the\ndecision must depend on circumstances. And even if we compare the\ndifferent forms together, without their circumstances, their advantages\nare so nearly equal, that it will not be easy to discover of which the\nutility preponderates. The forms of civil government are considered to\nbe of three kinds: Monarchy, which is the dominion of one person,\nwhether called a king, or a duke, or any other title; Aristocracy, or\nthe dominion of the principal persons of a nation; and Democracy, or\npopular government, in which the power resides in the people at large.\nIt is true that the transition is easy from monarchy to despotism; it is\nnot much more difficult from aristocracy to oligarchy, or the faction of\na few; but it is most easy of all from democracy to sedition. Indeed, if\nthese three forms of government, which are stated by philosophers, be\nconsidered in themselves, I shall by no means deny, that either\naristocracy, or a mixture of aristocracy and democracy, far excels all\nothers; and that indeed not of itself, but because it very rarely\nhappens that kings regulate themselves so that their will is never at\nvariance with justice and rectitude; or, in the next place, that they\nare endued with such penetration and prudence, as in all cases to\ndiscover what is best. The vice or imperfection of men therefore renders\nit safer and more tolerable for the government to be in the hands of\nmany, that they may afford each other mutual assistance and admonition,\nand that if any one arrogate to himself more than is right, the many may\nact as censors and masters to restrain his ambition. This has always\nbeen proved by experience, and the Lord confirmed it by his authority,\nwhen he established a government of this kind among the people of\nIsrael, with a view to preserve them in the most desirable condition,\ntill he exhibited in David a type of Christ. And as I readily\nacknowledge that no kind of government is more happy than this, where\nliberty is regulated with becoming moderation, and properly established\non a durable basis, so also I consider those as the most happy people,\nwho are permitted to enjoy such a condition; and if they exert their\nstrenuous and constant efforts for its preservation and retention, I\nadmit that they act in perfect consistence with their duty. And to this\nobject the magistrates likewise ought to apply their greatest diligence,\nthat they suffer not the liberty, of which they are constituted\nguardians, to be in any respect diminished, much less to be violated: if\nthey are inactive and unconcerned about this, they are perfidious to\ntheir office, and traitors to their country. But if those, to whom the\nwill of God has assigned another form of government, transfer this to\nthemselves so as to be tempted to desire a revolution, the very thought\nwill be not only foolish and useless, but altogether criminal. If we\nlimit not our views to one city, but look round and take a comprehensive\nsurvey of the whole world, or at least extend our observations to\ndistant lands, we shall certainly find it to be a wise arrangement of\nDivine Providence that various countries are governed by different forms\nof civil polity; for they are admirably held together with a certain\ninequality, as the elements are combined in very unequal proportions.\nAll these remarks, however, will be unnecessary to those who are\nsatisfied with the will of the Lord. For if it be his pleasure to\nappoint kings over kingdoms, and senators or other magistrates over free\ncities, it is our duty to be obedient to any governors whom God has\nestablished over the places in which we reside.\n\nIX. Here it is necessary to state in a brief manner the nature of the\noffice of magistracy, as described in the word of God, and wherein it\nconsists. If the Scripture did not teach that this office extends to\nboth tables of the law, we might learn it from heathen writers; for not\none of them has treated of the office of magistrates, of legislation,\nand civil government, without beginning with religion and Divine\nworship. And thus they have all confessed that no government can be\nhappily constituted, unless its first object, be the promotion of piety,\nand that all laws are preposterous which neglect the claims of God, and\nmerely provide for the interests of men. Therefore, as religion holds\nthe first place among all the philosophers, and as this has always been\nregarded by the universal consent of all nations, Christian princes and\nmagistrates ought to be ashamed of their indolence, if they do not make\nit the object of their most serious care. We have already shown that\nthis duty is particularly enjoined upon them by God; for it is\nreasonable that they should employ their utmost efforts in asserting and\ndefending the honour of him, whose vicegerents they are, and by whose\nfavour they govern. And the principal commendations given in the\nScripture to the good kings are for having restored the worship of God\nwhen it had been corrupted or abolished, or for having devoted their\nattention to religion, that it might flourish in purity and safety under\ntheir reigns. On the contrary, the sacred history represents it as one\nof the evils arising from anarchy, or a want of good government, that\nwhen \u201cthere was no king in Israel, every man did that which was right in\nhis own eyes.\u201d[1425] These things evince the folly of those who would\nwish magistrates to neglect all thoughts of God, and to confine\nthemselves entirely to the administration of justice among men; as\nthough God appointed governors in his name to decide secular\ncontroversies, and disregarded that which is of far greater\nimportance\u2014the pure worship of himself according to the rule of his law.\nBut a rage for universal innovation, and a desire to escape with\nimpunity, instigate men of turbulent spirits to wish that all the\navengers of violated piety were removed out of the world. With respect\nto the second table, Jeremiah admonishes kings in the following manner:\n\u201cExecute ye judgment and righteousness, and deliver the spoiled out of\nthe hand of the oppressor; and do no wrong, do no violence to the\nstranger, the fatherless, nor the widow, neither shed innocent\nblood.\u201d[1426] To the same purpose is the exhortation in the\neighty-second psalm: \u201cDefend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the\nafflicted and needy: deliver the poor and needy: rid them out of the\nhand of the wicked.\u201d[1427] And Moses \u201ccharged the judges\u201d whom he\nappointed to supply his place, saying, \u201cHear the causes between your\nbrethren, and judge righteously between every man and his brother, and\nthe stranger that is with him: ye shall not respect persons in judgment;\nbut ye shall hear the small as well as the great; ye shall not be afraid\nof the face of man; for the judgment is God\u2019s.\u201d[1428] I forbear to\nremark the directions given by him in another place respecting their\nfuture kings: \u201cHe shall not multiply horses to himself; neither shall he\ngreatly multiply to himself silver and gold; his heart shall not be\nlifted up above his brethren; he shall read in the law all the days of\nhis life;\u201d[1429] also that judges show no partiality, nor take bribes,\nwith similar injunctions, which abound in the Scriptures; because, in\ndescribing the office of magistrates in this treatise, my design is not\nso much to instruct magistrates themselves, as to show to others what\nmagistrates are, and for what end God has appointed them. We see,\ntherefore, that they are constituted the protectors and vindicators of\nthe public innocence, modesty, probity, and tranquillity, whose sole\nobject it ought to be to promote the common peace and security of all.\nOf these virtues, David declares that he will be an example, when he\nshall be exalted to the royal throne. \u201cI will set no wicked thing before\nmine eyes. I will not know a wicked person. Whoso privily slandereth his\nneighbour, him will I cut off: him that hath a high look and a proud\nheart will I not suffer. Mine eyes shall be upon the faithful of the\nland, that they may dwell with me: he that walketh in a perfect way, he\nshall serve me.\u201d[1430] But as they cannot do this, unless they defend\ngood men from the injuries of the wicked, and aid the oppressed by their\nrelief and protection, they are likewise armed with power for the\nsuppression of crimes, and the severe punishment of malefactors, whose\nwickedness disturbs the public peace. For experience fully verifies the\nobservation of Solon: \u201cThat all states are supported by reward and\npunishment; and that when these two things are removed, all the\ndiscipline of human societies is broken and destroyed.\u201d For the minds of\nmany lose their regard for equity and justice, unless virtue be rewarded\nwith due honour; nor can the violence of the wicked be restrained,\nunless crimes are followed by severe punishments. And these two parts\nare included in the injunction of the prophet to kings and other\ngovernors, to \u201cexecute judgment and righteousness.\u201d[1431]\n_Righteousness_ means the care, patronage, defence, vindication, and\nliberation of the innocent: _judgment_ imports the repression of the\naudacity, the coercion of the violence, and the punishment of the\ncrimes, of the impious.\n\nX. But here, it seems, arises an important and difficult question. If by\nthe law of God all Christians are forbidden to kill,[1432] and the\nprophet predicts respecting the Church, that \u201cthey shall not hurt nor\ndestroy in all my holy mountain, saith the Lord,\u201d[1433] how can it be\ncompatible with piety for magistrates to shed blood? But if we\nunderstand, that in the infliction of punishments, the magistrate does\nnot act at all from himself, but merely executes the judgments of God,\nwe shall not be embarrassed with this scruple. The law of the Lord\ncommands, \u201cThou shalt not kill;\u201d but that homicide may not go\nunpunished, the legislator himself puts the sword into the hands of his\nministers, to be used against all homicides.[1434] _To hurt_ and _to\ndestroy_ are incompatible with the character of the godly; but to avenge\nthe afflictions of the righteous at the command of God, is neither _to\nhurt_ nor _to destroy_. Therefore it is easy to conclude that in this\nrespect magistrates are not subject to the common law; by which, though\nthe Lord binds the hands of men, he does not bind his own justice, which\nhe exercises by the hands of magistrates. So, when a prince forbids all\nhis subjects to strike or wound any one, he does not prohibit his\nofficers from executing that justice which is particularly committed to\nthem. I sincerely wish that this consideration were constantly in our\nrecollection, that nothing is done here by the temerity of men, but\nevery thing by the authority of God, who commands it, and under whose\nguidance we never err from the right way. For we can find no valid\nobjection to the infliction of public vengeance, unless the justice of\nGod be restrained from the punishment of crimes. But if it be unlawful\nfor us to impose restraints upon him, why do we calumniate his\nministers? Paul says of the magistrate, that \u201cHe beareth not the sword\nin vain; for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon\nhim that doeth evil.\u201d[1435] Therefore, if princes and other governors\nknow that nothing will be more acceptable to God than their obedience,\nand if they desire to approve their piety, justice, and integrity before\nGod, let them devote themselves to this duty. This motive influenced\nMoses, when, knowing himself to be destined to become the liberator of\nhis people by the power of the Lord, \u201che slew the Egyptian;\u201d[1436] and\nwhen he punished the idolatry of the people by the slaughter of three\nthousand men in one day.[1437] The same motive actuated David, when, at\nthe close of his life, he commanded his son Solomon to put to death Joab\nand Shimei.[1438] Hence, also, it is enumerated among the virtues of a\nking, to \u201cdestroy all the wicked of the land, that he may cut off all\nwicked doers from the city of the Lord.\u201d[1439] The same topic furnishes\nthe eulogium given to Solomon: \u201cThou lovest righteousness, and hatest\nwickedness.\u201d[1440] How did the meek and placid disposition of Moses burn\nwith such cruelty, that, after having his hands imbrued in the blood of\nhis brethren, he continued to go through the camp till three thousand\nwere slain? How did David, who discovered such humanity all his\nlifetime, in his last moments bequeath such a cruel injunction to his\nson respecting Joab? \u201cLet not his hoar head go down to the grave in\npeace;\u201d and respecting Shimei: \u201cHis hoar head bring down to the grave\nwith blood.\u201d Both Moses and David, in executing the vengeance committed\nto them by God, by this severity sanctified their hands, which would\nhave been defiled by lenity. Solomon says, \u201cIt is an abomination to\nkings to commit wickedness; for the throne is established by\nrighteousness.\u201d[1441] Again: \u201cA king that sitteth in the throne of\njudgment, scattereth away all evil with his eyes.\u201d[1442] Again: \u201cA wise\nking scattereth the wicked, and bringeth the wheel over them.\u201d[1443]\nAgain: \u201cTake away the dross from the silver, and there shall come forth\na vessel for the finer. Take away the wicked from before the king, and\nhis throne shall be established in righteousness.\u201d[1444] Again: \u201cHe that\njustifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both\nare an abomination to the Lord.\u201d[1445] Again: \u201cAn evil man seeketh only\nrebellion; therefore a cruel messenger shall be sent against him.\u201d[1446]\nAgain: \u201cHe that saith unto the wicked, Thou art righteous; him shall the\npeople curse, nations shall abhor him.\u201d[1447] Now, if it be true justice\nfor them to pursue the wicked with a drawn sword, let them sheathe the\nsword, and keep their hands from shedding blood, while the swords of\ndesperadoes are drenched in murders; and they will be so far from\nacquiring the praise of goodness and justice by this forbearance, that\nthey will involve themselves in the deepest impiety. There ought not,\nhowever, to be any excessive or unreasonable severity, nor ought any\ncause to be given for considering the tribunal as a gibbet prepared for\nall who are accused. For I am not an advocate for unnecessary cruelty,\nnor can I conceive the possibility of an equitable sentence being\npronounced without mercy; of which Solomon affirms, that \u201cmercy and\ntruth preserve the king; and his throne is upholden by mercy.\u201d[1448] Yet\nit behoves the magistrate to be on his guard against both these errors;\nthat he do not, by excessive severity, wound rather than heal; or,\nthrough a superstitious affectation of clemency, fall into a mistaken\nhumanity, which is the worst kind of cruelty, by indulging a weak and\nill-judged lenity, to the detriment of multitudes. For it is a remark\nnot without foundation, that was anciently applied to the government of\nNerva, that it is bad to live under a prince who permits nothing, but\nmuch worse to live under one who permits every thing.\n\nXI. Now, as it is sometimes necessary for kings and nations to take up\narms for the infliction of such public vengeance, the same reason will\nlead us to infer the lawfulness of wars which are undertaken for this\nend. For if they have been intrusted with power to preserve the\ntranquillity of their own territories, to suppress the seditious tumults\nof disturbers, to succour the victims of oppression, and to punish\ncrimes,\u2014can they exert this power for a better purpose, than to repel\nthe violence of him who disturbs both the private repose of individuals\nand the general tranquillity of the nation; who excites insurrections,\nand perpetrates acts of oppression, cruelty, and every species of crime?\nIf they ought to be the guardians and defenders of the laws, it is\nincumbent upon them to defeat the efforts of all by whose injustice the\ndiscipline of the laws is corrupted. And if they justly punish those\nrobbers, whose injuries have only extended to a few persons, shall they\nsuffer a whole district to be plundered and devastated with impunity?\nFor there is no difference, whether he, who in a hostile manner invades,\ndisturbs, and plunders the territory of another to which he has no\nright, be a king, or one of the meanest of mankind: all persons of this\ndescription are equally to be considered as robbers, and ought to be\npunished as such. It is the dictate both of natural equity, and of the\nnature of the office, therefore, that princes are armed, not only to\nrestrain the crimes of private individuals by judicial punishments, but\nalso to defend the territories committed to their charge by going to war\nagainst any hostile aggression; and the Holy Spirit, in many passages of\nScripture, declares such wars to be lawful.\n\nXII. If it be objected that the New Testament contains no precept or\nexample, which proves war to be lawful to Christians, I answer, first,\nthat the reason for waging war which existed in ancient times, is\nequally valid in the present age; and that, on the contrary, there is no\ncause to prevent princes from defending their subjects. Secondly, that\nno express declaration on this subject is to be expected in the writings\nof the apostles, whose design was, not to organize civil governments,\nbut to describe the spiritual kingdom of Christ. Lastly, that in those\nvery writings it is implied by the way, that no change has been made in\nthis respect by the coming of Christ. \u201cFor,\u201d to use the words of\nAugustine, \u201cif Christian discipline condemned all wars, the soldiers who\ninquired respecting their salvation ought rather to have been directed\nto cast away their arms, and entirely to renounce the military\nprofession; whereas the advice given them was, \u2018Do violence to no man,\nneither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages.\u2019[1449] An\ninjunction to be content with their wages was certainly not a\nprohibition of the military life.\u201d But here all magistrates ought to be\nvery cautious, that they follow not in any respect the impulse of their\npassions. On the contrary, if punishments are to be inflicted, they\nought not to be precipitated with anger, exasperated with hatred, or\ninflamed with implacable severity: they ought, as Augustine says, \u201cto\ncommiserate our common nature even in him whom they punish for his\ncrime.\u201d Or, if arms are to be resorted to against an enemy, that is, an\narmed robber, they ought not to seize a trivial occasion, nor even to\ntake it when presented, unless they are driven to it by extreme\nnecessity. For, if it be our duty to exceed what was required by that\nheathen writer who maintained that the evident object of war ought to be\nthe restoration of peace, certainly we ought to make every other attempt\nbefore we have recourse to the decision of arms. In short, in both cases\nthey must not suffer themselves to be carried away by any private\nmotive, but be wholly guided by public spirit; otherwise they grossly\nabuse their power, which is given them, not for their own particular\nadvantage, but for the benefit and service of others. Moreover, on this\nright of war depends the lawfulness of garrisons, alliances, and other\ncivil munitions. By _garrisons_, I mean soldiers who are stationed in\ntowns to defend the boundaries of a country. By _alliances_, I mean\nconfederations which are made between neighbouring princes, that, if any\ndisturbance arise in their territories, they will render each other\nmutual assistance, and will unite their forces together for the common\nresistance of the common enemies of mankind. By _civil munitions_, I\nmean all the provisions which are employed in the art of war.\n\nXIII. In the last place, I think it necessary to add, that tributes and\ntaxes are the legitimate revenues of princes; which, indeed, they ought\nprincipally to employ in sustaining the public expenses of their office,\nbut which they may likewise use for the support of their domestic\nsplendour, which is closely connected with the dignity of the government\nthat they hold. Thus we see that David, Jehoshaphat, Hezekiah, Josiah,\nand other pious kings, and likewise Joseph and Daniel, without any\nviolation of piety, on account of the office which they filled, lived at\nthe public expense; and we read in Ezekiel of a very ample portion of\nland being assigned to the kings;[1450] in which passage, though the\nprophet is describing the spiritual kingdom of Christ, yet he borrows\nthe model of it from the legitimate kingdoms of men. On the other hand,\nprinces themselves ought to remember, that their finances are not so\nmuch private incomes, as the revenues of the whole people, according to\nthe testimony of Paul,[1451] and therefore cannot be lavished or\ndilapidated without manifest injustice; or, rather, that they are to be\nconsidered as the blood of the people, not to spare which is the most\ninhuman cruelty; and their various imposts and tributes ought to be\nregarded merely as aids of the public necessity, to burden the people\nwith which, without cause, would be tyrannical rapacity. These things\ngive no encouragement to princes to indulge profusion and luxury; and\ncertainly there is no need to add fuel to their passions, which of\nthemselves are more than sufficiently inflamed; but, as it is of very\ngreat importance, that whatever they undertake they attempt it with a\npure conscience before God, it is necessary, in order to their avoiding\nvain confidence and contempt of God, that they be taught how far their\nrights extend. Nor is this doctrine useless to private persons, who\nlearn from it not to pronounce rash and insolent censures on the\nexpenses of princes, notwithstanding they exceed the limits of common\nlife.\n\nXIV. From the magistracy, we next proceed to the laws, which are the\nstrong nerves of civil polity, or, according to an appellation which\nCicero has borrowed from Plato, the _souls of states_, without which\nmagistracy cannot subsist, as, on the other hand, without magistrates\nlaws are of no force. No observation, therefore, can be more correct\nthan this, that the law is a silent magistrate, and a magistrate a\nspeaking law. Though I have promised to show by what laws a Christian\nstate ought to be regulated, it will not be reasonable for any person to\nexpect a long discussion respecting the best kind of laws; which is a\nsubject of immense extent, and foreign from our present object. I will\nbriefly remark, however, by the way, what laws it may piously use before\nGod, and be rightly governed by among men. And even this I would have\npreferred passing over in silence, if I did not know that it is a point\non which many persons run into dangerous errors. For some deny that a\nstate is well constituted, which neglects the polity of Moses, and is\ngoverned by the common laws of nations. The dangerous and seditious\nnature of this opinion I leave to the examination of others; it will be\nsufficient for me to have evinced it to be false and foolish. Now, it is\nnecessary to observe that common distinction, which distributes all the\nlaws of God promulgated by Moses into moral, ceremonial, and judicial;\nand these different kinds of laws are to be distinctly examined, that we\nmay ascertain what belongs to us, and what does not. Nor let any one be\nembarrassed by this scruple, that even the ceremonial and judicial\nprecepts are included in the moral. For the ancients, who first made\nthis distinction, were not ignorant that these two kinds of precepts\nrelated to the conduct of moral agents; yet, as they might be changed\nand abrogated without affecting the morality of actions, therefore they\ndid not call them moral precepts. They particularly applied this\nappellation to those precepts without which there can be no real purity\nof morals, nor any permanent rule of a holy life.\n\nXV. The moral law, therefore, with which I shall begin, being comprised\nin two leading articles, of which one simply commands us to worship God\nwith pure faith and piety, and the other enjoins us to embrace men with\nsincere love,\u2014this law, I say, is the true and eternal rule of\nrighteousness, prescribed to men of all ages and nations, who wish to\nconform their lives to the will of God. For this is his eternal and\nimmutable will, that he himself be worshipped by us all, and that we\nmutually love one another. The ceremonial law was the pupilage of the\nJews, with which it pleased the Lord to exercise that people during a\nstate resembling childhood, till that \u201cfulness of the time\u201d should\ncome,[1452] when he would fully manifest his wisdom to the world, and\nwould exhibit the reality of those things which were then adumbrated in\nfigures. The judicial law, given to them as a political constitution,\ntaught them certain rules of equity and justice, by which they might\nconduct themselves in a harmless and peaceable manner towards each\nother. And as that exercise of ceremonies properly related to the\ndoctrine of piety, inasmuch as it kept the Jewish Church in the worship\nand service of God, which is the first article of the moral law, and yet\nwas distinct from piety itself, so these judicial regulations, though\nthey had no other end than the preservation of that love, which is\nenjoined in the eternal law of God, yet had something which\ndistinguished them from that precept itself. As the ceremonies,\ntherefore, might be abrogated without any violation or injury of piety,\nso the precepts and duties of love remain of perpetual obligation,\nnotwithstanding the abolition of all these judicial ordinances. If this\nbe true, certainly all nations are left at liberty to enact such laws as\nthey shall find to be respectively expedient for them; provided they be\nframed according to that perpetual rule of love, so that, though they\nvary in form, they may have the same end. For those barbarous and savage\nlaws which rewarded theft and permitted promiscuous concubinage, with\nothers still more vile, execrable, and absurd, I am very far from\nthinking ought to be considered as laws; since they are not only\nviolations of all righteousness, but outrages against humanity itself.\n\nXVI. What I have said will be more clearly understood, if in all laws we\nproperly consider these two things\u2014the constitution of the law and its\nequity, on the reason of which the constitution itself is founded and\nrests. Equity, being natural, is the same to all mankind; and\nconsequently all laws, on every subject, ought to have the same equity\nfor their end. Particular enactments and regulations, being connected\nwith circumstances, and partly dependent upon them, may be different in\ndifferent cases without any impropriety, provided they are all equally\ndirected to the same object of equity. Now, as it is certain that the\nlaw of God, which we call the moral law, is no other than a declaration\nof natural law, and of that conscience which has been engraven by God on\nthe minds of men, the whole rule of this equity, of which we now speak,\nis prescribed in it. This equity, therefore, must alone be the scope,\nand rule, and end, of all laws. Whatever laws shall be framed according\nto that rule, directed to that object, and limited to that end, there is\nno reason why we should censure them, however they may differ from the\nJewish law or from each other. The law of God forbids theft. What\npunishment was enacted for thieves, among the Jews, may be seen in the\nbook of Exodus.[1453] The most ancient laws of other nations punished\ntheft by requiring a compensation of double the value. Subsequent laws\nmade a distinction between open and secret theft. Some proceeded to\nbanishment, some to flagellation, and some to the punishment of death.\nFalse witness was punished, among the Jews, with the same punishment as\nsuch testimony would have caused to be inflicted on the person against\nwhom it was given;[1454] in some countries it was punished with infamy,\nin others with hanging, in others with crucifixion. All laws agree in\npunishing murder with death, though in several different forms. The\npunishments of adulterers in different countries have been attended with\ndifferent degrees of severity. Yet we see how, amidst this diversity,\nthey are all directed to the same end. For they all agree in denouncing\npunishment against those crimes which are condemned by the eternal law\nof God; such as murders, thefts, adulteries, false testimonies, though\nthere is not a uniformity in the mode of punishment; and, indeed, this\nis neither necessary, nor even expedient. One country, if it did not\ninflict the most exemplary vengeance upon murderers, would soon be\nruined by murders and robberies. One age requires the severity of\npunishments to be increased. If a country be disturbed by any civil\ncommotion, the evils which generally arise from it must be corrected by\nnew edicts. In time of war all humanity would be forgotten amidst the\ndin of arms, if men were not awed by more than a common dread of\npunishment. During famine and pestilence, unless greater severity be\nemployed, every thing will fall into ruin. One nation is more prone than\nothers to some particular vice, unless it be most rigidly restrained.\nWhat malignity and envy against the public good will be betrayed by him\nwho shall take offence at such diversity, which is best adapted to\nsecure the observance of the law of God? For the objection made by some,\nthat it is an insult to the law of God given by Moses, when it is\nabrogated, and other laws are preferred to it, is without any\nfoundation; for neither are other laws preferred to it, when they are\nmore approved, not on a simple comparison, but on account of the\ncircumstances of time, place, and nation; nor do we abrogate that which\nwas never given to us. For the Lord gave not that law by the hand of\nMoses to be promulgated among all nations, and to be universally\nbinding; but after having taken the Jewish nation into his special\ncharge, patronage, and protection, he was pleased to become, in a\npeculiar manner, their legislator, and, as became a wise legislator, in\nall the laws which he gave them, he had a special regard to their\npeculiar circumstances.\n\nXVII. It now remains for us, as we proposed, in the last place, to\nexamine what advantage the common society of Christians derives from\nlaws, judgments, and magistrates; with which is connected another\nquestion\u2014what honour private persons ought to render to magistrates, and\nhow far their obedience ought to extend. Many persons suppose the office\nof magistracy to be of no use among Christians, for that they cannot,\nconsistently with piety, apply for their assistance, because they are\nforbidden to have recourse to revenge or litigation. But as Paul, on the\ncontrary, clearly testifies that the magistrate is \u201cthe minister of God\nto us for good,\u201d[1455] we understand from this that he is divinely\nappointed, in order that we may be defended by his power and protection\nagainst the malice and injuries of wicked men, and may lead peaceable\nand secure lives. But if it be in vain that he is given to us by the\nLord for our protection, unless it be lawful for us to avail ourselves\nof such an advantage, it clearly follows that we may appeal to him, and\napply for his aid, without any violation of piety. But here I have to do\nwith two sorts of persons; for there are multitudes inflamed with such a\nrage for litigation, that they never have peace in themselves, unless\nthey are in contention with others; and they commence their lawsuits\nwith a mortal bitterness of animosities, and with an infuriated cupidity\nof revenge and injury, and pursue them with an implacable obstinacy,\neven to the ruin of their adversary. At the same time, that they may not\nbe thought to do any thing wrong, they defend this perverseness under\nthe pretext of seeking justice. But, though it is allowable for a man to\nendeavour to obtain justice from his neighbour by a judicial process, he\nis not therefore at liberty to hate him, or to cherish a desire to hurt\nhim, or to persecute him without mercy.\n\nXVIII. Let such persons, therefore, understand, that judicial processes\nare lawful to those who use them rightly; and that the right use, both\nfor the plaintiff and for the defendant, is this: First, if the\nplaintiff, being injured either in his person or in his property, has\nrecourse to the protection of the magistrate, states his complaint,\nmakes a just and equitable claim, but without any desire of injury or\nrevenge, without any asperity or hatred, without any ardour for\ncontention, but rather prepared to waive his right, and to sustain some\ndisadvantage, than to cherish enmity against his adversary. Secondly, if\nthe defendant, being summoned, appears on the day appointed, and defends\nhis cause by the best arguments in his power, without any bitterness,\nbut with the simple desire of maintaining his just right. On the\ncontrary, when their minds are filled with malevolence, corrupted with\nenvy, incensed with wrath, stimulated with revenge, or inflamed with the\nfervour of contention, so as to diminish their charity, all the\nproceedings of the justest cause are inevitably wicked. For it ought to\nbe an established maxim with all Christians, that however just a cause\nmay be, no lawsuit can ever be carried on in a proper manner by any man,\nwho does not feel as much benevolence and affection towards his\nadversary, as if the business in dispute had already been settled and\nterminated by an amicable adjustment. Some, perhaps, will object, that\nsuch moderation in lawsuits is far from being ever practised, and that\nif one instance of it were to be found, it would be regarded as a\nprodigy. I confess, indeed, that, in the corruption of these times, the\nexample of an upright litigator is very rare; but the thing itself\nceases not to be good and pure, if it be not defiled by an adventitious\nevil. But when we hear that the assistance of the magistrate is a holy\ngift of God, it behoves us to use the more assiduous caution that it be\nnot contaminated by our guilt.\n\nXIX. Those who positively condemn all controversies at law, ought to\nunderstand that they thereby reject a holy ordinance of God, and a gift\nof the number of those which may be \u201cpure to the pure;\u201d unless they mean\nto charge Paul with a crime, who repelled the calumnies of his accusers,\nexposing their subtlety and malice; who, before his judges, asserted his\nright to the privileges of a Roman citizen; and who, when he found it\nnecessary, appealed from an unjust governor to the tribunal of C\u00e6sar. It\nis no objection to this that all Christians are forbidden the desire of\nrevenge, which we also wish to banish to the greatest distance from all\nChristian judicatures. For, in a civil cause, no man proceeds in the\nright way, who does not, with innocent simplicity, commit his cause to\nthe judge as to a public guardian, without the least thought of a mutual\nretaliation of evil, which is the passion of revenge. And in any more\nimportant or criminal action we require the accuser to be one who goes\ninto the court, influenced by no desire of revenge, affected by no\nresentment of private injury, and having no other motive than to resist\nthe attempts of a mischievous man, that he may not injure the public.\nBut if a vindictive spirit be excluded, no offence is committed against\nthat precept by which revenge is forbidden to Christians. It may\nprobably be objected, that they are not only forbidden to desire\nrevenge, but are also commanded to wait for the hand of the Lord, who\npromises that he will assist and revenge the afflicted and oppressed,\nand therefore that those who seek the interference of the magistrate on\nbehalf of themselves or others, anticipate all that vengeance of the\ncelestial protector. But this is very far from the truth. For the\nvengeance of the magistrate is to be considered, not as the vengeance of\nman, but of God, which, according to the testimony of Paul, he exercises\nby the ministry of men for our good.\n\nXX. Nor do we any more oppose the prohibition and injunction of Christ,\n\u201cResist not evil; but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek,\nturn to him the other also; and if any man will sue thee at the law, and\ntake away, thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.\u201d[1456] In this\npassage, indeed, he requires the minds of his servants to be so far from\ncherishing a desire of retaliation, as rather to suffer the repetition\nof an injury against themselves than to wish to revenge it; nor do we\ndissuade them from this patience. For it truly behoves Christians to be\na people, as it were, formed to bear injuries and reproaches, exposed to\nthe iniquity, impostures, and ridicule of the worst of mankind; and not\nonly so, but they ought to be patient under all these evils; that is to\nsay, so calm and composed in their minds, that, after having suffered\none affliction, they may prepare themselves for another, expecting\nnothing all their lifetime but to bear a perpetual cross. At the same\ntime, they are required to bless and pray for them from whom they\nreceive curses, to do good to them from whom they experience\ninjuries,[1457] and to aim at that which constitutes their only victory,\nto \u201covercome evil with good.\u201d[1458] With this disposition they will not\ndemand \u201can eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth,\u201d as the Pharisees\ntaught their disciples to desire revenge; but, as we are instructed by\nChrist, they will suffer injuries in their persons and property in such\na manner as to be ready to forgive them as soon as they are\ncommitted.[1459] Yet this equanimity and moderation will be no obstacle,\nbut that, without any breach of friendship towards their enemies, they\nmay avail themselves of the assistance of the magistrate for the\npreservation of their property; or, from zeal for the public good, may\nbring a pestilent offender to justice, though they know he can only be\npunished with death. For it is very correctly explained by Augustine,\nthat the end of all these precepts is, \u201cthat a just and pious man should\nbe ready to bear with patience the wickedness of those whom he desires\nto become good; rather in order that the number of the good may\nincrease, not that with similar wickedness he may himself join the\nnumber of the evil; and in the next place, that they relate to the\ninternal affection of the heart more than to the external actions; in\norder that in the secrecy of our minds we may feel patience and\nbenevolence, but in our outward conduct may do that which we see tends\nto the advantage of those to whom we ought to feel benevolent\naffections.\u201d\n\nXXI. The objection which is frequently alleged, that lawsuits are\nuniversally condemned by Paul, has no foundation in truth.[1460] It may\nbe easily understood from his words, that in the Church of the\nCorinthians there was an immoderate rage for litigation, so that they\nexposed the gospel of Christ, and all the religion which they professed,\nto the cavils and reproaches of the impious. The first thing which Paul\nreprehended in them was, that the intemperance of their dissensions\nbrought the gospel into discredit among unbelievers. And the next thing\nwas, that they had such altercations among them, brethren with brethren;\nfor they were so far from bearing an injury, that they coveted each\nother\u2019s property, and molested and injured one another without any\nprovocation. It was against that rage for litigation, therefore, that he\ninveighed, and not absolutely against all controversies. But he\npronounces it to be altogether a vice or a weakness, that they did not\nsuffer the injury or loss of their property rather than to proceed to\ncontentions for the preservation of it: when they were so disturbed or\nexasperated at every loss or injury, that they had recourse to lawsuits\non the most trivial occasions, he argues that this proved their minds to\nbe too irritable, and not sufficiently patient. It is certainly\nincumbent on Christians, in all cases, to prefer a concession of their\nright to an entrance on a lawsuit; from which they can scarcely come out\nwithout a mind exasperated and inflamed with enmity to their brother.\nBut when one sees that, without any breach of charity, he may defend his\nproperty, the loss of which would be a serious injury to him; if he do\nit, he commits no offence against that sentence of Paul. In a word, as\nwe have observed at the beginning, charity will give every one the best\ncounsel; for, whatever litigations are undertaken without charity, or\nare carried to a degree inconsistent with it, we conclude them, beyond\nall controversy, to be unjust and wicked.\n\nXXII. The first duty of subjects towards their magistrates is to\nentertain the most honourable sentiments of their function, which they\nknow to be a jurisdiction delegated to them from God, and on that\naccount to esteem and reverence them as God\u2019s ministers and vicegerents.\nFor there are some persons to be found, who show themselves very\nobedient to their magistrates, and have not the least wish that there\nwere no magistrates for them to obey, because they know them to be so\nnecessary to the public good; but who, nevertheless, consider the\nmagistrates themselves as no other than necessary evils. But something\nmore than this is required of us by Peter, when he commands us to\n\u201chonour the king;\u201d[1461] and by Solomon, when he says, \u201cFear thou the\nLord and the king;\u201d[1462] for Peter, under the term _honour_,\ncomprehends a sincere and candid esteem; and Solomon, by connecting the\nking with the Lord, attributes to him a kind of sacred veneration and\ndignity. It is also a remarkable commendation of magistrates which is\ngiven by Paul, when he says, that we \u201cmust needs be subject, not only\nfor wrath, but also for conscience sake;\u201d[1463] by which he means, that\nsubjects ought to be induced to submit to princes and governors, not\nmerely from a dread of their power, as persons are accustomed to yield\nto an armed enemy, who they know will immediately take vengeance upon\nthem if they resist; but because the obedience which is rendered to\nprinces and magistrates is rendered to God, from whom they have received\ntheir authority. I am not speaking of the persons, as if the mask of\ndignity ought to palliate or excuse folly, ignorance, or cruelty, and\nconduct the most nefarious and flagitious, and so to acquire for vices\nthe praise due to virtues; but I affirm that the station itself is\nworthy of honour and reverence; so that, whoever our governors are, they\nought to possess our esteem and veneration on account of the office\nwhich they fill.\n\nXXIII. Hence follows another duty, that, with minds disposed to honour\nand reverence magistrates, subjects approve their obedience to them, in\nsubmitting to their edicts, in paying taxes, in discharging public\nduties, and bearing burdens which relate to the common defence, and in\nfulfilling all their other commands. Paul says to the Romans, \u201cLet every\nsoul be subject unto the higher powers. Whosoever resisteth the power,\nresisteth the ordinance of God.\u201d[1464] He writes to Titus, \u201cPut them in\nmind to be subject to principalities and powers, to obey magistrates, to\nbe ready to every good work.\u201d[1465] Peter exhorts, \u201cSubmit yourselves to\nevery ordinance of man for the Lord\u2019s sake; whether it be to the king,\nas supreme; or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the\npunishment of evil-doers, and for the praise of them that do\nwell.\u201d[1466] Moreover, that subjects may testify that theirs is not a\nhypocritical but a sincere and cordial submission, Paul teaches, that\nthey ought to pray to God for the safety and prosperity of those under\nwhose government they live. \u201cI exhort,\u201d he says, \u201cthat supplications,\nprayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; for\nkings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and\npeaceable life in all godliness and honesty.\u201d[1467] Here let no man\ndeceive himself. For as it is impossible to resist the magistrate\nwithout, at the same time, resisting God himself; though an unarmed\nmagistrate may seem to be despised with impunity, yet God is armed to\ninflict exemplary vengeance on the contempt offered to himself. Under\nthis obedience I also include the moderation which private persons ought\nto prescribe to themselves in relation to public affairs, that they do\nnot, without being called upon, intermeddle with affairs of state, or\nrashly intrude themselves into the office of magistrates, or undertake\nany thing of a public nature. If there be any thing in the public\nadministration which requires to be corrected, let them not raise any\ntumults, or take the business into their own hands, which ought to be\nall bound in this respect, but let them refer it to the cognizance of\nthe magistrate, who is alone authorized to regulate the concerns of the\npublic. I mean, that they ought to attempt nothing without being\ncommanded; for when they have the command of a governor, then they also\nare invested with public authority. For, as we are accustomed to call\nthe counsellors of a prince _his eyes and ears_, so they may not unaptly\nbe called _his hands_ whom he has commissioned to execute his commands.\n\nXXIV. Now, as we have hitherto described a magistrate who truly answers\nto his title; who is the father of his country, and, as the poet calls\nhim, the pastor of his people, the guardian of peace, the protector of\njustice, the avenger of innocence; he would justly be deemed insane who\ndisapproved of such a government. But, as it has happened, in almost all\nages, that some princes, regardless of every thing to which they ought\nto have directed their attention and provision, give themselves up to\ntheir pleasures in indolent exemption from every care; others, absorbed\nin their own interest, expose to sale all laws, privileges, rights, and\njudgments; others plunder the public of wealth, which they afterwards\nlavish in mad prodigality; others commit flagrant outrages, pillaging\nhouses, violating virgins and matrons, and murdering infants; many\npersons cannot be persuaded that such ought to be acknowledged as\nprinces, whom, as far as possible, they ought to obey. For in such\nenormities, and actions so completely incompatible, not only with the\noffice of a magistrate, but with the duty of every man, they discover no\nappearance of the image of God, which ought to be conspicuous in a\nmagistrate; while they perceive no vestige of that minister of God who\nis \u201cnot a terror to good works, but to the evil,\u201d who is sent \u201cfor the\npunishment of evil-doers, and for the praise of them that do well;\u201d nor\nrecognize that governor, whose dignity and authority the Scripture\nrecommends to us. And certainly the minds of men have always been\nnaturally disposed to hate and execrate tyrants as much as to love and\nreverence legitimate kings.\n\nXXV. But, if we direct our attention to the word of God, it will carry\nus much further; even to submit to the government, not only of those\nprinces who discharge their duty to us with becoming integrity and\nfidelity, but of all who possess the sovereignty, even though they\nperform none of the duties of their function. For, though the Lord\ntestifies that the magistrate is an eminent gift of his liberality to\npreserve the safety of men, and prescribes to magistrates themselves the\nextent of their duty, yet he at the same time declares, that whatever be\ntheir characters, they have their government only from him; that those\nwho govern for the public good are true specimens and mirrors of his\nbeneficence; and that those who rule in an unjust and tyrannical manner\nare raised up by him to punish the iniquity of the people; that all\nequally possess that sacred majesty with which he has invested\nlegitimate authority. I will not proceed any further till I have\nsubjoined a few testimonies in proof of this point. It is unnecessary,\nhowever, to labour much to evince an impious king to be a judgment of\nGod\u2019s wrath upon the world, as I have no expectation that any one will\ndeny it: and in this we say no more of a king than of any other robber\nwho plunders our property; or adulterer who violates our bed; or\nassassin who attempts to murder us; since the Scripture enumerates all\nthese calamities among the curses inflicted by God. But let us rather\ninsist on the proof of that which the minds of men do not so easily\nadmit; that a man of the worst character, and most undeserving of all\nhonour, who holds the sovereign power, really possesses that eminent and\nDivine authority, which the Lord has given by his word to the ministers\nof his justice and judgment; and, therefore, that he ought to be\nregarded by his subjects, as far as pertains to public obedience, with\nthe same reverence and esteem which they would show to the best of\nkings, if such a one were granted to them.\n\nXXVI. In the first place, I request my readers to observe and consider\nwith attention, what is so frequently and justly mentioned in the\nScriptures,\u2014the providence and peculiar dispensation of God in\ndistributing kingdoms and appointing whom he pleases to be kings. Daniel\nsays, \u201cGod changeth the times and the seasons: he removeth kings and\nsetteth up kings.\u201d[1468] Again: \u201cThat the living may know that the Most\nHigh ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he\nwill.\u201d[1469] Passages of this kind abound throughout the Scriptures, but\nparticularly in this prophecy. Now, the character of Nebuchadnezzar, who\nconquered Jerusalem, is sufficiently known, that he was an invader and\ndepopulator of the territories of others. Yet by the mouth of Ezekiel\nthe Lord declares that he had given him the land of Egypt, as a reward\nfor the service which he had performed in devastating Tyre.[1470] And\nDaniel said to him, \u201cThou, O king, art a king of kings; for the God of\nheaven hath given thee a kingdom, power, and strength, and glory; and\nwheresoever the children of men dwell, the beasts of the field, and the\nfowls of the heaven, hath he given into thine hand, and hath made thee\nruler over all.\u201d[1471] Again: to his grandson Belshazzar Daniel said,\n\u201cThe most high God gave Nebuchadnezzar thy father a kingdom, and\nmajesty, and glory, and honour; and for the majesty that he gave him,\nall people, nations, and languages, trembled and feared before\nhim.\u201d[1472] When we hear that Nebuchadnezzar was placed on the throne by\nGod, let us, at the same time, call to mind the celestial edicts which\ncommand us to fear and honour the king; and we shall not hesitate to\nregard the most iniquitous tyrant with the honour due to the station in\nwhich the Lord has deigned to place him. When Samuel denounced to the\nchildren of Israel what treatment they would receive from their kings,\nhe said, \u201cThis will be the manner[1473] of the king that shall reign\nover you; he will take your sons and appoint them for himself, for his\nchariots, and to be his horsemen, and to ear his ground, and to reap his\nharvest, and to make his instruments of war. And he will take your\ndaughters to be confectionaries, and to be cooks, and to be bakers. And\nhe will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your oliveyards, even\nthe best of them, and give them to his servants. And he will take the\ntenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers and\nto his servants. And he will take your men-servants, and your\nmaid-servants, and your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put\nthem to his work. He will take the tenth of your sheep; and ye shall be\nhis servants.\u201d[1474] Certainly the kings would not do all this by\n\u201cright,\u201d for they were excellently instructed by the law to observe all\nmoderation; but it was called a \u201cright\u201d with respect to the people who\nwere bound to obey, and were not at liberty to resist it. It was just as\nif Samuel had said, The cupidity of your kings will proceed to all these\noutrages, which it will not be your province to restrain; nothing will\nremain for you, but to receive their commands and to obey them.\n\nXXVII. But the most remarkable and memorable passage of all is in the\nProphecy of Jeremiah, which, though it is rather long, I shall readily\nquote, because it most clearly decides the whole question: \u201cI have made\nthe earth, the man and the beast that are upon the ground, by my great\npower and by my outstretched arm, and have given it unto whom it seemed\nmeet unto me. And now I have given all these lands into the hand of\nNebuchadnezzar, the king of Babylon, my servant. And all nations shall\nserve him, and his son, and his son\u2019s son, until the very time of his\nland come. And it shall come to pass, that the nation and kingdom which\nwill not serve the same king of Babylon, that nation will I punish with\nthe sword, and with the famine, and with the pestilence. Therefore serve\nthe king of Babylon and live.\u201d[1475] We see what great obedience and\nhonour the Lord required to be rendered to that pestilent and cruel\ntyrant, for no other reason than because he possessed the kingdom; and\nit was by the heavenly decree that he was seated on the throne of the\nkingdom, and exalted to that regal majesty, which it was not lawful to\nviolate. If we have this constantly present to our eyes and impressed\nupon our hearts, that the most iniquitous kings are placed on their\nthrones by the same decree by which the authority of all kings is\nestablished, those seditious thoughts will never enter our minds, that a\nking is to be treated according to his merits, and that it is not\nreasonable for us to be subject to a king who does not on his part\nperform towards us those duties which his office requires.\n\nXXVIII. In vain will any one object that this was a special command\ngiven to the Israelites. For we must observe the reason upon which the\nLord founds it. He says, \u201cI have given these lands to Nebuchadnezzar;\ntherefore serve him and live.\u201d To whomsoever, therefore, a kingdom shall\nevidently be given, we have no room to doubt that subjection is due to\nhim. And as soon as he exalts any person to royal dignity, he gives us a\ndeclaration of his pleasure that he shall reign. The Scripture contains\ngeneral testimonies on this subject. Solomon says, \u201cFor the\ntransgression of a land, many are the princes thereof.\u201d[1476] Job says,\n\u201cHe looseth the bonds of kings,\u201d or divests them of their power; \u201cand\ngirdeth their loins with a girdle,\u201d[1477] or restores them to their\nformer dignity. This being admitted, nothing remains for us but to serve\nand live. The prophet Jeremiah likewise records another command of the\nLord to his people: \u201cSeek the peace of the city whither I have caused\nyou to be carried away captives, and pray unto the Lord for it; for in\nthe peace of it ye shall have peace.\u201d[1478] Here, we see, the\nIsraelites, after having been stripped of all their property, torn from\ntheir habitations, driven into exile, and forced into a miserable\nservitude, were commanded to pray for the prosperity of their conqueror;\nnot in the same manner in which we are all commanded to pray for our\npersecutors; but that his kingdom might be preserved in safety and\ntranquillity, and that they might live in prosperity under him. Thus\nDavid, after having been already designated as king by the ordination of\nGod, and anointed with his holy oil, though he was unjustly persecuted\nby Saul, without having given him any cause of offence, nevertheless\naccounted the person of his pursuer sacred, because the Lord had\nconsecrated it by the royal dignity. \u201cAnd he said, The Lord forbid that\nI should do this thing unto my master, the Lord\u2019s anointed, to stretch\nforth mine hand against him, seeing he is the anointed of the Lord.\u201d\nAgain: \u201cMine eye spared thee; and I said, I will not put forth mine hand\nagainst my lord; for he is the Lord\u2019s anointed.\u201d[1479] Again: \u201cWho can\nstretch forth his hand against the Lord\u2019s anointed, and be guiltless? As\nthe Lord liveth, the Lord shall smite him; or his day shall come to die,\nor he shall descend into battle, and perish. The Lord forbid that I\nshould stretch forth mine hand against the Lord\u2019s anointed.\u201d[1480]\n\nXXIX. Finally, we owe these sentiments of affection and reverence to all\nour rulers, whatever their characters may be; which I the more\nfrequently repeat, that we may learn not to scrutinize the persons\nthemselves, but may be satisfied with knowing that they are invested by\nthe will of the Lord with that function, upon which he has impressed an\ninviolable majesty. But it will be said, that rulers owe mutual duties\nto their subjects. That I have already confessed. But he who infers from\nthis that obedience ought to be rendered to none but just rulers, is a\nvery bad reasoner. For husbands owe mutual duties to their wives, and\nparents to their children. Now, if husbands and parents violate their\nobligations; if parents conduct themselves with discouraging severity\nand fastidious moroseness towards their children, whom they are\nforbidden to provoke to wrath;[1481] if husbands despise and vex their\nwives, whom they are commanded to love and to spare as the weaker\nvessels;[1482] does it follow that children should be less obedient to\ntheir parents, or wives to their husbands? They are still subject, even\nto those who are wicked and unkind. As it is incumbent on all, not to\ninquire into the duties of one another, but to confine their attention\nrespectively to their own, this consideration ought particularly to be\nregarded by those who are subject to the authority of others. Wherefore,\nif we are inhumanly harassed by a cruel prince; if we are rapaciously\nplundered by an avaricious or luxurious one; if we are neglected by an\nindolent one; or if we are persecuted, on account of piety, by an\nimpious and sacrilegious one,\u2014let us first call to mind our\ntransgressions against God, which he undoubtedly chastises by these\nscourges. Thus our impatience will be restrained by humility. Let us, in\nthe next place, consider that it is not our province to remedy these\nevils; and that nothing remains for us, but to implore the aid of the\nLord, in whose hand are the hearts of kings and the revolutions of\nkingdoms. It is \u201cGod\u201d who \u201cstandeth in the congregation of the mighty,\u201d\nand \u201cjudgeth among the gods;\u201d[1483] whose presence shall confound and\ncrush all kings and judges of the earth who shall not have kissed his\nSon;[1484] \u201cthat decree unrighteous decrees, to turn aside the needy\nfrom judgment, and to take away the right from the poor, that widows may\nbe their prey, and that they may rob the fatherless.\u201d[1485]\n\nXXX. And here is displayed his wonderful goodness, and power, and\nprovidence; for sometimes he raises up some of his servants as public\navengers, and arms them with his commission to punish unrighteous\ndomination, and to deliver from their distressing calamities a people\nwho have been unjustly oppressed: sometimes he accomplishes this end by\nthe fury of men who meditate and attempt something altogether different.\nThus he liberated the people of Israel from the tyranny of Pharaoh by\nMoses; from the oppression of Chusan by Othniel; and from other yokes by\nother kings and judges. Thus he subdued the pride of Tyre by the\nEgyptians; the insolence of the Egyptians by the Assyrians; the\nhaughtiness of the Assyrians by the Chaldeans; the confidence of Babylon\nby the Medes and Persians, after Cyrus had subjugated the Medes. The\ningratitude of the kings of Israel and Judah, and their impious\nrebellion, notwithstanding his numerous favours, he repressed and\npunished, sometimes by the Assyrians, sometimes by the Babylonians.\nThese were all the executioners of his vengeance, but not all in the\nsame manner. The former, when they were called forth to the performance\nof such acts by a legitimate commission from God, in taking arms against\nkings, were not chargeable with the least violation of that majesty with\nwhich kings are invested by the ordination of God; but, being armed with\nauthority from Heaven, they punished an inferior power by a superior\none, as it is lawful for kings to punish their inferior officers. The\nlatter, though they were guided by the hand of God in such directions as\nhe pleased, and performed his work without being conscious of it,\nnevertheless contemplated in their hearts nothing but evil.\n\nXXXI. But whatever opinion be formed of the acts of men, yet the Lord\nequally executed his work by them, when he broke the sanguinary sceptres\nof insolent kings, and overturned tyrannical governments. Let princes\nhear and fear. But, in the mean while, it behoves us to use the greatest\ncaution, that we do not despise or violate that authority of\nmagistrates, which is entitled to the greatest veneration, which God has\nestablished by the most solemn commands, even though it reside in those\nwho are most unworthy of it, and who, as far as in them lies, pollute it\nby their iniquity. For though the correction of tyrannical domination is\nthe vengeance of God, we are not, therefore, to conclude that it is\ncommitted to us, who have received no other command than to obey and\nsuffer. This observation I always apply to private persons. For if there\nbe, in the present day, any magistrates appointed for the protection of\nthe people and the moderation of the power of kings, such as were, in\nancient times, the Ephori, who were a check upon the kings among the\nLaced\u00e6monians, or the popular tribunes upon the consuls among the\nRomans, or the Demarchi upon the senate among the Athenians; or with\npower such as perhaps is now possessed by the three estates in every\nkingdom when they are assembled; I am so far from prohibiting them, in\nthe discharge of their duty, to oppose the violence or cruelty of kings,\nthat I affirm, that if they connive at kings in their oppression of\ntheir people, such forbearance involves the most nefarious perfidy,\nbecause they fraudulently betray the liberty of the people, of which\nthey know that they have been appointed protectors by the ordination of\nGod.\n\nXXXII. But in the obedience which we have shown to be due to the\nauthority of governors, it is always necessary to make one exception,\nand that is entitled to our first attention,\u2014that it do not seduce us\nfrom obedience to him, to whose will the desires of all kings ought to\nbe subject, to whose decrees all their commands ought to yield, to whose\nmajesty all their sceptres ought to submit. And, indeed, how\npreposterous it would be for us, with a view to satisfy men, to incur\nthe displeasure of him on whose account we yield obedience to men! The\nLord, therefore, is the King of kings; who, when he has opened his\nsacred mouth, is to be heard alone, above all, for all, and before all;\nin the next place, we are subject to those men who preside over us; but\nno otherwise than in him. If they command any thing against him, it\nought not to have the least attention; nor, in this case, ought we to\npay any regard to all that dignity attached to magistrates; to which no\ninjury is done when it is subjected to the unrivalled and supreme power\nof God. On this principle Daniel denied that he had committed any crime\nagainst the king in disobeying his impious decree;[1486] because the\nking had exceeded the limits of his office, and had not only done an\ninjury to men, but, by raising his arm against God, had degraded his own\nauthority. On the other hand, the Israelites are condemned for having\nbeen too submissive to the impious edict of their king. For when\nJeroboam had made his golden calves, in compliance with his will, they\ndeserted the temple of God and revolted to new superstitions. Their\nposterity conformed to the decrees of their idolatrous kings with the\nsame facility. The prophet severely condemns them for having \u201cwillingly\nwalked after the commandment:\u201d[1487] so far is any praise from being due\nto the pretext of humility, with which courtly flatterers excuse\nthemselves and deceive the unwary, when they deny that it is lawful for\nthem to refuse compliance with any command of their kings; as if God had\nresigned his right to mortal men when he made them rulers of mankind; or\nas if earthly power were diminished by being subordinated to its author,\nbefore whom even the principalities of heaven tremble with awe. I know\nwhat great and present danger awaits this constancy, for kings cannot\nbear to be disregarded without the greatest indignation; and \u201cthe wrath\nof a king,\u201d says Solomon, \u201cis as messengers of death.\u201d[1488] But since\nthis edict has been proclaimed by that celestial herald, Peter, \u201cWe\nought to obey God rather than men,\u201d[1489]\u2014let us console ourselves with\nthis thought, that we truly perform the obedience which God requires of\nus, when we suffer any thing rather than deviate from piety. And that\nour hearts may not fail us, Paul stimulates us with another\nconsideration\u2014that Christ has redeemed us at the immense price which our\nredemption cost him, that we may not be submissive to the corrupt\ndesires of men, much less be slaves to their impiety.[1490]\n\nEND OF THE INSTITUTES.\n\nFootnote 1404:\n\n  Gal. v. 1.\n\nFootnote 1405:\n\n  1 Cor. vii. 21.\n\nFootnote 1406:\n\n  Gal. iii. 28.\n\nFootnote 1407:\n\n  Col. iii. 11.\n\nFootnote 1408:\n\n  Psalm lxxxii. 1, 6.\n\nFootnote 1409:\n\n  John x. 35.\n\nFootnote 1410:\n\n  Deut. i. 16, 17. 2 Chron. xix. 6.\n\nFootnote 1411:\n\n  Prov. viii. 15, 16.\n\nFootnote 1412:\n\n  Rom. xii. 8.\n\nFootnote 1413:\n\n  1 Cor. xii. 28.\n\nFootnote 1414:\n\n  Rom. xiii. 1, 3, 4.\n\nFootnote 1415:\n\n  Psalm ii. 10-12.\n\nFootnote 1416:\n\n  Isaiah xlix. 23.\n\nFootnote 1417:\n\n  1 Tim. ii. 1, 2.\n\nFootnote 1418:\n\n  Jer. xlviii. 10.\n\nFootnote 1419:\n\n  Deut. i. 16, 17.\n\nFootnote 1420:\n\n  2 Chron. xix. 6, 7.\n\nFootnote 1421:\n\n  Psalm lxxxii. 1.\n\nFootnote 1422:\n\n  1 Sam. viii. 7.\n\nFootnote 1423:\n\n  Luke xxii. 25, 26.\n\nFootnote 1424:\n\n  Rom. xiii. 1, &c. Prov. viii. 15. 1 Pet. ii. 13, 14, 17.\n\nFootnote 1425:\n\n  Judges xxi. 25.\n\nFootnote 1426:\n\n  Jer. xxii. 3.\n\nFootnote 1427:\n\n  Psalm lxxxii. 3, 4.\n\nFootnote 1428:\n\n  Deut. i. 16, 17.\n\nFootnote 1429:\n\n  Deut. xvii. 16, 17, 19, 20.\n\nFootnote 1430:\n\n  Psalm ci. 3-6.\n\nFootnote 1431:\n\n  Jer. xxii. 3.\n\nFootnote 1432:\n\n  Exod. xx. 13.\n\nFootnote 1433:\n\n  Isaiah xi. 9; lxv. 25.\n\nFootnote 1434:\n\n  Gen. ix. 6. Exod. xxi. 12.\n\nFootnote 1435:\n\n  Rom. xiii. 4.\n\nFootnote 1436:\n\n  Exod. ii. 12.\n\nFootnote 1437:\n\n  Exod. xxxii. 26-28.\n\nFootnote 1438:\n\n  1 Kings ii. 5-9.\n\nFootnote 1439:\n\n  Psalm ci. 8.\n\nFootnote 1440:\n\n  Psalm xlv. 7.\n\nFootnote 1441:\n\n  Prov. xvi. 12.\n\nFootnote 1442:\n\n  Prov. xx. 8.\n\nFootnote 1443:\n\n  Prov. xx. 26.\n\nFootnote 1444:\n\n  Prov. xxv. 4, 5.\n\nFootnote 1445:\n\n  Prov. xvii. 15.\n\nFootnote 1446:\n\n  Prov. xvii. 11.\n\nFootnote 1447:\n\n  Prov. xxiv. 24.\n\nFootnote 1448:\n\n  Prov. xx. 28.\n\nFootnote 1449:\n\n  Luke iii. 14.\n\nFootnote 1450:\n\n  Ezek. xlviii. 21, 22.\n\nFootnote 1451:\n\n  Rom. xiii. 6.\n\nFootnote 1452:\n\n  Gal. iii. 24; iv. 4.\n\nFootnote 1453:\n\n  Exod. xxii. 1, &c.\n\nFootnote 1454:\n\n  Deut. xix. 18, 19.\n\nFootnote 1455:\n\n  Rom. xiii. 4.\n\nFootnote 1456:\n\n  Matt. v. 39, 40.\n\nFootnote 1457:\n\n  Matt. v. 44.\n\nFootnote 1458:\n\n  Rom xii. 21.\n\nFootnote 1459:\n\n  Matt. v. 38-40.\n\nFootnote 1460:\n\n  1 Cor. vi. 1-8.\n\nFootnote 1461:\n\n  1 Peter ii. 17.\n\nFootnote 1462:\n\n  Prov. xxiv. 21.\n\nFootnote 1463:\n\n  Rom. xiii. 5.\n\nFootnote 1464:\n\n  Rom. xiii. 1, 2.\n\nFootnote 1465:\n\n  Titus iii. 1.\n\nFootnote 1466:\n\n  1 Peter ii. 13, 14.\n\nFootnote 1467:\n\n  1 Tim. ii. 1, 2.\n\nFootnote 1468:\n\n  Dan. ii. 21.\n\nFootnote 1469:\n\n  Dan. iv. 17.\n\nFootnote 1470:\n\n  Ezek. xxix. 18-20.\n\nFootnote 1471:\n\n  Dan. ii. 37, 38.\n\nFootnote 1472:\n\n  Dan. v. 18, 19.\n\nFootnote 1473:\n\n  In the Latin translation, it is _jus_, right.\n\nFootnote 1474:\n\n  1 Sam. viii. 11-17.\n\nFootnote 1475:\n\n  Jer. xxvii. 5-9, 12.\n\nFootnote 1476:\n\n  Prov. xxviii. 2.\n\nFootnote 1477:\n\n  Job xii. 18.\n\nFootnote 1478:\n\n  Jer. xxix. 7.\n\nFootnote 1479:\n\n  1 Sam. xxiv. 6, 11.\n\nFootnote 1480:\n\n  1 Sam. xxvi. 9-11.\n\nFootnote 1481:\n\n  Ephes. vi. 1. Col. iii. 21.\n\nFootnote 1482:\n\n  Ephes. v. 25. 1 Pet. iii. 7.\n\nFootnote 1483:\n\n  Psalm lxxxii. 1.\n\nFootnote 1484:\n\n  Psalm ii. 10-12.\n\nFootnote 1485:\n\n  Isaiah x. 1, 2.\n\nFootnote 1486:\n\n  Dan. vi. 22.\n\nFootnote 1487:\n\n  Hos. v. 11.\n\nFootnote 1488:\n\n  Prov. xvi. 14.\n\nFootnote 1489:\n\n  Acts v. 29.\n\nFootnote 1490:\n\n  1 Cor. vii. 23.\n\n\n\n\n                    INDEX OF THE PRINCIPAL MATTERS.\n\n_The first number indicates the Book; the second, the Chapter._\n\nAdam\u2019s fall, the cause of the curse inflicted on all mankind, and of\ntheir degeneracy from their primitive condition, ii. 1.\n\nAngels, their creation, nature, names, and offices, i. 14.\n\nArticles of faith, power of the Church relating to them, iv. 8, 9.\n\nAscension of Christ, i. 15.\n\nBaptism, a sacrament; its institution, nature, administration, and uses,\niv. 15.\n\n\u2014\u2014 of infants perfectly consistent with the institution of Christ and\nthe nature of the sign, iv. 16.\n\nCelibacy of priests, iv. 12.\n\n\u2014\u2014 of monks and nuns, iv. 13.\n\nChrist proved to be God, i. 13.\n\n\u2014\u2014 necessity of his becoming man in order to fulfil the office of a\nmediator, ii. 12.\n\n\u2014\u2014 his assumption of real humanity, ii. 13.\n\n\u2014\u2014 the union of the two natures constituting his one person, ii. 14.\n\n\u2014\u2014 the only Redeemer of lost man, ii. 6.\n\n\u2014\u2014 the consideration of his three offices, prophetical, regal, and\nsacerdotal, necessary to our knowing the end of his mission from the\nFather, and the benefits he confers on us, ii. 15.\n\n\u2014\u2014 his death, resurrection, and ascension to heaven, to accomplish our\nsalvation, ii. 16.\n\n\u2014\u2014 truly and properly said to have merited the grace of God and\nsalvation for us, ii. 17.\n\n\u2014\u2014 imperfectly revealed to the Jews under the law, ii. 7, 9.\n\n\u2014\u2014 clearly revealed only in the gospel, ii. 9.\n\nChristian liberty, its nature and advantages, iii. 19.\n\nChristian life, scriptural arguments and exhortations to it, iii. 6.\n\n\u2014\u2014\u2014 summary of it, iii. 7.\n\nChurch, the necessity of our union with the true Church, iv. 1.\n\n\u2014\u2014 true and false compared and distinguished, iv. 2.\n\n\u2014\u2014 teachers and ministers of the Church, their election and office, iv.\n3.\n\n\u2014\u2014 power of the, relating to articles of faith, iv. 8, 9.\n\n\u2014\u2014 \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014 in making laws, iv. 10.\n\n\u2014\u2014 \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014 in jurisdiction, iv. 11.\n\n\u2014\u2014 discipline of the; censures and excommunication, iv. 12.\n\n\u2014\u2014 state of the ancient, and the mode of government practised before the\nPapacy, iv. 4.\n\n\u2014\u2014 ancient form of its government entirely subverted by the Papal\ntyranny, iv. 5.\n\nConfession, auricular, iii. 4.\n\n\u2014\u2014 true, iii. 4.\n\nConfirmation, Papal, iv. 19.\n\nConscience, its nature and obligations, iii. 19.\n\nCouncils, their authority, iv. 9.\n\nCreation, of the world\u2014of angels; this clearly distinguishes the true\nGod from all fictitious deities, i. 14.\n\nCross, bearing of, a branch of self-denial, iii. 8.\n\nDeath of Christ, ii. 15.\n\nDepravity, human, total, ii. 3.\n\nDescent of Christ into hell, ii. 16.\n\nDevils, their existence, power, subtlety, malignity, i. 14.\n\nDiscipline of the Church, iv. 12.\n\nElection, eternal, or God\u2019s predestination of some to salvation, and of\nothers to destruction, iii. 21.\n\n\u2014\u2014 \u2014\u2014 testimonies of Scripture in confirmation of this doctrine, iii.\n22.\n\n\u2014\u2014 \u2014\u2014 a refutation of the calumnies generally but unjustly urged against\nthis doctrine, iii. 23.\n\n\u2014\u2014 \u2014\u2014 confirmed by the divine call, iii. 24.\n\nExcommunication, iv. 12.\n\nExtreme unction, iv. 19.\n\nFaith defined, and its properties described, iii. 2.\n\n\u2014\u2014, justification by faith, iii. 11.\n\n\u2014\u2014, prayer its principal exercise, iii. 20.\n\nFanaticism of discarding the Scripture, under the pretence of resorting\nto immediate revelations, subversive of every principle of piety, i. 9.\n\nFasting, its use and abuse, iv. 12.\n\nFree-will lost by the fall; man in his present state miserably enslaved,\nii. 2.\n\n\u2014\u2014 a refutation of the objections commonly urged in support of\nfree-will, ii. 5.\n\nGod truly known only from the Scriptures, i. 6.\n\n\u2014\u2014 what kind of being God is; exclusively opposed in the Scripture to\nall the heathen deities, i. 10.\n\n\u2014\u2014 contradistinguished from idols as the sole and supreme object of\nworship, i. 12.\n\n\u2014\u2014 ascription of a visible form to, unlawful, and all idolatry a\ndefection from the true, i. 11.\n\n\u2014\u2014 the creator of the universe, i. 14.\n\n\u2014\u2014 his preservation and support of the world by his power, and his\ngovernment of every part of it by his providence, i. 16.\n\n\u2014\u2014 the proper use and advantages of this doctrine, i. 17.\n\n\u2014\u2014 his operations in the hearts of men, ii. 4.\n\n\u2014\u2014 his use of the agency of the wicked, without the least stain of his\nperfect purity, i. 18.\n\n\u2014\u2014 one Divine essence containing three persons, i. 13.\n\nGospel and law compared and distinguished, ii. 9, 10, 11.\n\nGovernment of the Church, iv. 3, 4, 5.\n\n\u2014\u2014 civil; its nature, dignity, and advantages, iv. 20.\n\nHoly Spirit proved to be God, i. 13.\n\n\u2014\u2014 his testimony requisite to the confirmation of the Scripture, and the\nestablishment of its authority, i. 7.\n\n\u2014\u2014 his secret and special operation necessary to our enjoyment of Christ\nand all his benefits; this operation the foundation of faith, newness of\nlife, and all holy exercises, iii. 1.\n\n\u2014\u2014 the sin against, iii. 3.\n\nHumility of believers, iii. 12.\n\nIdolatry a defection from the true God; all worship of images idolatry,\ni. 1.\n\nImage of God in man, i. 15.\n\nImposition of hands, iv. 15.\n\nIndulgences and pardons, iii. 5.\n\nIntercession of saints, iii. 20.\n\nJudgment, last, iii. 25.\n\nJurisdiction of the Church, iv. 11.\n\nJustification by faith; the name and thing defined, iii. 11.\n\n\u2014\u2014 a consideration of the Divine tribunal necessary to a serious\nconviction of gratuitous, iii. 12.\n\n\u2014\u2014 things necessary to be observed in gratuitous, iii. 13.\n\n\u2014\u2014 commencement and continual progress of, iii. 14.\n\n\u2014\u2014 boasting of the merit of works equally subversive of God\u2019s glory in\ngratuitous, and of the certainty of salvation, iii. 15.\n\n\u2014\u2014 a refutation of the injurious calumnies of the Papists against the\ndoctrine here maintained, iii. 16.\n\n\u2014\u2014 by works, the promise of a reward no argument for, iii. 17.\n\nKingdom of Christ, ii. 15.\n\nKnowledge of Christ, imperfect under the law, ii. 7, 9.\n\n\u2014\u2014 clearly unfolded under the gospel, ii. 9.\n\n\u2014\u2014 of God connected with the knowledge of ourselves, i. 1.\n\n\u2014\u2014 nature and tendency of it, i. 2.\n\n\u2014\u2014 naturally implanted in the human mind, i. 3.\n\n\u2014\u2014 extinguished or corrupted, partly by ignorance, partly by wickedness,\ni. 4.\n\n\u2014\u2014 conspicuous in the formation and government of the work, i. 5.\n\n\u2014\u2014 effectually attained only from the Scripture, i. 6.\n\nLaw of Moses; its office, use, and end, ii. 7.\n\nLaws given to the Jews; moral, ceremonial, and judicial, iv. 20.\n\nLaw, moral, an exposition of, ii. 8.\n\nLaw and gospel, compared and distinguished, ii. 9, 10, 11.\n\nLaws, ecclesiastical, iv. 10.\n\n\u2014\u2014 civil and political, iv. 20.\n\nLiberty, Christian, iii. 19.\n\nLife, Christian, iii. 6, 7, 8.\n\n\u2014\u2014 present, and its supports, right use of, iii. 10.\n\n\u2014\u2014 future, meditation on, iii. 9.\n\nLord\u2019s prayer, exposition of, iii. 20.\n\nLord\u2019s supper, its institution, nature, and advantages, iii. 17.\n\n\u2014\u2014 not only profaned, but annihilated by the Papal mass, iii. 18.\n\nMan, his state at his creation, the faculties of his soul, the Divine\nimage, free-will, and the original purity of his nature, i. 15.\n\n\u2014\u2014 in his present state, despoiled of freedom of will, and subjected to\na miserable slavery, ii. 2.\n\n\u2014\u2014 every thing that proceeds from his corrupt nature worthy of\ncondemnation, ii. 3.\n\n\u2014\u2014 his mind naturally furnished with the knowledge of God, i. 3.\n\n\u2014\u2014 the knowledge of God in the human mind extinguished or corrupted by\nignorance and wickedness, i. 4.\n\nMagistracy, iv. 20.\n\nMarriage, ii. 8.\n\nMatrimony, falsely called a sacrament, iv. 19.\n\nMass, the Papal, not only a sacrilegious profanation of the Lord\u2019s\nsupper, but a total annihilation of it, iv. 18.\n\nMediator. _See_ Christ, ii. 14.\n\nMerit of Christ, ii. 17.\n\n\u2014\u2014 of works disproved, iii. 15, 18.\n\nMonks, iv. 13.\n\nNeighbour, love of our, ii. 8.\n\nNuns, iv. 13.\n\nOaths, ii. 8.\n\nOffences given and taken; what to be avoided, iii. 19.\n\nOrders, ecclesiastical, no sacrament, iv. 19.\n\nOriginal sin, the doctrine of, ii. 1.\n\nP\u00e6dobaptism. _See_ Baptism, iv. 16.\n\nPapacy, its entire subversion of the ancient form of ecclesiastical\ngovernment, iv. 5.\n\n\u2014\u2014 its rise and progress to its present eminence attended with the loss\nof liberty to the Church, and the ruin of all moderation, iv. 7.\n\n\u2014\u2014 its licentious perversion of the power of the Church respecting\narticles of faith, to the corruption of all purity of doctrine, iv. 8.\n\n\u2014\u2014 its sophistry and jargon concerning repentance utterly inconsistent\nwith the gospel, iii. 4.\n\n\u2014\u2014 its corrupt tenets respecting indulgences and purgatory, iii. 5.\n\n\u2014\u2014 its assumption of the power of legislation, tyranny over men\u2019s minds,\nand tortures of their bodies, iv. 10.\n\n\u2014\u2014 its abuse of the jurisdiction of the Church, iv. 11.\n\n\u2014\u2014 its corrupt discipline, censures, and excommunications, iv. 12.\n\n\u2014\u2014 its unscriptural vows, iv. 13.\n\n\u2014\u2014 its sacrilegious mass an annihilation of the Lord\u2019s supper, iv. 18.\n\n\u2014\u2014 its five ceremonies falsely called sacraments, proved not to be\nsacraments, iv. 19.\n\n\u2014\u2014 its characteristics of a false Church, iv. 2.\n\nPenance no sacrament, iv. 19.\n\nPrayer, the principal exercise of faith, and the medium of our daily\nreception of Divine blessings, iii. 20.\n\nPredestination. _See_ Election, iii. 21-24.\n\nPriesthood of Christ, ii. 15.\n\nPromises of the law and gospel, harmony between them, iii. 17.\n\nProphetical office of Christ, ii. 15.\n\nProvidence of God governs the world, i. 16.\n\n\u2014\u2014 proper application and utility of this doctrine, i. 17.\n\n\u2014\u2014 contracts no impurity from its control and use of the agency of the\nwicked, i. 18.\n\nPurgatory exposed and disproved, iii. 5.\n\nReason furnishes proofs to establish the authority of the Scripture, i.\n8.\n\nRedemption necessary in consequence of the fall, ii. 1, 6.\n\n\u2014\u2014 to be sought only in Christ, ii. 6.\n\n\u2014\u2014 accomplished by the death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ, ii.\n16.\n\nRegeneration, iii. 3.\n\nRepentance, true, always accompanies true faith; its origin, nature, and\neffects, iii. 3.\n\n\u2014\u2014 comprises mortification of the flesh and vivification of the spirit,\niii. 6-10.\n\n\u2014\u2014 the sophistry and jargon of the schools on this subject very remote\nfrom the purity of the gospel, iii. 4.\n\nReprobates, the destruction of, procured by themselves, iii. 24.\n\nResurrection of Christ, ii. 16.\n\n\u2014\u2014 final, iii. 25.\n\nReward promised, no proof of justification by works, iii. 18.\n\nRoman See, primacy of, iv. 6.\n\nSabbath, ii. 8.\n\nSacraments in general, iv. 14.\n\n\u2014\u2014 in particular, iv. 15, 16.\n\n\u2014\u2014 ceremonies falsely so called, iv. 19.\n\nSacrifices, legal, ii. 7.\n\n\u2014\u2014 none propitiatory under the gospel since that of Christ, iv. 18.\n\nSaints, invocation and intercession of, iii. 20.\n\nSalvation for lost man to be sought only in Christ, ii. 6.\n\n\u2014\u2014 procured by Christ, ii. 16.\n\nSatisfactions exposed, iii. 4.\n\nSchismatics, iv. 1.\n\nScripture, the guidance and teaching of it necessary to lead to the\nknowledge of God, i. 6.\n\n\u2014\u2014 the testimony of the Spirit requisite to its confirmation and\nestablishment of its authority, i. 7.\n\n\u2014\u2014 the dependence of its authority on the judgment of the Church an\nimpious fiction, i. 7.\n\n\u2014\u2014 rational proofs to establish its authority, i. 8.\n\n\u2014\u2014 rejection of it, under the pretence of resorting to immediate\nrevelations subversive of every principle of piety, i. 9.\n\n\u2014\u2014 exclusively opposes the true God to all the heathen deities, i. 10.\n\n\u2014\u2014 clearly distinguishes the true God from all fictitious ones, in the\ncreation of the universe, i. 14.\n\n\u2014\u2014 teaches the unity of God, and the existence of three persons in the\nDivine essence, i. 13.\n\nTemptation, iii. 20.\n\nTestament, Old, ii. 7.\n\nTestament, New, ii. 9.\n\n\u2014\u2014 similarity of the Old and New, ii. 10.\n\n\u2014\u2014 difference of the Old and New, ii. 11.\n\n\u2014\u2014 harmony between the promises of the Old and New, iii. 17.\n\n\u2014\u2014 sacraments of the Old and New, iv. 14.\n\nTraditions, human, iv. 10.\n\nTransubstantiation exposed, iv. 10.\n\nVocation confirms election, iii. 24.\n\nVows; the misery of rashly making them, iv. 13.\n\nWicked, the agency of, controlled and used by God, i. 18.\n\nWorks merit no favour from God, iii. 15.\n\nWorld created by God, i. 14.\n\n\u2014\u2014 preserved by his power, and governed by his providence, i. 16.\n\n                  *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe quotations from different Authors, chiefly the fathers, which occur\nin this work, are not in general referred to in the margin; such\nreferences having been considered of no use, except to persons who will\nprobably be furnished with the original, in which they are all inserted.\n\nTHE END\n\n\n\n\n                SCRIPTURE INDEX TO CALVIN\u2019S INSTITUTES.\n\n\nARRANGED AND PRESENTED\n\nBY\n\nS. T. LIVERMORE,\n\nTO THE\n\nPRESBYTERIAN BOARD OF PUBLICATION.\n\nUNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER,\n\nMDCCCLII.\n\nGENESIS.\n\n                       Chapter.   Verse. Vol Page\n                       i               2   1  130\n                                       2   1  139\n                                       3   1  123\n                                      20   1  203\n                                      26   1  174\n                                      27   1  173\n                                      28   1  169\n\n                       ii              1   1  153\n                                       7   1  171\n                                       7   1  177\n                                       7   1  444\n                                 9 16 17   2  469\n                                      17   1  495\n                                      18   2  435\n                                      23   2  631\n                                      23   1  427\n\n                       iii             5   1  242\n                                    9 12   1  564\n                                      15   1  432\n                                      15   1  165\n                                      15   2   46\n                                   17-19   1  392\n                                   19 23   1  171\n                                      23   2  462\n                                      23   1  631\n\n                       iv              4   2   10\n                                       7   1  301\n                                    8 14   1  392\n                                      10   1  495\n                                      13   1  537\n\n                       vi              3   1  392\n                                     3 5   2    3\n                                       5   1  256\n                                       6   1  208\n                                   14-21   1  392\n\n                       vii            11   1  392\n\n                       viii           13   1  392\n                                      21   1  256\n                                      21   2    3\n                                      21   1  259\n\n                       ix              2   1  169\n                                       6   2  643\n                                   12-17   2  469\n                                   24 25   1  393\n\n                       xii             1   1  393\n                                     2 3   2   52\n                                       3   1  429\n                                       3   2  471\n                                   10-15   1  393\n                       xii            17   1  345\n\n                       xiii         7-11   1  393\n                                      16   2   52\n\n                       xiv         12 13   1  393\n                                      18   2  586\n\n                       xv              1   1  407\n                                       1   2  215\n                                       2   1  394\n                                       5   2   52\n                                       6   2   46\n                                      17   2  469\n\n                       xvi          1-15   1  394\n                                       9   1  156\n\n                       xvii         1-14   2  495\n                                       7   1  391\n                                       7   1  347\n                                      10   2  546\n                                      10   2  547\n\n                       xviii           2   1  155\n                                      18   1  429\n                                      23   2   96\n                                      27   1   48\n\n                       xx            1 2   1  393\n                                       3   1  345\n                                     3 7   1  210\n\n                       xxi           2 3   1  394\n                                   10-14   1  394\n                                      24   1  253\n                                   25-30   1  393\n\n                       xxii         1 12   1  632\n                                       2   1  394\n                                       8   1  186\n                                   16-18   2   52\n                                      18   1  429\n                                      18   2  471\n\n                       xxiii         3-9   2  212\n\n                       xxiv            7   1  156\n                                    7 12   1  161\n                                   27 52   1  161\n\n                       xxvi          1 7   1  294\n                                       4   1  429\n                                      20   1  294\n                                      21   1  294\n                                      31   1  353\n                                      34   1  294\n                       xxvi           35   1  294\n\n                       xxvii       38 39   1  559\n                                   41-45   1  395\n\n                       xxviii          5   1  394\n                                      12   1  161\n                                   20-22   2  436\n\n                       xxix        20 23   1  395\n                                   25 27   1  395\n\n                       xxx             1   1  395\n                                       2   1  191\n\n                       xxxi        13 14   1  353\n                                      16   1  353\n                                      17   1  353\n                                      19   1  104\n                                   25 36   1  395\n                                   40 41   1  395\n                                      53   1  353\n\n                       xxxii        1 28   1  155\n                                      10   2   94\n                                      10   2  109\n                                   29 30   1  126\n\n                       xxxiii              1  395\n\n                       xxxiv          19   1  395\n                                      25   2  244\n\n                       xxxv        19 22   1  395\n                                      22   2  244\n\n                       xxxviii     13-18   1  395\n                                      16   2  244\n\n                       xlii                1  396\n\n                       xliii          14   1  282\n                                      14   2  171\n\n                       xlv           7 8   1  203\n\n                       xlvii           9   1  396\n                                      30   1  397\n                                      30   2  212\n\n                       xlviii         14   2  271\n                                      16   1  156\n                                      16   2  107\n\n                       xlix            5   1   84\n                                      10   1   85\n                                      18   1  397\n\n                       l              20   1  203\n                                      25   1  397\n\n\nEXODUS.\n\n                       Chapter.   Verse. Vol Page\n\n                       ii                  2  546\n                                      12   2  644\n\n                       iii             2   2  546\n                                       6   1  341\n                                       6   1  392\n                                      14   1  142\n                                      21   1  202\n\n                       iv            2-4   2  539\n                                      11   1  131\n                                      21   2  192\n                                      21   1  214\n                                      21   1  281\n                                      25   2  492\n\n                       vi              7   1  391\n\n                       vii             1   1  124\n                                       3   1  281\n                                   10 12   2  539\n\n                       viii           15   1  213\n\n                       xi              3   1  282\n\n                       xii             5   2  523\n                                      11   2  546\n                                      11   2  547\n\n                       xiii           12   2  523\n\n                       xiv            19   1  156\n                                      31   2  340\n\n                       xvi             7   1   85\n                                      13   1  190\n\n                       xvii           15   1  125\n\n                       xix             5   2  503\n                                       6   1  314\n                                      16   1   84\n\n                       xx              6   1  392\n                                       6   2  506\n                                      13   2  643\n                                      24   2  227\n\n                       xxi            12   2  643\n                                      13   1  189\n                                      17   1  360\n\n                       xxii            1   2  649\n                                      11   1  351\n\n                       xxiii         1 7   1  369\n                                     4 5   1  377\n                                      12   1  357\n                                      13   1  350\n                                      20   1  156\n\n                       xxiv           18   1   84\n\n                       xxv         17 18   1   99\n                                      40   1  313\n\n                       xxviii              2  100\n\n                       xxxi         2-11   1  247\n                                   13 14   1  355\n                                   16 17   1  355\n\n                       xxxii           1   1  105\n                                       4   1   35\n                                     4-6   1  106\n                                   26-28   2  644\n                                      32   2  120\n\n                       xxxiii         11   1   99\n                                      19   2  159\n                                      19   1  663\n                                      19   2  196\n                                      20   1   99\n\n                       xxxiv           6   1   95\n                                      29   1   84\n\n                       xxxv        30-35   1  247\n\n                       xxxviii        35   2  275\n\n                       xl             34   1   84\n\n\nLEVITICUS.\n\n                       Chapter.   Verse. Vol Page\n\n                       xi                  2  540\n                                      44   1  340\n\n                       xiv             2   1  564\n\n                       xvi            21   1  570\n\n                       xviii           5   1  480\n                                       5   2   13\n                                       5   1  331\n                                       5   2   36\n\n                       xix             2   1  615\n                                      12   1  349\n                                      16   1  369\n                                      18   1  377\n\n                       xx              6   1   85\n\n                       xxvi           12   1  390\n                                      12   1  391\n                                      20   2  130\n                                   23 24   1  204\n                                      26   2  131\n                                      36   1  213\n                                      36   1  283\n\n\nNUMBERS.\n\n                       Chapter.   Verse. Vol Page\n\n                       viii           17   2  523\n\n                       xi              9   1   84\n                                      18   2  139\n                                      31   1  190\n                                      33   2  139\n\n                       xii             1   1   84\n\n                       xiii           22   1  354\n\n                       xiv            18   1  345\n                                      43   1  294\n\n                       xvi            24   1   84\n\n                       xx             11   1   84\n\n                       xxiii          10   1  397\n                                      19   1  209\n                                       4\n                       xxviii          3   2  245\n\n\nDEUTERONOMY\n\n                       Chapter.   Verse. Vol Page\n\n                       i           16 17   2  636\n                                   16 17   2  638\n                                   16 17   2  642\n                                      39   2  509\n\n                       ii             30   1  214\n                                      30   1  280\n                                      30   1  281\n\n                       iv              2   2  355\n                                   5 6 9   1  332\n                                       6   2    9\n                                       7   2  195\n                                      11   1   99\n                                      15   1   98\n                                      17   1  344\n                                      37   2  145\n\n                       v           14 15   1  357\n\n                       vi              5   2   65\n                                      13   1  350\n                                      16   2  435\n                                      25   2   40\n\n                       vii             6   1  340\n                                       6   2  503\n                                     7 8   2  145\n                                       9   2   38\n                                   12 13   2   34\n\n                       viii            3   2  131\n                                       3   1  191\n\n                       ix            6 7   2  146\n\n                       x           12 13   1  373\n                                      14   1  415\n                                   14 15   2  145\n                                      16   2  496\n                                      16   1  291\n\n                       xi             22   1  373\n                                      26   2   34\n\n                       xii             5   2  523\n                                   28 32   2  332\n\n                       xiii           13   2  523\n\n                       xiv             2   1  340\n\n                       xvii         8 12   2  340\n                                      11   2  341\n                                   16 17   2  642\n                                      18   1   87\n                                   19 20   2  642\n\n                       xviii       10-12   1  606\n\n                       xix             5   1  216\n                                   18 19   2  649\n                                   19 21   2   39\n\n                       xxi         18 21   1  361\n\n                       xxiii               2  145\n\n                       xxiv           13   2   40\n\n                       xxvi           18   1  340\n\n                       xxvii          26   1  677\n                                      26   2   13\n                                      26   2   43\n\n                       xxviii          1   1  204\n                                       1   1  293\n\n                       xxix          3 4   1  251\n                                   19 20   2   39\n                                      29   1  197\n                                      29   2  143\n\n                       xxx                 1   81\n                                     3 4   2  244\n                                       6   2  496\n                                   11-14   1  397\n                                   12 14   1  196\n                                      14   2  181\n                                      15   2   34\n                                   15 19   1  315\n\n                       xxxii         8 9   1  415\n                                     8 9   1  145\n                                      15   1  633\n                                      15   1   86\n                                      17   2  449\n                                   46 47   1  324\n\n                       xxxiii          3   1  392\n                                      29   1  391\n\n\nJOSHUA.\n\n                       Chapter.   Verse. Vol Page\n\n                       i             7 8   2   36\n\n                       ii              1   2  190\n\n                       v              13   1  155\n\n                       vii            19   1  350\n\n                       x              13   1  185\n\n                       xxiv            2   1  105\n                                     2 3   2  180\n\n\nJUDGES.\n\n                       Chapter.   Verse. Vol Page\n\n                       ii              1   1  156\n\n                       vi             11   1  155\n                                      11   1  156\n                                      34   1  248\n                                   37-40   2  469\n\n                       viii           27   2  388\n\n                       ix             20   2   94\n\n                       xi          30-40   2  435\n\n                       xiii            3   1  156\n                                    3 22   1  155\n                                      19   2  388\n                                      22   1   48\n                                   22 23   1  125\n\n                       xv             14   1  248\n\n                       xvi            28   2   95\n\n                       xxi            25   2  641\n\n\nRUTH.\n\n                       Chapter.   Verse. Vol Page\n\n                       iii            13   1  353\n\n\n1. SAMUEL.\n\n                       Chapter.   Verse. Vol Page\n\n                       i              13   2  119\n\n                       ii              9   1  401\n                                       6   2  140\n                                      10   1  308\n                                      25   1  215\n                                      25   2  193\n                                      34   1  213\n\n                       vi              9   1  193\n\n                       vii             3   2  538\n                                      17   2  388\n\n                       viii            7   2  639\n                                   11-17   2  658\n\n                       x            6 26   1  249\n\n                       xi              6   1  283\n\n                       xii            22   2  146\n\n                       xiv            45   2  350\n\n                       xv             11   2   96\n                                      11   1  208\n                                      22   1  592\n                                   22 23   2  381\n                                      23   1  595\n                                      29   1  208\n                                      29   1  209\n                                      30   1  537\n\n                       xvi            13   1  249\n                                      14   1  281\n                                      14   1  214\n                                      14   1  164\n\n                       xviii          10   1  164\n                                      19   1  281\n\n                       xix            19   1  281\n\n                       xxiv         6 11   2  660\n\n                       xxvi         9-11   2  660\n                                      12   1  213\n                                      23   2   49\n\n\n2 SAMUEL.\n\n                       Chapter.   Verse. Vol Page\n\n                       v             6-8   2  521\n                                      14   1  593\n                                   27 28   2   93\n                                      27   2   92\n\n                       x              12   1  205\n\n                       xi           4 15   2  244\n\n                       xii            12   1  212\n                                      13   1  570\n                                      13   2  244\n                                   13 14   1  591\n                                   13-16   1  537\n                                      18   1  595\n\n                       xvi            10   1  213\n                                      10   1  203\n                                   10 22   1  217\n                                      22   1  212\n\n                       xvii         7 14   1  202\n                                      14   1  283\n\n                       xx          20 21   2   39\n\n                       xxiv            1   1  165\n                                      10   1  537\n\n\n1 KINGS.\n\n                       Chapter.   Verse. Vol Page\n\n                       i              21   1  652\n\n                       ii            5-9   2  644\n\n                       viii           23   2   38\n                                      27   2  124\n                                   46-50   2  245\n                                      56   1  270\n\n                       xi             13   1  308\n                                      23   1  208\n                                      31   1  213\n                                      39   1  308\n\n                       xii            10   1  283\n                                   10-15   1  202\n                                      15   1  318\n                                      20   1  217\n\n                       xv              4   1  308\n\n                       xviii          10   1  353\n                                      17   1   38\n                                      42   2   78\n\n                       xix            13   1   48\n                                   14 18   1   34\n                                      18   2  223\n\n                       xxi            27   1  559\n\n                       xxii            6   2  358\n                                 6 11-23   2   35\n                                      20   1  164\n                                   20-23   1  212\n                                      22   1  202\n                                   22 24   2  358\n                                      27   2  358\n\n\n2 KINGS.\n\n                       Chapter.   Verse. Vol Page\n\n                       v           17-19   1  523\n\n                       vi          15-17   1  160\n                                      17   1  156\n                                      31   1  350\n\n                       viii           19   1  308\n\n                       x            7-10   1  218\n\n                       xii         13-16   1  537\n\n                       xvi            10   2  387\n\n                       xvii        24-34   2  387\n\n                       xix             4   2   94\n\n                       xx           1  5   1  208\n                                       2   1  537\n                                       3   2   87\n                                       3   2   19\n                                      11   2  470\n                                      11   1  185\n\n                       xxi             4   2  387\n                                      16   2  190\n\n                       xxii            2   2  387\n                                       8   1   87\n\n\n1 CHRONICLES.\n\n                       Chapter.   Verse. Vol Page\n\n                       xxi             1   1  165\n\n\n2 CHRON.\n\n                       Chapter.   Verse. Vol Page\n\n                       x              15   1  218\n\n                       xvii            4   2  387\n\n                       xix           6 7   2  638\n\n\nEZRA.\n\n                       Chapter.   Verse. Vol Page\n\n                       xxxiii      14 15   2   49\n\n\nNEHEMIAH.\n\n                       Chapter.   Verse. Vol Page\n\n                       i               4   2  422\n                                       5   2   38\n\n                       ix             14   1  355\n\n\nJOB.\n\n                       Chapter.   Verse. Vol Page\n\n                       i                   1  279\n                                           1  672\n                                       6   1  164\n                                       6   1  167\n                                      12   1  202\n                                      21   1  212\n                                      21   1  203\n                                      21   1  215\n\n                       ii              1   1  164\n                                       1   1  167\n\n                       iv              6   1  680\n                                      17   1  317\n                                   17 20   1  676\n                                      18   2   43\n                                      19   1  172\n\n                       v              17   1  592\n\n                       ix              2   1  317\n                                     2 3   1  678\n                                      20   1  680\n\n                       x              15   2   16\n\n                       xii            18   2  659\n                                   20 24   1  280\n                                      24   1  249\n\n                       xiii           15   1  402\n                                      15   1  511\n\n                       xiv             4   1  226\n                                       4   1  680\n                                       5   1  193\n                                      17   1  589\n\n                       xv             14   1  317\n                                      15   2   43\n                                   15 16   1  676\n                                      16   1  680\n\n                       xix            25   1  401\n                                   25 27   2  205\n\n                       xxi            13   1  400\n\n                       xxv             4   1  317\n                                     4 6   1  680\n                                       5   2   43\n\n                       xxvi           14   1  197\n\n                       xxviii      21 28   1  197\n                                      28   1  516\n\n                       xli            11   2    6\n\n\nPSALMS.\n\n                       Chapter.   Verse. Vol Page\n\n                       i               1   2   44\n                                       2   1  324\n\n                       ii              1   1  448\n                                       8   1  416\n                                       9   1  452\n                                       9   1   23\n                                   10-13   2  661\n                                   10-13   2  637\n                                      12   1  308\n\n                       iii             5   1  527\n\n                       v               3   2   90\n                                       7   1  513\n                                       7   2   88\n\n                       vi              1   1  593\n\n                       vii             6   2   96\n                                       8   2   48\n                                      11   1  209\n\n                       viii            2   1  186\n                                     2 4   1   59\n\n                       ix             10   1  520\n\n                       x              11   1   55\n\n                       xii             2   2  459\n                                       6   1  505\n\n                       xiv             1   1   55\n                                     1-3   2    3\n\n                       xv              1   2  187\n                                     1 2   1  615\n                                     1 2   2   40\n\n                       xvi             2   1  375\n                                     2 3   1  624\n                                       5   1  407\n                                     5 6   2  215\n                                      10   2  202\n\n                       xvii          1 3   2   48\n                                      15   2  215\n                                      15   1  399\n\n                       xviii           1   2  113\n                                   21 23   2   48\n                                      24   2   48\n                                      27   1  681\n                                      30   2  505\n\n                       xix             1   1   74\n                                       1   1  578\n                                     1 3   1   58\n                                       7   1   93\n                                     7 8   1  324\n                                      12   1  576\n                                      12   1  578\n                                      12   2   36\n\n                       xx              3   2  100\n                                       9   1  309\n\n                       xxii            5   2  108\n                                      25   2  437\n\n                       xxiii           4   1  511\n                                       4   1  518\n                                       4   1  688\n                                       4   1  207\n                                       5   2  108\n                                       6   1  276\n\n                       xxiv          3 4   1  615\n                                       6   2  188\n\n                       xxv             1   2   80\n                                       7   1  551\n                                    7 18   2   85\n                                      10   1  496\n                                   10 11   2   36\n\n                       xxvi          1 4   2   48\n                                    9-11   2   48\n\n                       xxvii         1 3   1  207\n                                      10   2  121\n                                      14   1  508\n\n                       xxviii          8   1  308\n                                     8 9   1  310\n\n                       xxx             5   1  401\n                                     6 7   1  631\n\n                       xxxi            5   2  109\n                                      15   1  207\n                                      22   1  507\n\n                       xxxii         1 2   2   44\n                                      12   1  589\n                                       5   1  570\n                                       6   2   83\n                                       6   2  109\n\n                       xxxiii          6   1  132\n                                    6 13   1  183\n                                      12   1  518\n                                      12   2  146\n                                      12   1  391\n                                      18   2  125\n                                      22   2   90\n\n                       xxxiv         5 6   2  109\n                                       7   2  105\n                                       7   1  156\n                                       7   1  157\n                                      14   1  540\n                                      15   2   87\n                                      15   2   79\n                                      15   2  125\n                                   15 16   1  191\n                                      21   1  397\n                                      22   1  399\n\n                       xxxvi           1   2    3\n                                       1   1   55\n                                       5   1  496\n                                       6   1  196\n                                       9   1  250\n\n                       xxvii           7   1  527\n                                      29   1  407\n\n                       xxxviii         1   1  593\n\n                       xxxix         5-7   1  398\n                                       9   1  203\n                                      12   1  398\n                                      13   2   97\n\n                       xl              3   2  112\n                                       5   1  195\n                                     7 8   1  459\n                                   10 11   1  496\n                                      12   1   66\n\n                       xli             4   2   91\n\n                       xlii            2   2  546\n                                       4   1  569\n                                       5   1  507\n\n                       xliv            3   2  146\n                                      20   2  110\n                                      22   2  110\n\n                       xlv             7   1  450\n                                       7   2  644\n                                      10   1   29\n\n                       xlvi          1 2   1  527\n                                       5   2  223\n\n                       xlvii           4   2  145\n\n                       xlviii         10   2  125\n\n                       xlix            6   1  400\n\n                       l           14 23   2  599\n                                      15   2   91\n                                      15   2   92\n                                      15   2  111\n                                      15   2  571\n                                      15   2  112\n\n                       li              1   1  570\n                                       4   1  663\n                                       4   2  166\n                                       4   1  215\n                                       5   1  551\n                                       5   1  226\n                                       5   2  508\n                                       5   2   86\n                                      10   1  257\n                                      10   1  259\n                                      10   1  271\n                                      15   2  112\n                                      17   2   98\n\n                       lii             8   1  399\n\n                       lv             22   1  201\n                                   22 23   1  400\n\n                       lvi             9   2   90\n                                      12   2  437\n\n                       lix            10   1  276\n\n                       lx             12   2  135\n\n                       lxii            8   2   80\n                                       9   1  261\n\n                       lxiii           3   1  518\n                                       3   2   49\n\n                       lxv             1   2  115\n                                       2   2   92\n                                       4   2  147\n\n                       lxviii         18   1  127\n                                      20   2  205\n\n                       lxix         2 14   1  576\n                                       4   1  460\n                                      21   2  540\n                                      28   2  188\n                                      28   1  401\n\n                       lxxii           8   1  416\n                                   10 11   2  297\n\n                       lxxiii          2   1  399\n                                       2   1  645\n                                   16 17   1  399\n                                      26   1  407\n\n                       lxxiv           9   1  446\n\n                       lxxv          6 7   1  190\n\n                       lxxvii     7 9 10   1  507\n                                      11   1  521\n\n                       lxxviii         8   1  296\n                                   36 37   1  559\n                                      49   1  164\n                                   67 68   2  147\n                                68 70 71   1  308\n\n                       lxxix          13   1  629\n                                   67 68   2  147\n\n                       lxxx            1   2  225\n                                       1   1  341\n                                       3   1  517\n                                       4   2   98\n                                      17   1  309\n\n                       lxxxii          1   2  638\n                                       1   2  661\n                                     1 6   1  636\n                                     3 4   1  642\n                                       6   1  141\n                                       6   1  425\n                                       6   2  523\n                                       6   1  155\n\n                       lxxxiv              2  227\n                                       2   1  407\n                                       7   2  546\n\n                       lxxxvi          2   2   87\n                                      11   1  272\n\n                       lxxxviii       15   1  576\n                                      16   1  596\n\n                       lxxxix        3 4   2  239\n                                   30-33   2  246\n                                   30-33   1  593\n                                   35-37   1  448\n\n                       xc              4   1  533\n                                     7-9   1  596\n\n                       xci             1   1  201\n                                     3-6   1  207\n                                      11   2  105\n                                   11 12   1  155\n                                      12   1  158\n                                      12   1  201\n                                      15   2   93\n\n                       xcii            6   1   66\n                                      12   1  399\n\n                       xciii           5   1   70\n\n                       xciv           11   1  256\n                                      11   2    3\n                                   12 13   1  596\n\n                       xcv             7   1  494\n                                       8   1  296\n\n                       xcvii           7   1  140\n                                   10 11   1  398\n\n                       xcix            1   1  341\n                                       5   2  227\n                                      34   1  256\n\n                       c               3   2  146\n                                       3   1  268\n\n                       ci            3-2   2  642\n                                       8   2  644\n\n                       cii            17   2  112\n                                      25   1  140\n                                   25-28   1  398\n\n                       ciii           17   1  398\n                                      17   1   74\n                                      20   2  128\n                                      20   1  153\n\n                       civ             2   1   58\n                                     3 4   1  190\n                                      15   1  646\n                                   27-30   1  183\n\n                       cv              4   2  227\n                                     6 8   2  146\n                                      25   1  214\n                                      25   1  281\n\n                       cvi             3   2   44\n                                     4 5   2  224\n                                   30 31   2   40\n                                      31   2   41\n                                      39   2   96\n                                      46   1  283\n                                      47   2  112\n\n                       cvii                2   95\n                                      16   1  463\n                                   25 29   1  190\n                                      40   1  213\n                                      40   1  249\n                                      43   1   64\n\n                       cx              1   1  448\n                                       4   2  586\n                                       4   1  408\n                                       4   1  453\n                                       4   1  315\n                                       6   1  452\n\n                       cxi             1   2  459\n                                       2   1  217\n                                      10   1  516\n                                      10   1  265\n                                      10   2    9\n\n                       cxii            1   2   44\n                                       6   1  399\n                                    9 10   1  398\n\n                       cxiii               1  106\n                                           1  107\n                                     5 6   1  189\n                                       7   1   64\n\n                       cxv             3   1  215\n                                       3   2  196\n                                       3   1  211\n                                       3   1  185\n                                       8   1  101\n\n                       cxvi            1   2  113\n                                       3   1  576\n                                       7   1  507\n                                      12   2  112\n                                   14 18   2  437\n                                      15   1  397\n                                      15   1  401\n\n                       cxvii           2   1  496\n\n                       cxviii          6   1  207\n                                      18   1  592\n                                   25 26   1  309\n\n                       cxix                1  259\n                                       1   2   44\n                                      10   2  459\n                                      18   1  252\n                                      34   1  256\n                                      34   1  259\n                                   33-40   1  296\n                                      36   1  270\n                                      41   1  520\n                                      43   1  508\n                                      71   1  592\n                                      76   2   94\n                                   76 77   1  686\n                                     105   1  324\n                                     112   1  296\n                                     133   1  272\n                                     146   1  520\n                                     147   1  520\n\n                       cxxvii          3   1  191\n\n                       cxxx            3   1  676\n                                       3   2   49\n                                       4   2   23\n                                       4   1  535\n\n                       cxxxi         1 2   1  628\n\n                       cxxxii          7   2  227\n                                      11   1  429\n                                      11   1  432\n                                   13 14   2  239\n                                      14   2  225\n\n                       cxxxiii         3   1  407\n\n                       cxxxv          15   1  100\n\n                       cxxxvi         25   1  191\n\n                       cxxxviii        1   2  459\n                                       2   1  496\n                                       8   2  186\n\n                       cxl            13   1  399\n\n                       cxli            2   2  599\n                                       2   2   94\n\n                       cxlii           5   1  407\n                                       7   2  109\n\n                       cxliii          2   2   16\n                                       2   2   49\n                                       2   2   85\n                                       2   1  677\n                                       2   1  317\n                                     3 4   1  576\n                                       5   1  521\n\n                       cxliv               1   65\n                                      15   1  391\n\n                       cxlv                1   96\n                                       6   1   65\n                                     8 9   1  519\n                                       9   2  196\n                                       9   1   63\n                                      18   2   93\n                                      18   2   79\n                                      19   2   80\n                                      19   2   92\n\n                       cxlvii          9   1  189\n                                      10   1  242\n                                      20   2  147\n\n\nPROVERBS.\n\n                       Chapter.   Verse. Vol Page\n\n                       i               7   1  516\n                                       7   2    9\n\n                       ii             22   1  407\n\n                       iii            11   1  592\n                                   11 12   1  634\n\n                       viii           15   2  639\n                                   15 16   2  636\n                                      22   1  444\n\n                       ix             10   2    9\n                                      10   1  516\n\n                       x               7   1  401\n                                      12   1  598\n                                      12   1  591\n\n                       xii            14   2   51\n                                      28   2   49\n\n                       xiii           13   2   51\n\n                       xiv            21   2   44\n                                      26   2   19\n\n                       xv              8   2   10\n\n                       xvi             1   1  296\n                                       1   1  189\n                                       2   1  680\n                                       4   2  169\n                                       6   1  591\n                                       6   1  598\n                                       9   1  199\n                                      12   2  644\n                                      14   2  663\n                                      33   1  190\n\n                       xvii           11   2  644\n                                      15   2  644\n\n                       xviii          10   2   92\n                                      10   1  130\n\n                       xix            17   2   57\n\n                       xx              7   2   49\n                                       7   1  347\n                                       8   2  644\n                                       9   1  685\n                                      12   1  283\n                                      24   1  189\n                                      26   2  644\n                                      28   2  645\n\n                       xxi             1   1  213\n                                       1   1  283\n                                       2   1  680\n\n                       xxii           28   1   29\n\n                       xxiv           21   2  654\n                                      24   2  644\n\n                       xxv             2   2  143\n                                     4 5   2  644\n                                      21   1  377\n                                      27   2  142\n\n                       xxvi           10   2  167\n\n                       xxvii          15   2  644\n\n                       xxviii          2   2  659\n                                      14   1  513\n\n                       xxix           13   1  190\n                                      18   1   23\n\n                       xxx                 1  380\n                                       4   1  443\n                                       5   1  505\n                                      20   1  579\n\n\nECCL.\n\n                       Chapter.   Verse. Vol Page\n\n                       iii            19   1  528\n                                      21   2  206\n\n                       vii            20   1  317\n                                      20   2   10\n                                      29   1  304\n                                      29   1  231\n\n                       ix              1   1  687\n                                     1 2   1  528\n                                       4   2  206\n                                     5 6   1  106\n                                       7   1  171\n\n\nISAIAH.\n\n                       Chapter.   Verse. Vol Page\n\n                       i               3   1   26\n                                      12   2   16\n                                   13 14   2  256\n                                   13-16   2    9\n                                      15   2   84\n                                   16 17   1  540\n                                      18   1  589\n                                   19 20   1  293\n\n                       iii             1   1  191\n                                       1   2  297\n                                       8   1  448\n\n                       iv              2   2   16\n\n                       v               8   2   69\n                                      26   1  213\n                                      26   1  281\n\n                       vi              1   1  140\n                                       2   1   48\n                                       2   1  100\n                                       5   2  341\n                                       6   1  127\n                                       9   2  176\n                                       9   1  132\n                                       9   1   55\n                                    9 10   2  192\n\n                       vii             2   1  508\n                                       4   1  508\n                                      14   1  309\n                                      18   1  281\n\n                       viii        12 13   1   32\n                                      14   1  127\n                                      14   1  140\n                                      16   2  160\n                                      17   1  533\n\n                       ix              6   1  124\n                                       6   1  446\n                                       6   1  687\n                                       6   1  482\n\n                       x             1 2   2  661\n                                       5   1  213\n                                       6   1  214\n                                      15   1  281\n\n                       xi              2   2  137\n                                       2   1  264\n                                       2   1  450\n                                     2 3   2  621\n                                       4   1   23\n                                       9   2  643\n                                      10   1  129\n\n                       xii             1   1  593\n\n                       xiv             1   2  147\n                                      27   1  210\n\n                       xvii           24   2  124\n\n                       xix            18   1  349\n                                      19   2  589\n                                   23 24   2  589\n                                      25   1  213\n\n                       xxiv           23   1   48\n\n                       xxv             1   2  183\n                                       8   1  644\n                                       9   1  143\n                                       9   1  126\n\n                       xxvi            1   1  201\n                                      19   2  204\n                                   19 21   1  403\n                                      21   2  213\n\n                       xxviii         16   1  129\n\n                       xxix           13   2  378\n                                      13   2   84\n                                   13 14   2  386\n                                   13 14   2  116\n                                      14   2  379\n                                      14   1  213\n\n                       xxx            16   1  527\n                                      32   2  218\n\n                       xxxiii      14 15   1  676\n                                   14 15   2   40\n                                      22   1  391\n                                      22   1  452\n                                      22   2  371\n                                      24   2  241\n\n                       xxxv            8   2  239\n                                      10   1  615\n\n                       xxxvii         16   1  341\n                                      35   1  481\n                                      35   2  224\n                                      36   1  156\n\n                       xxxviii       1 5   1  208\n                                       2   1  537\n                                      17   1  589\n                                      20   2  112\n\n                       xxxix           6   1   86\n                                       7   1  345\n                                   13 14   2  379\n\n                       xl            1 3   1  535\n                                       2   1  595\n                                       8   1  390\n                                   10 11   2  630\n                                      14   2  600\n                                      18   1   98\n                                      21   1  101\n                                      21   1  150\n                                   29-31   1  242\n\n                       xli          7 29   1   98\n                                       9   2  147\n\n                       xlii            1   1  466\n                                       1   1  436\n                                       8   1  125\n                                       9   1   87\n                                      10   2  112\n                                      13   2  630\n\n                       xliii          10   1   80\n                                   11 25   1  575\n                                      25   1  585\n                                      25   1  128\n                                      28   1  593\n\n                       xliv            3   1  487\n                                       3   1  242\n                                       3   1  529\n                                       6   1  141\n                                    9-20   1  101\n                                      22   1  589\n\n                       xlv             1   1   86\n                                       7   1  216\n                                       7   1  204\n                                      23   1  140\n                                      23   1  127\n                                   23-25   1  684\n                                      25   2   16\n\n                       xlvi            5   1   98\n\n                       xlvii           6   1  593\n\n                       xlviii         10   1  593\n                                      16   1  130\n\n                       xlix           15   1  121\n                                      23   2  637\n\n                       li              1   1  261\n                                       6   1  398\n                                      23   2  637\n\n                       lii             7   2  261\n\n                       liii            1   2  161\n                                       1   1   81\n                                     2 4   2  542\n                                       4   1  422\n                                       4   1  466\n                                       5   1  314\n                                       5   1  459\n                                       5   1  465\n                                       5   1  480\n                                     5 6   1  586\n                                       6   1  590\n                                       6   1  680\n                                       6   2  190\n                                       6   1  461\n                                       6   1  590\n                                       7   1  458\n                                       8   1  480\n                                      10   1  460\n                                      11   1  658\n                                      12   1  460\n\n                       liv           7 8   1  401\n                                      13   1  494\n                                      13   1   80\n\n                       lv              1   1  242\n                                       1   1  487\n                                       1   2   25\n                                       2   2   16\n                                       2   2  378\n                                       3   1  494\n                                       3   1  310\n                                       4   1  446\n                                     6 7   1  553\n\n                       lvi             1   1  553\n                                       2   1  354\n                                       7   2  115\n                                   10 11   2  356\n                                      15   1  681\n\n                       lviii           5   2  425\n                                       6   1  539\n                                       7   1  624\n                                   13 14   1  356\n\n                       lix           1 2   1  673\n                                   15 16   2    7\n                                      17   1  665\n                                      20   1  553\n                                      20   1  554\n                                      21   1   79\n                                      21   2  225\n                                      21   1   91\n\n                       lx              1   1  261\n                                     6 7   2  297\n                                      16   1  242\n\n                       lxi             1   1  553\n                                       1   1  563\n                                     1 2   1  447\n                                     1-3   1  682\n                                       3   2   17\n\n                       lxiii          10   1  132\n                                      16   2  107\n                                      16   2  121\n                                      17   1  554\n                                      17   1  280\n\n                       lxiv            6   1  515\n                                     5-9   2   85\n\n                       lxv             1   2  180\n                                       2   2  198\n                                      16   1  349\n                                      24   2   92\n                                      25   2  643\n\n                       lxvi            1   2  124\n                                       1   2  116\n                                       2   1  681\n                                      22   1  403\n                                      23   1  356\n                                      24   2  218\n                                      24   1  203\n\n\nJEREMIAH.\n\n                       Chapter.   Verse. Vol Page\n\n                       i               6   2  341\n                                    9 10   2  341\n                                      23   1  281\n                                      25   1  212\n\n                       ii             13   1   24\n                                      28   2  104\n\n                       iii        1 2 12   2  245\n                                       1   1  293\n                                     1 2   1  345\n\n                       iv              1   1  293\n                                   1 3 4   1  539\n                                    2 12   2   94\n                                       4   1  539\n                                       4   1  291\n                                       4   2  510\n                                       9   2  358\n                                       9   1   35\n\n                       v               3   2   10\n                                       3   1  297\n                                       7   1  349\n                                      14   2  192\n\n                       vi             13   2  356\n\n                       vii             4   2  250\n                                     5-7   2   34\n                                   13 14   1  295\n                                   22 23   2  378\n                                   22 23   2  381\n                                      27   1  295\n                                      28   1  295\n                                      29   1  295\n\n                       ix          23 24   1  684\n                                      24   1  130\n                                      24   1   96\n\n                       x               2   1  186\n                                       8   1  102\n                                      11   1  141\n                                      23   1  189\n                                   24 25   1  593\n\n                       xi              7   2  381\n                                     7 8   2   84\n                                      11   2   84\n                                      11   1  558\n                                      13   2  104\n                                      19   2  540\n\n                       xii            16   1  345\n\n                       xiv             7   2   85\n                                      14   2  356\n\n                       xv              1   2  105\n\n                       xvii            1   1  589\n                                       5   1  242\n                                       9   1  261\n                                       9   2    3\n                                   21 22   1  354\n                                      27   1  354\n\n                       xviii          18   2  357\n                                      18   1   35\n\n                       xxii            3   2  642\n                                       3   2  643\n\n                       xxiii         5 6   1  310\n                                       6   1  125\n                                       6   1  658\n                                      16   2  362\n                                      28   2  341\n\n                       xxiv            7   1  251\n\n                       xxv         11 12   1   86\n                                      29   1  595\n\n                       xxvii         5-9   2  659\n                                      12   2  659\n\n                       xxix            7   2  659\n\n                       xxxi        11 18   1  265\n                                   18 19   1  291\n                                   18 19   2  196\n                                      31   1  411\n                                   31-34   1  589\n                                      32   1  293\n                                   33 34   2  131\n                                      33   1  340\n                                   35 36   2  239\n\n                       xxxii          16   2   96\n                                      18   1  345\n                                      23   1  295\n                                      39   1  270\n\n                       xxxiii          8   2  131\n                                      16   1  125\n                                      16   1  658\n\n                       xlii          2 9   2   94\n\n                       xlviii         10   2  638\n\n                       l              20   1  589\n\n\nLAMENTA.\n\n                       Chapter.   Verse. Vol Page\n\n                       iii             8   2   98\n                                      37   1  204\n                                      38   1  204\n\n                       iv             20   1  309\n\n\nEZEKIEL.\n\n                       Chapter.   Verse. Vol Page\n\n                       i              20   2  621\n\n                       ii              3   2  192\n\n                       iii            17   2  341\n                                   17 18   2  265\n\n                       vii            26   2  358\n                                      26   1  213\n\n                       xi             19   1  270\n                                   19 20   1  273\n                                   19 20   1  288\n\n                       xii             2   2  192\n                                      13   1  281\n\n                       xiii            9   2  188\n                                       9   2  224\n\n                       xiv             9   1  214\n                                      14   2  106\n                                      20   2  258\n\n                       xvi            20   2  514\n\n                       xvii           20   1  281\n\n                       xviii           2   1  346\n                                       4   1  331\n                                      20   1  345\n                                      20   1  380\n                                      20   1  588\n                                      21   1  558\n                                   21 22   1  578\n                                      24   2   11\n                                   24-28   1  589\n                                      31   1  539\n\n                       xx             12   1  354\n                                      12   1  355\n                                   43 44   1  684\n\n                       xxii            8   1  354\n                                   25 26   2  356\n                                      28   2  356\n\n                       xxiii          37   2  514\n                                      38   1  354\n\n                       xxviii         10   1  401\n\n                       xxix          3 4   1  208\n                                   18-20   2  657\n\n                       xxxi           18   1  401\n\n                       xxxiii          8   2  241\n                                      11   2  245\n                                      11   2  194\n\n                       xxxiv           4   2  408\n                                   23-25   1  310\n\n                       xxxvi          22   1  679\n                                      25   1  487\n                                      26   1  291\n                                      26   2  196\n                                   26 27   1  267\n                                      27   1  273\n                                      32   2   23\n\n                       xxxvii       1-14   2  205\n                                      18   1  403\n                                   24 26   2  310\n\n                       xlviii      21 22   2  647\n                                      35   1  125\n\n\nDANIEL.\n\n                       Chapter.   Verse. Vol Page\n\n                       ii             21   2  657\n                                      34   1   23\n                                   37 38   2  657\n\n                       iv             17   2  657\n                                      27   1  591\n                                      27   1  598\n\n                       v           18 19   2  658\n\n                       vi             22   2  662\n\n                       vii            10   1  157\n                                      10   1  155\n                                      25   2  335\n\n                       viii           16   1  157\n\n                       ix              5   1  570\n                                      18   2   94\n                                   18 19   2   84\n                                      20   2   85\n                                      21   1  157\n                                      24   1  447\n                                      24   1  453\n                                      26   1  314\n                                      27   2  258\n\n                       x           13 20   1  156\n                                   13 21   1  157\n\n                       xii             1   1  157\n                                       1   1  156\n                                     1 2   1  404\n                                       2   2  210\n                                       3   2  216\n\n\nHOSEA.\n\n                       Chapter.   Verse. Vol Page\n\n                       i               2   1  310\n\n                       ii              2   1  345\n                                   18 19   2  241\n                                   19 23   2    7\n\n                       iii             5   1  513\n                                       5   1  310\n                                      12   1  589\n\n                       v              11   2  663\n                                      15   1  298\n\n                       vi              1   1  536\n\n                       vii             8   1  597\n\n                       viii            4   1  217\n\n                       ix              8   2  356\n\n                       xii             5   1  126\n\n                       xiii           11   1  590\n                                      12   1  589\n\n                       xiv             2   1  590\n                                       2   2  112\n                                       4   2    8\n                                       4   2  599\n\n\nJOEL.\n\n                       Chapter.   Verse. Vol Page\n\n                       ii             12   1  550\n                                      12   1  291\n                                      13   2  424\n                                      13   1  549\n                                      15   2  423\n                                      28   2  589\n                                      28   1  447\n                                      28   1  486\n                                   28-32   1  137\n                                      32   2  224\n                                      32   2  223\n                                      32   2   92\n                                      32   1  130\n\n                       iii            17   2  239\n\n\nAMOS.\n\n                       Chapter.   Verse. Vol Page\n\n                       i               2   1  341\n\n                       iii             6   1  204\n                                       6   1  216\n\n                       iv              7   2  160\n                                       9   1  190\n\n                       v              14   1  293\n\n                       vi              1   2   69\n\n                       viii           11   2  160\n\n                       ix             11   1  310\n\n\nOBADIAH.\n\n                       Chapter.   Verse. Vol Page\n\n                       i              17   2  223\n\n\nJONAH.\n\n                       Chapter.   Verse. Vol Page\n\n                       i               4   1  190\n\n                       ii              9   2  112\n\n                       iii          4 10   1  208\n                                       5   2  423\n                                       5   1  537\n\n\nMICAH.\n\n                       Chapter.   Verse. Vol Page\n\n                       ii             13   1  310\n\n                       iii             6   2  358\n\n                       v               2   1  443\n\n                       vii             9   1  593\n                                      19   1  589\n\n\nHABAKKUK.\n\n                       Chapter.   Verse. Vol Page\n\n                       i              12   1  391\n\n                       ii              4   2   12\n                                      12   1  391\n                                      18   1  102\n                                      18   1   69\n                                      20   1  341\n                                      20   1   69\n                                      20   1   97\n\n                       iii             2   1  593\n                                      13   1  309\n\n\nZEPHANIAH.\n\n                       Chapter.   Verse. Vol Page\n                       i             4 5   1  349\n\n                       iii         11 12   1  681\n\n\nHAGGAI.\n\n                       Chapter.   Verse. Vol Page\n\n                       i            6-11   1  190\n                                   11-14   2    9\n\n\nZECHARIAH.\n\n                       Chapter.   Verse. Vol Page\n\n                       i               3   2  196\n                                       3   1  191\n                                       3   1  292\n\n                       ii              8   1  201\n                                      12   2  147\n\n                       iii          9 10   1  687\n\n                       ix              9   1  310\n                                       9   1  482\n                                      11   1  464\n\n                       xii             4   2  357\n\n                       xiii            9   2   91\n\n                       xiv             9   1  115\n\n\nMALACHI.\n\n                       Chapter.   Verse. Vol Page\n\n                       i             2 3   2  148\n                                       6   1  516\n                                       6   1  340\n                                      11   2  588\n                                      11   2  598\n\n                       ii            1-9   2  251\n                                     4-7   2  341\n                                     5-7   2  355\n                                     8 9   2  339\n\n                       iii             1   1  126\n                                       1   1  159\n                                      17   2   66\n\n                       iv              2   1  380\n                                       2   1  664\n                                       4   2  344\n                                       5   1  385\n                                       6   2  228\n\n\nMATTHEW.\n\n                       Chapter.   Verse. Vol Page\n\n                       i               1   1  429\n                                       5   1  454\n                                      16   1  434\n                                      21   1  434\n\n                       iii           1-6   2  617\n                                       2   1  552\n                                       2   1  538\n                                     2 3   1  535\n                                       6   1  566\n                                    6 11   2  515\n                                    6 11   2  481\n                                      11   2  482\n                                      12   2  218\n                                      12   2  235\n                                      15   1  458\n                                      16   1   99\n                                      16   2  546\n                                      17   1  630\n                                      17   2  183\n                                      17   1  522\n\n                       iv              4   2  131\n                                       6   1  158\n                                       7   2  435\n                                      10   1  114\n                                      11   1  156\n                                      17   1  535\n                                      19   2  521\n\n                       v           3 5 7   2   44\n                                       4   1  636\n                                      10   1  634\n                                      12   2  216\n                                      12   2   51\n                                   12 14   2   96\n                                   13 14   2  261\n                                   13 14   2  295\n                                   13 14   2  342\n                                      16   2   32\n                                   17 18   1  325\n                                      19   1  379\n                                      22   1  363\n                                      22   1  334\n                                   23 24   1  572\n                                      25   1  608\n                                      28   1  334\n                                      34   1  351\n                                   38-40   2  653\n                                   39 40   2  652\n                                      44   1  625\n                                      44   2  653\n                                   44 45   1  377\n                                      45   2   96\n                                      45   2  214\n                                      46   1  377\n                                      48   2  198\n\n                       vi              6   2  114\n                                       7   2  114\n                                       9   2  119\n                                      12   2  243\n                                      12   1  600\n                                      21   2  200\n                                      21   2   56\n                                      23   1  515\n                                      26   1  183\n\n                       vii             6   2  566\n                                       7   2   91\n                                      11   2  121\n                                      12   1  375\n                                      15   2  362\n\n                       viii            4   1  564\n                                      10   1  503\n                                      11   1  404\n                                      11   2  503\n                                      12   2  218\n                                      25   1  510\n                                      29   1  167\n\n                       ix              2   1  503\n                                       2   2   86\n                                       2   1  597\n                                       2   1  574\n                                       5   2  262\n                                       6   1  128\n                                      12   1  422\n                                      13   2    7\n                                      13   1  553\n                                      13   1  682\n                                      15   2  424\n                                      15   1  550\n                                      29   1  583\n                                      29   1  534\n                                      34   1  557\n                                      35   1  382\n\n                       x             5 6   1  416\n                                       8   1  129\n                                      18   1  565\n                                      20   2  609\n                                      28   2  210\n                                      28   1  173\n                                      29   1  183\n                                      29   1  189\n                                   29 30   1  201\n                                      30   1  184\n                                      33   2  246\n\n                       xi              5   1  553\n                                      10   1  552\n                                      11   1  385\n                                      21   1  551\n                                      25   1  524\n                                      27   2  342\n                                      28   1  682\n                                      28   1  563\n                                   28 29   2   61\n                                      29   2   32\n\n                       xii            24   1  557\n                                      29   1  161\n                                      31   1  556\n                                      31   1  132\n                                   31 32   1  555\n                                   31 32   1  556\n                                      32   1  607\n                                      43   1  166\n                                   43-45   1  162\n\n                       xiii         3-23   2  461\n                                     4-7   2  565\n                                       9   2  176\n                                      11   2  193\n                                      16   1  381\n                                      16   1  411\n                                      24   2  235\n                                   25 28   1  163\n                                      29   2  419\n                                   31 33   2  630\n                                      47   2  521\n                                      47   2  235\n\n                       xv            4-6   1  361\n                                       6   2  373\n                                     7-9   2  378\n                                     8 9   2  116\n                                       9   2  386\n                                      13   1  502\n                                      13   1  272\n                                      13   2  185\n                                      13   2  164\n                                      14   2   71\n                                      14   2  362\n                                      24   1  416\n\n                       xvi             6   2  389\n                                      16   2  305\n                                      17   1  250\n                                      17   1  524\n                                      17   1  488\n                                      18   2  304\n                                   18 19   2  302\n                                      19   1  572\n                                      19   2  242\n                                      19   2  396\n                                      23   2  337\n                                      24   1  629\n                                      27   2   50\n                                      27   2   32\n\n                       xvii            5   1  447\n                                       5   2  136\n                                       5   2  344\n                                       5   2  340\n                                       5   1  522\n                                       5   1  630\n                                      11   1  415\n\n                       xviii          10   1  156\n                                      10   1  158\n                                      11   1  422\n                                      15   2  412\n                                   15-17   2  412\n                                   15-18   2  395\n                                      17   2  352\n                                   17 18   2  397\n                                      18   1  574\n                                      18   1  572\n                                      18   2  615\n                                      18   2  342\n                                      18   2  257\n                                      18   2  242\n                                      18   2  303\n                                      18   2  342\n                                      18   1  580\n                                      20   2  116\n                                      20   2  355\n                                      20   2  231\n\n                       xix            11   1  364\n                                      11   2  449\n                                      12   1  365\n                                   13-15   2  449\n                                      15   2  271\n                                      16   2  444\n                                      17   2   60\n                                      17   1  129\n                                      17   1  142\n                                   18 19   1  374\n                                      20   2  445\n                                      21   2  444\n                                   25 26   1  318\n                                      29   2  216\n\n                       xx              1   2   53\n                                   25 26   2  403\n                                   25 26   2  404\n                                      28   1  458\n\n                       xxi             9   1  311\n                                      22   2   88\n                                      25   2  606\n\n                       xxii           12   2  580\n                                      13   2  218\n                                      14   2  185\n                                      30   2  224\n                                      30   1  175\n                                      30   1  158\n                                      32   1  340\n                                      32   2  495\n                                   32-34   1  392\n                                   37-40   1  338\n\n                       xxiii           3   2  388\n                                       4   2  366\n                                    8 10   2  345\n                                       8   2  340\n                                       9   2  122\n                                      12   1  681\n                                      23   1  374\n                                      37   2  197\n\n                       xxiv        11 24   2  356\n                                      14   1  565\n                                      24   1   28\n                                      30   1  473\n                                      36   1  158\n                                      45   2  522\n\n                       xxv         21 29   2   25\n                                      23   1  274\n                                      29   1  274\n                                      31   1  158\n                                      31   1  473\n                                      32   2  214\n                                      34   2  198\n                                      34   2   54\n                                      34   2   52\n                                   34-36   2   51\n                                      40   2   57\n                                      41   1  167\n                                      41   1  162\n\n                       xxvi          3 4   1   35\n                                      11   2  553\n                                   10 12   2  212\n                                   26 28   2  526\n                                   26-28   2  544\n                                      27   2  364\n                                      28   1  479\n                                      28   1  409\n                                      39   1  468\n                                      52   2  211\n                                      53   1  157\n                                      69   2  246\n\n                       xxvii         3 4   1  537\n                                   12 14   2  459\n                                   18 23   1  460\n                                      24   1  460\n                                      46   1  465\n                                      46   1  468\n                                      51   1  326\n                                      52   1  404\n                                      66   2  203\n\n                       xxviii        3-6   2  203\n                                       5   1  156\n                                      11   2  203\n                                      18   2   26\n                                      19   2  480\n                                      19   2  264\n                                      19   2  492\n                                   19 20   2  345\n                                   19 20   2  516\n                                   19 20   2  342\n                                      20   1   33\n                                      20   2  348\n                                      20   2  560\n                                      20   2  231\n                                      20   1  471\n\n\nMARK.\n\n                       Chapter.   Verse. Vol Page\n\n                       i               4   1  552\n                                      15   1  552\n\n                       ii              5   1  503\n\n                       iii            15   1  129\n                                   28 29   1  555\n                                      29   1  132\n\n                       vi             13   2  617\n\n                       viii           38   2  246\n\n                       ix             24   2  459\n                                   43 44   2  218\n\n                       x               9   2   21\n                                   13-16   2  499\n                                      30   2   54\n\n                       xi             21   1  160\n                                      24   2   88\n\n                       xiii           32   1  437\n\n                       xiv         22 24   2  526\n                                   22 24   3  544\n\n                       xv             28   1  460\n\n                       xvi             9   1  162\n                                      15   2  262\n                                      16   2  477\n                                      16   2  516\n                                      19   2  554\n                                      20   1   27\n\n\nLUKE.\n\n                       Chapter.   Verse. Vol Page\n\n                       i               6   2   41\n                                      15   2  509\n                                   19 26   1  157\n                                      32   1  442\n                                      34   2  552\n                                      35   1  440\n                                      43   1  439\n                                      54   1  388\n                                      72   1  388\n                                      72   1  423\n                                      74   2   31\n                                      75   2   31\n                                      77   1  673\n                                      79   1  423\n\n                       ii             34   1   39\n                                      37   2  422\n                                      52   2  436\n\n                       iii             3   1  552\n                                       3   2  481\n                                       3   2  617\n                                      14   2  646\n                                      16   1  487\n                                      16   1  489\n                                      23   2  517\n                                      38   1  426\n\n                       iv             10   1  158\n                                      18   1  553\n                                      18   1  563\n\n                       v              14   1  564\n                                      34   2  424\n                                      35   2  424\n\n                       vi             23   2   51\n                                   24 25   2   69\n\n                       vii            29   1  652\n                                      35   1  652\n                                      39   1  599\n\n                       viii         5-15   2  461\n                                      30   1  162\n                                      47   1  591\n\n                       ix             20   1  450\n                                      23   2   28\n                                      26   1  158\n\n                       x               1   2  263\n                                      16   2  261\n                                      16   2  342\n                                      18   1  166\n                                      20   2  188\n                                      22   2  601\n                                      22   1  490\n                                      24   1  381\n                                      24   1  411\n                                      27   1  338\n                                      27   1  373\n                                      30   1  304\n\n                       xi              2   2  119\n                                      21   1  166\n                                      21   1  161\n                                   39-41   1  599\n                                      46   2  366\n\n                       xii           4 5   1  173\n                                      10   1  132\n                                      10   1  555\n                                      14   2  404\n\n                       xiii           29   2  503\n\n                       xiv            11   1  681\n                                      21   2  521\n\n                       xv              7   1  156\n                                      10   1  158\n                                      11   2  122\n\n                       xvi             2   1  649\n                                       9   2   56\n                                      15   1  652\n                                      15   1  677\n                                      16   1  326\n                                      16   1  410\n                                      16   1  414\n                                      22   1  156\n                                      22   1  158\n                                      22   1  173\n\n                       xviii         3 4   1  625\n                                       5   2  459\n                                       9   2   15\n                                      10   2   23\n                                      10   2   14\n                                      14   1  564\n                                   20 21   1  450\n\n                       xviii          11   2  114\n                                      13   1  682\n                                      13   1  577\n                                      14   1  597\n                                      14   1  653\n                                      14   1  681\n                                   15-17   2  499\n\n                       xix            17   1  274\n                                      26   1  274\n\n                       xx          37 38   2  495\n                                   37-40   1  392\n\n                       xxi            15   2  268\n                                      28   1  644\n\n                       xxii           10   2  572\n                                      17   2  592\n                                      17   2  578\n                                      19   2  264\n                                   19 20   2  526\n                                   19 20   2  544\n                                      20   2  530\n                                      25   2  403\n                                   25 26   2  639\n                                   25 26   2  404\n                                      26   2  403\n                                      43   1  156\n                                      44   1  636\n                                      62   1  597\n\n                       xxiii         2 5   1   38\n                                      40   2  190\n                                      43   2  208\n                                      46   1  171\n\n                       xxiv           11   2  203\n                                      16   2  559\n                                      26   2   57\n                                      26   1  482\n                                      27   1   94\n                                      31   2  559\n                                      39   2  558\n                                      39   1  437\n                                      44   1  609\n                                      45   1  525\n                                      46   1  423\n                                   46 47   1  552\n                                      47   1  423\n                                      51   2  554\n\n\nJOHN.\n\n                       Chapter.   Verse. Vol Page\n\n                       i               1   1  121\n                                    1 14   1  127\n                                       2   1  124\n                                       4   1  176\n                                       4   1  250\n                                       4   1  307\n                                       5   1  244\n                                       9   1  422\n                                      12   1  307\n                                      12   2   25\n                                      12   2  161\n                                   12 13   1  488\n                                   12 14   2  121\n                                      13   1  250\n                                      13   2  161\n                                      14   1  435\n                                      16   1  450\n                                      17   1  327\n                                      18   1  381\n                                      18   1  134\n                                      18   2  561\n                                      18   2  601\n                                      23   1  385\n                                      29   1  384\n                                      29   1  437\n                                      29   1  586\n                                      29   1  458\n                                      29   2  481\n                                      29   1  479\n                                   40-42   2  304\n                                      51   1  382\n                                      51   1  161\n\n                       ii             19   1  439\n                                      19   2  210\n                                      24   1  502\n                                      25   1  502\n\n                       iii           3 5   2  508\n                                       5   2  515\n                                     5 6   1  228\n                                       6   1  260\n                                      13   1  437\n                                      13   2  561\n                                      14   1  423\n                                   15 16   2  184\n                                      16   1  457\n                                      16   1  422\n                                      16   1  482\n                                      16   1  477\n                                      16   2   17\n                                      18   2  516\n                                      23   2  481\n                                      27   1  450\n                                      33   1  497\n                                      34   1  429\n                                      34   1  450\n                                      36   2  520\n\n                       iv              1   2  481\n                                      14   1  487\n                                      22   1   69\n                                      22   1   75\n                                      22   1  307\n                                      23   2  377\n                                      23   2  116\n                                      24   1  144\n                                      25   2  345\n                                      25   1  446\n                                   35-38   2  522\n                                      42   1  493\n                                   50-53   1  493\n\n                       v               8   2  626\n                                      17   1  436\n                                      17   1  123\n                                      17   1  187\n                                      18   1  128\n                                   21-23   1  437\n                                      22   1  475\n                                      24   1  308\n                                      24   2   26\n                                      24   2  184\n                                      24   2  199\n                                      25   2    6\n                                      25   1  305\n                                      25   1  422\n                                      26   2  532\n                                   28 29   2  205\n                                   28 29   2  210\n                                      29   2   50\n                                      32   1  134\n                                      35   1  385\n                                      36   1  129\n                                      46   1  381\n\n                       vi             27   2  475\n                                      27   2   51\n                                      29   2   61\n                                      35   2  530\n                                      33   2  538\n                                   35-58   2  184\n                                35 55-58   2  528\n                                   37 39   2  157\n                                   37 39   2  185\n                                      38   1  437\n                                   39 40   2  162\n                                   39 40   2  213\n                                      44   1  251\n                                      44   2  179\n                                      44   1  273\n                                      44   1  488\n                                   44 45   2  157\n                                   44 45   1  289\n                                   44 65   1  526\n                                      45   1  269\n                                      45   2  194\n                                      45   1  273\n                                      46   2  162\n                                      46   2  179\n                                      47   1  129\n                                   49 51   1  389\n                                      51   2  529\n                                   51 55   2  532\n                                      53   2  530\n                                      54   2  566\n                                      55   1  481\n                                   55-58   2  528\n                                      56   2  567\n                                      56   2  564\n                                      57   1  481\n                                      65   2  175\n                                      70   2  188\n\n                       vii            16   2  342\n                                      16   1  351\n                                      18   1   27\n                                      37   1  487\n                                      37   1  486\n                                   37 38   2  607\n                                   37 39   1  471\n                                      39   2  548\n\n                       viii           12   1  490\n                                      12   1  664\n                                   16 18   1  134\n                                   31 32   1  502\n                                      34   1  259\n                                      44   1  166\n                                      44   1  163\n                                      47   2  253\n                                      50   1   27\n                                      50   1  437\n                                      56   1  381\n                                      56   1  388\n                                      58   1  436\n\n                       ix              3   1  195\n                                       5   1  437\n                                       7   2  618\n                                      24   1  350\n                                      31   2   87\n\n                       x             4 5   2  162\n                                  4 5 14   2  252\n                                    9 11   1  437\n                                      11   2  630\n                                   15 18   1  458\n                                   17 18   1  423\n                                      18   1  351\n                                      26   2  162\n                                      27   2  252\n                                   27-29   2  185\n                                   28 29   2   26\n                                      29   2  162\n                                      30   1  351\n                                      35   2  523\n                                      35   2  636\n                                      37   1  129\n\n                       xi             25   2  214\n                                      25   2  508\n                                      25   1  422\n                                      43   2  626\n                                      44   1  565\n\n                       xii            27   1  423\n                                      27   1  468\n                                   27 28   1  469\n                                      31   1  166\n                                      31   1  161\n                                   37 38   2  193\n                                   39 40   2  193\n                                      41   1  140\n                                      41   1  127\n                                      43   1  659\n\n                       xiii           15   2   32\n                                      18   2  158\n                                      18   2  188\n\n                       xiv             1   1  129\n                                       1   1  311\n                                     2 3   2  553\n                                       6   1  490\n                                       6   2  508\n                                       7   1  529\n                                      10   1  437\n                                   10 11   1  135\n                                      13   2   99\n                                      16   1  134\n                                   16 17   2  348\n                                      17   1  488\n                                      26   2  345\n                                      26   2  351\n                                      28   2  553\n                                      28   1  146\n                                      30   1  165\n\n                       xv              1   1  437\n                                   1 4 5   1  271\n                                     1 5   2  630\n                                       5   1  240\n                                       5   1  287\n                                      16   2  153\n                                      16   2  159\n                                      16   2  228\n                                      19   2  158\n                                      26   1  134\n                                      26   2  351\n\n                       xvi             2   2  254\n                                       7   1  471\n                                       7   2  204\n                                      12   2  352\n                                      13   1   92\n                                      13   1  525\n                                      13   2  351\n                                      13   2  348\n                                      13   2  345\n                                      14   1  252\n                                      20   1  636\n                                      24   2  100\n                                   24 26   2   99\n\n                       xvii            1   1  423\n                                       3   1  145\n                                       3   1   24\n                                       3   1  306\n                                       3   1  491\n                                       3   1  490\n                                       5   1  124\n                                       5   1  436\n                                       6   2  179\n                                    6 12   2  185\n                                       9   2  157\n                                      12   2  188\n                                      15   1  297\n                                      19   1  435\n                                      19   1  430\n                                      19   1  665\n                                      19   1  482\n                                      19   1  433\n\n                       xviii           4   1  458\n                                      36   1  449\n                                      37   2  252\n                                      38   1  460\n\n                       xix            30   2  587\n                                      30   2  596\n\n                       xx             17   1  420\n                                      17   2  559\n                                      22   2  607\n                                      22   2  626\n                                   22 23   2  396\n                                      23   2  303\n                                      23   1  574\n                                      23   2  302\n                                      23   1  572\n                                      23   2  242\n                                      28   1  128\n                                      31   1  494\n\n                       xxi            16   2  302\n                                      18   1  637\n\n\nACTS.\n\n                       Chapter.   Verse. Vol Page\n\n                       i             3 9   2  204\n                                       8   2  268\n                                       9   2  554\n                                      10   1  156\n                                      11   2  551\n                                      11   1  473\n                                      11   2  557\n                                      23   2  269\n                                      23   2  270\n\n                       ii              3   2  482\n                                       4   2  609\n                                      11   2  551\n                                   16-21   1  137\n                                      17   2  601\n                                      23   2  156\n                                      23   1  112\n                                      24   1  465\n                                      24   1  468\n                                      30   1  432\n                                      37   1  537\n                                      37   2  513\n                                      38   2  513\n                                   38 41   2  481\n                                      39   2  506\n                                      41   2  530\n                                      42   2  579\n                                      42   2  540\n                                      42   2  570\n\n                       iii             6   1  129\n                                      15   1  476\n                                      18   1  212\n                                      19   1  553\n                                      21   2  557\n                                      25   1  404\n                                      25   1  429\n                                      25   2  506\n                                      26   1  553\n\n                       iv             12   1  454\n                                      28   1  212\n                                      28   1  216\n                                      32   2  223\n\n                       v             3 4   1  132\n                                      29   2  663\n                                      31   1  553\n                                       4   1  635\n\n                       vi            1-3   2  267\n                                       2   2  404\n                                       6   2  272\n                                      10   1  556\n\n                       vii            44   1  313\n                                      48   2  116\n                                      48   2  228\n                                      49   2  228\n                                      49   2  124\n                                      53   1  158\n                                      55   2  204\n                                      55   2  559\n                                      55   1  472\n                                      56   1  472\n                                      59   1  171\n                                      59   1  130\n\n                       viii        13 18   1  499\n                                   14 15   2  305\n                                   14-17   2  606\n                                   14-17   2  482\n                                      16   2  609\n                                      16   2  480\n                                   16 17   2  523\n                                   17 31   1  523\n                                      19   1  499\n                                      22   2  246\n                                      26   2  523\n                                      37   2  459\n                                      37   2  513\n\n                       ix             13   1  130\n                                      14   1  130\n                                      15   1  678\n                                      17   2  611\n                                      18   2  611\n\n                       x               2   2  189\n                                      25   1  115\n                                      31   1  523\n                                      34   2  173\n                                      34   2   37\n                                      35   2   37\n                                      42   1  474\n                                      43   1  602\n                                      43   1  585\n                                      44   2  486\n                                   44-48   2  523\n                                      48   2  486\n\n                       xi              2   2  305\n                                      18   1  554\n                                      26   2  522\n\n                       xii            15   1  157\n\n                       xiii            2   2  270\n                                     2 3   2  422\n                                       3   2  272\n                                      36   2  106\n                                      38   1  653\n                                      38   1  674\n                                      39   1  653\n                                      39   1  674\n                                      39   1  481\n                                      39   2   26\n                                      43   1  292\n                                      48   2  181\n\n                       xiv             3   1   27\n                                      16   1  415\n                                   16 17   1   70\n                                      21   2  265\n                                      22   2   57\n                                      22   2  212\n                                      22   1  630\n                                      23   2  265\n                                      23   2  269\n                                      23   2  270\n                                      23   2  422\n\n                       xv           6-29   2  305\n                                       8   1  404\n                                       9   2  456\n                                       9   2   10\n                                      10   2  384\n                                      11   1  605\n                                      28   2  380\n                                      29   2  380\n                                      29   2  384\n\n                       xvi             3   2   71\n                                    6-10   2  160\n\n                       xvii            2   1   46\n                                       6   1   38\n                                      24   2  124\n                                      27   1   59\n                                      27   1   65\n                                      27   1   70\n                                      28   1  177\n                                      28   1  183\n                                      28   1  187\n                                      28   1   60\n                                      29   1   99\n                                   30 31   1  539\n\n                       xviii          18   2  624\n\n                       xix           1-6   2  489\n                                     3-5   2  482\n                                       5   2  609\n\n                       xx             10   2  618\n                                      17   2  265\n                                   17 28   2  266\n                                      20   2  264\n                                   20 21   2  242\n                                   20 31   2  412\n                                      21   1  535\n                                      21   1  537\n                                      21   2  264\n                                      26   2  275\n                                      26   2  412\n                                      28   1  658\n                                      28   1  603\n                                      28   1  437\n                                      28   2  291\n                                      28   1  603\n                                      29   2  357\n                                      30   2  357\n                                      31   2  264\n\n                       xxii           16   2  486\n                                      18   2  559\n\n                       xxiii           8   1  173\n                                      12   2  435\n\n                       xxiv            5   1   38\n                                      15   2  215\n                                      16   2   75\n                                      16   2  368\n\n                       xxvi        17 18   1  490\n\n                       xxviii         15   2  311\n                                      25   1  132\n\n\nROMANS.\n\n                       Chapter.   Verse. Vol Page\n\n                       i             1-3   1  387\n                                     1-4   1  442\n                                       3   1  432\n                                       3   1  429\n                                       4   2  621\n                                       4   1  469\n                                       4   1  485\n                                       5   1  497\n                                       5   1  495\n                                       5   1  319\n                                 5 16 17   1  519\n                                      14   1   15\n                                      16   1  384\n                                      16   1   39\n                                   16 17   1  319\n                                      17   1  670\n                                      19   1   70\n                                      20   1   70\n                                      20   1   51\n                                      21   1   69\n                                      22   1   54\n                                      28   1  213\n                                      28   1  214\n\n                       ii              6   2   32\n                                       6   2   50\n                                    9 10   2   50\n                                      11   2  173\n                                      13   2   47\n                                      13   1  667\n                                   14 15   1  253\n                                      15   2   75\n                                      15   1  253\n                                      15   2  368\n                                   25-29   2  474\n\n                       iii          9 19   1  567\n                                      10   1  669\n                                   10-18   1  261\n                                      11   2    3\n                                      19   1  684\n                                      19   1  320\n                                      19   1  387\n                                      20   1  671\n                                      20   1  290\n                                      20   1  319\n                                      21   1  387\n                                      21   1  384\n                                      21   1  670\n                                   21 24   1  671\n                                      23   2   17\n                                      24   2   26\n                                      24   1  653\n                                      24   1  590\n                                      24   1  665\n                                      24   1  590\n                                   24 25   1  458\n                                   24 25   1  480\n                                      25   1  461\n                                      25   2  479\n                                      25   1  665\n                                      26   1  685\n                                      26   1  652\n                                      26   1  683\n                                      27   1  666\n                                      28   1  671\n\n                       iv              2   1  666\n                                       2   1  670\n                                     2 3   1  670\n                                       3   2   41\n                                       4   1  666\n                                     4 5   1  672\n                                       5   1  656\n                                       5   1  652\n                                       5   1  481\n                                     6-8   1  651\n                                     6-8   1  653\n                                     6-8   1  673\n                                       7   2   12\n                                     7 8   2   44\n                                       9   2   12\n                                    9-12   2  504\n                                      11   2  471\n                                      11   2  470\n                                      11   2  510\n                                      11   2  456\n                                      14   1  686\n                                      15   1  671\n                                      15   1  319\n                                      15   1  290\n                                      15   1  671\n                                      16   1  670\n                                      16   1  686\n                                      17   2    6\n                                      21   1  520\n                                      25   1  481\n                                      25   1   26\n                                      25   1  469\n\n                       v               1   1  506\n                                       1   1  688\n                                     3 4   1  631\n                                       5   1  486\n                                       5   1  502\n                                       5   1  688\n                                    6 10   2    7\n                                       8   1  457\n                                    8 10   1  482\n                                    8-10   1  673\n                                    9 10   1  458\n                                      10   1  455\n                                      10   1  457\n                                   10 11   1  478\n                                      12   1  227\n                                      12   1  229\n                                      12   2  214\n                                   12 15   1  437\n                                      16   1  479\n                                   17-20   1  605\n                                      19   1  666\n                                      19   2  479\n                                      19   1  472\n                                      19   1  458\n                                      19   1  659\n                                      19   1  654\n                                      19   1  675\n                                      19   1  224\n                                      19   1  227\n                                      20   1  319\n                                      20   1  290\n                                      20   1   38\n\n                       vi           1 14   1   38\n                                     3 2   2  480\n                                       4   2  516\n                                       4   2  512\n                                       4   2  507\n                                       4   1  356\n                                       4   1  616\n                                     4 5   1  462\n                                     4 5   1  470\n                                     4 6   2   31\n                                     4-6   2  608\n                                    4 11   2  480\n                                     5 6   1  541\n                                       6   1  543\n                                      12   1  545\n                                   12 13   2   66\n                                      13   2  211\n                                      14   2   66\n                                      15   1   38\n                                      18   2   31\n                                   19 21   2  190\n                                      23   1  379\n                                      23   1  380\n                                      23   1  588\n\n                       vii                 1  543\n                                           1  547\n                                       7   1  318\n                                      14   1  334\n                                      18   1  230\n                                   18 19   1  258\n                                      20   1  258\n                                      22   1  259\n                                      23   1  259\n                                      24   1  662\n                                      24   1  642\n\n                       viii            1   1  585\n                                       3   1  586\n                                       3   1  434\n                                       3   1  429\n                                       3   1  423\n                                       3   1  318\n                                       3   1  523\n                                       3   1  461\n                                       3   2   41\n                                     3 4   1  674\n                                     6 7   1  260\n                                     6 7   1  231\n                                       7   1  541\n                                       9   1   13\n                                    9 11   1  529\n                                    9 11   1  486\n                                    9 11   2  536\n                                      10   1  227\n                                      10   1  514\n                                      10   1  487\n                                      11   2  202\n                                      11   2  211\n                                   11 16   1   13\n                                   14 16   1  529\n                                      15   1  440\n                                      15   1  413\n                                      15   1  486\n                                      15   2  621\n                                   15 16   2  178\n                                   15 26   2   77\n                                      17   1  420\n                                   19-23   2  201\n                                      20   1  225\n                                      22   1  225\n                                      23   2   54\n                                      24   1  532\n                                      24   1   53\n                                      24   2  199\n                                      26   2   81\n                                   26 27   2  119\n                                      28   2   29\n                                      29   2   57\n                                      29   1  489\n                                      29   1  487\n                                      29   1  286\n                                      29   1  432\n                                      29   1  616\n                                      29   1  630\n                                      29   2   29\n                                   29 30   2  178\n                                      30   2   51\n                                      30   2  185\n                                      32   2  184\n                                      32   1   24\n                                      32   1  482\n                                      32   1  442\n                                      33   1  652\n                                      33   1  662\n                                      34   1  652\n                                      34   1  101\n                                      34   1  470\n                                      34   1  473\n                                      34   1  474\n                                      35   1  688\n                                   35-39   2  185\n                                      36   1  644\n                                      37   2   19\n                                      38   1  662\n                                      38   1  506\n                                      38   1  530\n                                   38 39   2   29\n                                      39   1  518\n                                      39   1  662\n\n                       ix              3   2  120\n                                       5   1  127\n                                       5   1  429\n                                       5   1  432\n                                       6   2  153\n                                     6-8   2  251\n                                     7 8   2  504\n                                      11   1  515\n                                      11   2  163\n                                   11-13   2  154\n                                      13   2  162\n                                      15   2  156\n                                      16   1  302\n                                      16   1  288\n                                      17   2  193\n                                      18   2  163\n                                      20   2  164\n                                   20 21   2  167\n                                      22   1  166\n                                      22   2  164\n                                      23   2  164\n                                      23   2   28\n                                      24   2  198\n                                      33   1  127\n                                      33   1  140\n\n                       x               3   1  166\n                                       4   1  311\n                                       4   1  315\n                                       4   1   73\n                                       5   2   36\n                                       5   2   13\n                                       5   1  667\n                                   5 6 9   1  669\n                                     6 7   1  196\n                                    7 14   2   89\n                                       8   1  518\n                                       8   1  520\n                                       8   1  297\n                                       8   2  456\n                                      10   1  497\n                                      10   1  491\n                                      11   1  129\n                                   13 14   2   77\n                                      17   2   77\n                                      17   2  347\n                                      17   2  509\n                                      17   2  225\n\n                       xi              2   2  156\n                                       4   2  223\n                                     5 6   2  141\n                                       6   2    7\n                                       8   1  213\n                                      10   1  512\n                                      17   1  485\n                                   17-23   2  185\n                                      29   2  405\n                                      32   1  320\n                                      32   2  174\n                                      32   2  198\n                                      33   1  140\n                                      33   1  196\n                                      34   1  196\n                                      34   2  176\n                                      34   2  600\n                                      34   1  525\n                                      35   2    6\n                                      35   2  153\n                                      35   2  174\n                                      36   1  340\n\n                       xii             1   1  618\n                                       1   2  209\n                                       1   2   32\n                                       1   2  598\n                                       2   1  231\n                                       3   2  435\n                                     3 6   2  496\n                                       6   1   23\n                                       8   2  636\n                                       8   2  395\n                                       8   2  266\n                                      10   1  622\n                                      19   1  377\n                                      21   2  653\n\n                       xiii            1   2  639\n                                       1   2  369\n                                     1 2   2  655\n                                   1 3 4   2  637\n                                     1 5   2   74\n                                       4   2  643\n                                       4   2  650\n                                       5   2  369\n                                       5   2  654\n                                       5   2  367\n                                       6   2  647\n                                       8   1  375\n                                       9   1  378\n                                      14   1  648\n\n                       xiv          1 13   2   70\n                                       5   1  358\n                                     7 8   1  643\n                                   10 11   1  608\n                                   10 11   1  127\n                                      11   1  140\n                                   11 12   2  210\n                                      14   2   67\n                                      17   1  450\n                                   22 23   2   67\n                                      23   2   26\n                                      23   2  434\n                                      23   1  611\n                                      23   2  452\n                                      23   2  448\n                                      23   2  493\n\n                       xv            1 2   2   71\n                                       8   1  523\n                                       8   2  506\n                                      12   1  129\n                                      20   1  165\n                                      25   2  310\n\n                       xvi             7   2  264\n                                      20   1  165\n                                      25   1  384\n                                      26   1  384\n\n\n1 CORINTH.\n\n                       Chapter.   Verse. Vol Page\n\n                       i               9   1  606\n                                      11   2  236\n                                   11 12   2  246\n                                   12 13   2  446\n                                      13   1  603\n                                      20   1  252\n                                      21   1  306\n                                   23 24   2  194\n                                      26   2  173\n                                   29-31   1  684\n                                      30   1  664\n                                      30   1  553\n                                      30   1  461\n                                      30   1  447\n                                      30   1  268\n                                      30   2   25\n                                      30   2   30\n                                      30   1  256\n\n                       ii              1   1  423\n                                       2   1  130\n                                       2   1  490\n                                       2   1  447\n                                       2   1  522\n                                       4   1   82\n                                       4   2  462\n                                       5   1  526\n                                       8   1   69\n                                       8   2  561\n                                       8   1  437\n                                       9   1  252\n                                   10 16   1  525\n                                   10 16   1  131\n                                      11   1  524\n                                      12   2  348\n                                      12   1  528\n                                      13   2  521\n                                      14   1  251\n                                      14   1  525\n                                      16   1  687\n\n                       iii             2   2   72\n                                       3   1  287\n                                       3   2  236\n                                       4   2  246\n                                       7   2  462\n                                       7   1  288\n                                     7 9   2  229\n                                       8   2   51\n                                       9   1  303\n                                   10 11   2   25\n                                      11   2  305\n                                      12   1  609\n                                      16   1  131\n                                   16 17   2   31\n                                      19   1   64\n                                   21 23   1   29\n\n                       iv              1   2  264\n                                       1   2  292\n                                       2   2   49\n                                       4   1  678\n                                       5   1  679\n                                       7   1  622\n                                       7   1  286\n                                       7   2  191\n                                      15   2  228\n\n                       v               1   2  246\n                                       1   2  236\n                                    2 11   2  236\n                                     3 5   2  414\n                                       5   1  527\n                                    6 11   2  414\n                                     7 8   2  588\n                                      12   2  236\n                                      12   2  400\n                                      13   2  421\n\n                       vi            1-8   2  653\n                                       7   2  236\n                                    9-11   1  581\n                                    9-11   2  190\n                                      11   2    8\n                                      11   1  485\n                                      13   2  608\n                                      13   2  441\n                                   13 14   2  211\n                                      15   2  533\n                                      15   2  211\n                                   15 20   2  209\n                                      19   2   31\n                                      19   1  131\n                                   19 20   2  211\n                                      20   1  480\n\n                       vii             5   2  423\n                                     5 6   1  452\n                                   2 7 9   1  365\n                                       9   2  449\n                                    9 34   1  366\n                                      14   2  505\n                                      14   2  521\n                                      19   2  474\n                                      21   2  634\n                                      23   2  663\n                                      23   2   73\n                                   29-31   1  648\n                                   30 31   1  645\n                                      35   2  367\n\n                       viii          4 7   2  385\n                                     5 6   1  128\n                                     5 6   1  452\n                                       6   1  438\n                                       9   2  385\n                                       9   2   71\n\n                       ix                  2   15\n                                       1   2  336\n                                       2   2  228\n                                       5   2  430\n                                      12   2   15\n                                   16 17   2  265\n                                   19 20   2   71\n                                      20   2  624\n                                      22   2   71\n\n                       x            1-11   1  388\n                                       2   2  482\n                                       3   2  473\n                                       4   2  547\n                                       4   2  539\n                                       4   2  546\n                                   11 12   1  512\n                                      12   2  185\n                                      12   1  530\n                                      13   2  134\n                                      16   2  592\n                                      16   2  534\n                                      16   2  540\n                                      16   2  547\n                                   16 17   2  573\n                                      17   2  538\n                                   23 24   2   72\n                                   25 29   2   71\n                                   28 29   2   76\n                                   28 29   2  369\n                                      31   2  129\n                                      32   2   71\n\n                       xi              5   2  391\n                                       7   1  176\n                                      16   2  393\n                                   20-22   2  391\n                                      23   2  570\n                                      23   2  584\n                                   23 25   2  544\n                                   24 25   2  519\n                                      26   2  572\n                                      26   2  540\n                                      26   2  519\n                                      27   2  566\n                                   27 29   2  574\n                                      28   2  575\n                                      28   2  519\n                                   28 29   2  237\n                                      29   2  519\n                                      29   2  567\n                                      31   1  551\n                                      32   1  595\n                                      32   1  633\n\n                       xii             3   1  250\n                                     4 8   1  131\n                                       6   1  268\n                                       6   1  272\n                                       7   2  268\n                                   10-31   1  498\n                                      11   1  133\n                                      11   2  435\n                                      12   2   31\n                                      12   2  548\n                                      13   2  513\n                                      13   2  487\n                                      13   2  458\n                                      28   2  395\n                                      28   2  266\n                                      28   2  636\n\n                       xiii            2   1  498\n                                    2 13   2   58\n                                       3   2  444\n                                     4-8   1  623\n                                       5   1  376\n                                    9 12   1  509\n                                      12   2  601\n                                      12   2  217\n\n                       xiv            15   2  117\n                                      15   2   82\n                                   15 16   2  118\n                                      17   2  118\n                                      26   2  236\n                                      29   2  363\n                                   29 30   2  346\n                                      30   2  234\n                                      33   1   39\n                                      34   2  391\n                                      40   2  236\n                                      40   2  267\n                                      40   2  113\n                                      40   2  390\n                                      40   1  357\n\n                       xv                  1  471\n                                       3   1  458\n                                    3 17   1   26\n                                    6 36   2  204\n                                       8   2  559\n                                      10   1  275\n                                      10   2  229\n                                      12   2  211\n                                      12   2  236\n                                      13   2  202\n                                      13   2  201\n                                   13 14   1  431\n                                   14 17   1  470\n                                      19   2   54\n                                      19   1  644\n                                      22   2  508\n                                      22   1  227\n                                      23   2  203\n                                      24   1  146\n                                   24 28   1  451\n                                   24 28   1  438\n                                      28   1  356\n                                      28   2  127\n                                   39-41   2  213\n                                   41 42   2  630\n                                      45   1  176\n                                      45   1  486\n                                   45 47   1  426\n                                      46   2  521\n                                      47   1  430\n                                      47   1  434\n                                      47   2  551\n                                      50   2  508\n                                      51   1  474\n                                   51 52   2  213\n                                      53   2  213\n                                      54   2  209\n\n                       xvi             7   1  207\n\n\n2 CORINTH.\n\n                       Chapter.   Verse. Vol Page\n\n                       i               1   1  291\n                                       3   2  122\n                                       6   1  605\n                                      12   2   49\n                                      18   2  584\n                                      20   2   99\n                                      20   1  522\n                                      20   1  382\n                                      21   1  527\n                                      22   1  487\n                                      23   1  173\n                                      23   1  350\n                                      24   2  346\n\n                       ii              6   1  573\n                                       7   2  416\n                                       8   2  417\n                                   15 16   1   39\n                                      16   1  289\n\n                       iii             5   1  256\n                                       5   1  267\n                                       5   1  259\n                                       6   1  411\n                                       6   1  488\n                                       6   2  261\n                                       6   2  228\n                                     6 8   2  462\n                                     6 8   1   93\n                                       7   1  319\n                                      14   1  524\n                                   14-16   1  504\n                                      17   1  315\n                                      17   1  240\n                                      18   1  176\n                                      18   1  541\n                                      18   1  510\n                                      18   1  178\n\n                       iv              4   1  161\n                                       4   1  214\n                                       4   1  166\n                                       4   1  278\n                                     4 6   1  382\n                                       5   2  340\n                                       6   1  490\n                                       6   2  227\n                                       7   2  260\n                                       7   2  225\n                                    8-10   2   28\n                                     8 9   1  636\n                                      10   2   58\n                                      10   2  202\n                                      10   2  209\n                                      10   2  211\n                                      13   1  525\n\n                       v             1 8   2  208\n                                       4   1  643\n                                    4 10   1  172\n                                       6   2  199\n                                       6   1  642\n                                     6 8   1  173\n                                      10   2   50\n                                      10   2  209\n                                      10   1  127\n                                      18   2  302\n                                      18   1  519\n                                      18   1  606\n                                   18 19   2   12\n                                   18-20   2  242\n                                   18 19   1  654\n                                      19   1  423\n                                   19 21   1  478\n                                   19 21   1  585\n                                   19 21   1  661\n                                   19 21   1  673\n                                      20   1  589\n                                      21   1  674\n                                      21   1  458\n                                      21   1  460\n                                      21   1  586\n                                      21   1  602\n                                      21   1  654\n                                      21   1  659\n\n                       vi              1   2  229\n                                       8   1  635\n                                      16   1  131\n\n                       vii             1   1  172\n                                       1   1  383\n                                       1   1  296\n                                       1   2  209\n                                       1   2   32\n                                      10   1  540\n                                      10   1  562\n                                      11   1  549\n                                      11   1  547\n\n                       ix              6   2   57\n                                       7   2   32\n\n                       x               4   2  405\n                                     4 5   2\n                                     5 6   2  400\n                                       6   2  302\n                                       8   2  340\n\n                       xi             14   1   28\n\n                       xii             1   1  154\n                                       7   2  567\n                                       7   1  165\n                                     7 9   1  564\n                                     8 9   1  136\n                                       9   1  276\n                                      21   2  246\n                                      21   1  552\n\n                       xiii            4   1  469\n                                       4   1  430\n                                       5   1  529\n                                      10   2  340\n                                      14   1  486\n\n\nGALATIANS.\n\n                       Chapter.   Verse. Vol Page\n\n                       i               1   2  269\n                                       2   2  306\n                                       6   2  246\n                                       6   2  236\n\n                       ii              3   2   71\n                                     3-5   2   72\n                                       8   2  229\n                                       9   2  310\n                                   11 14   2  412\n                                      16   2   35\n                                      17   1   39\n                                      20   1  619\n                                      20   2  631\n                                      21   1  480\n\n                       iii             1   1  104\n                                       1   2  236\n                                       1   2  594\n                                       1   1  246\n                                       2   2  229\n                                       2   2  524\n                                       2   2  523\n                                       6   2   41\n                                       8   1  652\n                                      10   1  317\n                                      10   2   13\n                                      10   1  325\n                                   10 12   1  671\n                                   10-13   1  455\n                                      11   1  667\n                                   11 12   1  669\n                                      13   1  326\n                                      13   1  479\n                                      13   1  586\n                                      13   1  664\n                                      13   2   64\n                                   13 14   1  461\n                                      16   1  307\n                                      16   1  432\n                                      16   2  471\n                                      17   1  672\n                                      18   1  662\n                                      18   1  669\n                                      19   1  158\n                                      19   1  290\n                                      19   1  315\n                                   21 22   1  671\n                                      22   1  437\n                                      22   1  434\n                                      22   1  567\n                                      22   2  174\n                                   23-25   1  494\n                                      24   1  314\n                                      24   1  322\n                                      24   1  410\n                                      24   2  640\n                                   26 27   2  480\n                                      27   2  609\n                                      27   2  512\n                                      27   2  458\n                                      27   1  487\n                                      27   1  485\n                                      28   2  634\n                                      28   2  173\n\n                       iv                  2  250\n                                       1   1  410\n                                     1 2   2  377\n                                     1-3   1  417\n                                       4   1  415\n                                       4   1  428\n                                       4   1  429\n                                       4   1  433\n                                       4   1  664\n                                       4   1  668\n                                       4   2  648\n                                     4 5   1  326\n                                     4 5   1  458\n                                     4 5   1  481\n                                     5 6   1  440\n                                       6   1  500\n                                       6   1  688\n                                       6   2  122\n                                       8   1   56\n                                       8   1  114\n                                       9   2  246\n                                       9   2  374\n                                       9   2  608\n                                   10 11   1  358\n                                      11   2  236\n                                      14   1  375\n                                      14   1  406\n                                      22   1  413\n                                      26   2  221\n                                      30   2   52\n\n                       v               1   2  634\n                                       1   2  373\n                                     1 4   2   73\n                                     1-4   2   64\n                                    1-18   2  372\n                                       5   1  533\n                                       5   2   37\n                                       6   1  672\n                                      13   2   71\n                                      14   1  375\n                                      17   1  317\n                                      19   2  483\n                                      19   2    4\n                                      19   2  229\n\n                       vi                  1  406\n                                       9   2   23\n                                      10   2  123\n                                      10   1  624\n                                      14   1  462\n                                      15   2  474\n                                      17   2  212\n                                      17   2   58\n\n\nEPHESIANS.\n\n                       Chapter.   Verse. Vol Page\n\n                       i             3-5   2   25\n                                       4   2   63\n                                       4   2  175\n                                       4   1  424\n                                     4 5   1  457\n                                     4 5   2  151\n                                     5 6   1  653\n                                     5-7   2   17\n                                       6   1  685\n                                       6   1  522\n                                       6   1  478\n                                       9   2  153\n                                       9   2  454\n                                      13   2   17\n                                      13   1  526\n                                      13   1  488\n                                      13   1  383\n                                   13 14   1  387\n                                   13 14   1  487\n                                   13 14   2  187\n                                   13 14   2  178\n                                      14   1  404\n                                      17   1  252\n                                   17 18   2  348\n                                      18   1  506\n                                   20-22   1  472\n                                   20 22   1  451\n                                      21   1  155\n                                      22   1  425\n                                      22   2  307\n                                      23   2  533\n                                      23   2  123\n                                      23   2  232\n                                      23   1  451\n\n                       ii            1-3   2  189\n                                       2   1  166\n                                       2   1  161\n                                       2   1  278\n                                       3   1  232\n                                       3   1  227\n\n                       iii            12   1  506\n                                      12   1  688\n                                      15   1  443\n                                      17   2  529\n                                      17   1  375\n                                      18   1  504\n                                   18 19   2   19\n                                   18 19   1  424\n\n                       iv            2 3   2  421\n                                       4   2  223\n                                     4 5   2  308\n                                    4-16   2  260\n                                       5   1  132\n                                       5   2  253\n                                  5-7 11   2  308\n                                       7   1  486\n                                       7   1  451\n                                       8   1  127\n                                       8   1  473\n                                      10   1  471\n                                      10   2  308\n                                   10-13   2  225\n                                      11   2  262\n                                   11 13   2  350\n                                   11-16   2  221\n                                      14   2  350\n                                      15   1  487\n                                      15   1  484\n                                   15 16   1  429\n                                   15 16   2  307\n                                   15 16   2  533\n                                   17 18   1  230\n                                   17 18   1  261\n                                      18   2  189\n                                      20   1  617\n                                   20 21   1  494\n                                      22   1  260\n                                      23   1  619\n                                   23 24   1  541\n                                      23   1  260\n                                      23   1  230\n                                      24   1  176\n                                   25 28   2  190\n                                      27   1  165\n                                      30   1  292\n\n                       v               2   1  453\n                                       2   1  481\n                                       6   1  517\n                                       8   2  189\n                                       8   2   31\n                                      14   1  305\n                                      23   2  307\n                                      25   2  660\n                                   25-27   2  238\n                                      26   2  477\n                                      26   1  543\n                                      26   2  513\n                                   26 27   2  349\n                                      27   2  232\n                                   28-32   2  630\n                                      30   1  487\n                                      30   1  420\n                                   30 32   1  428\n                                   30 32   2  533\n\n                       vi              1   2  660\n                                       1   1  361\n                                       9   2  173\n                                      10   1  292\n                                      12   1  161\n                                      12   1  203\n                                   16 18   2   90\n                                      18   2   83\n                                      18   2  101\n                                      19   2  101\n\n\nPHILIPPIANS.\n\n                       Chapter.   Verse. Vol Page\n\n                       i               1   2  340\n                                       1   2  266\n                                       1   2  265\n                                       4   1  256\n                                       6   1  267\n                                       6   2   51\n                                       6   2  185\n                                   15 16   1   38\n                                      20   1  643\n                                      20   1  533\n                                      29   1  481\n                                      29   2    8\n\n                       ii            2 5   2  253\n                                       4   1  622\n                                       6   1  128\n                                     6 7   1  143\n                                       7   2  551\n                                     7 8   1  430\n                                     7 8   1  458\n                                       8   2  472\n                                    8 10   1  438\n                                       9   1  482\n                                    9 10   1  416\n                                    9-11   1  451\n                                      10   1  608\n                                      10   1  143\n                                      11   1  512\n                                      12   2   51\n                                      12   1  296\n                                      13   1  665\n                                      13   1  259\n                                      13   1  275\n                                      13   1  272\n                                      13   1  267\n                                      17   1  495\n                                      20   2  311\n                                      21   2  311\n                                      21   1   38\n\n                       iii           5 6   2  189\n                                     8 9   1  666\n                                    8-11   2  200\n                                      10   1  630\n                                      10   1  469\n                                   10 11   2   58\n                                   10 11   2   29\n                                   12-14   2  349\n                                   13 14   2   14\n                                   14 20   2  200\n                                      15   1  492\n                                      15   2  233\n                                      20   2  554\n                                   20 21   2  212\n                                   20 21   2  558\n                                      21   2  204\n                                      21   2  202\n\n                       iv            5 6   2  125\n                                       6   2  113\n                                   11 12   2   69\n                                      12   1  649\n                                      18   2  598\n                                      56   2  125\n\n\nCOLOSSIANS.\n\n                       Chapter.   Verse. Vol Page\n\n                       i             4 5   1  387\n                                     4 5   2   53\n                                       5   1  383\n                                       5   2  200\n                                       9   1  256\n                                       9   1  257\n                                      12   2  151\n                                      13   2   26\n                                      14   1  480\n                                      14   2   25\n                                      15   1  436\n                                      15   1  427\n                                      15   1  422\n                                      15   1  311\n                                   15-18   1  441\n                                      16   1  155\n                                      16   1  159\n                                   16 18   1  427\n                                      18   2  307\n                                      19   2  345\n                                   19 20   1  477\n                                      20   2   25\n                                      20   1  587\n                                      20   1  159\n                                      21   1  455\n                                      21   2   25\n                                      21   2    7\n                                      22   1  455\n                                      24   1  604\n                                      25   1  605\n                                      26   1  504\n                                      26   1  417\n                                   26 27   2  454\n                                   27 28   2  372\n                                      29   2  229\n\n                       ii              2   1  504\n                                       3   1  423\n                                       3   1  447\n                                       3   1  503\n                                       3   1  664\n                                       3   1  410\n                                       3   2  601\n                                       3   2  345\n                                     3 8   2  372\n                                     4 8   2  388\n                                       8   2  373\n                                       8   2  374\n                                       9   1  655\n                                      10   1  426\n                                      10   2  307\n                                   11 12   2  502\n                                   11 12   2  480\n                                   11 17   2  474\n                                      12   2  211\n                                      12   2  512\n                                   13 14   1  327\n                                      14   1  480\n                                   14 15   1  461\n                                   16 17   1  356\n                                   16 17   1  358\n                                      17   1  408\n                                      17   1  326\n                                      17   2  472\n                                   18 23   2  388\n                                      19   1  446\n                                      20   2  376\n                                      20   2  608\n                                      21   2  376\n                                      22   2  608\n                                      22   2  375\n                                      23   2  372\n                                      23   2  374\n\n                       iii             1   2  570\n                                       1   2   31\n                                     1 2   1  470\n                                     3 4   2  199\n                                     3 5   1  462\n                                       4   2  202\n                                       5   1  470\n                                       6   1  517\n                                      10   1  176\n                                      10   1  541\n                                      11   1  416\n                                      11   2  634\n                                      14   2   58\n                                      14   2  444\n                                      16   2  117\n                                      20   1   36\n                                      21   2  660\n                                      24   2   52\n                                      25   2  173\n\n                       iv             17   2  265\n\n                       v              19   1   94\n\n\n1 THESSALON.\n\n                       Chapter.   Verse. Vol Page\n\n                       i               5   2  229\n\n                       ii              1   2  229\n                                      18   1  207\n                                   19 20   2  216\n\n                       iii            12   1  290\n                                      13   2   50\n\n                       iv            3 7   2   31\n                                     3 7   2   63\n                                     4 7   2  175\n                                   15 16   2  213\n                                      16   1  157\n                                   16 17   1  473\n                                   16 17   1  474\n\n                       v               2   2  630\n                                       9   2   31\n                                   17 18   2  113\n                                      19   2  296\n                                      19   1   94\n                                      23   2  209\n\n\n2 THESSALON.\n\n                       Chapter.   Verse. Vol Page\n\n                       i             5-7   2   57\n                                     6 7   1  645\n                                     6 8   2  205\n                                       9   2  218\n                                      10   2  215\n                                      10   2  205\n                                      11   1  292\n                                      11   1  525\n\n                       ii              3   2  358\n                                     3 4   2  258\n                                       4   2  356\n                                     4 7   2  335\n                                       8   2  127\n                                       9   1   28\n                                    9 11   1  164\n                                   10 11   1   28\n                                   10-12   1  214\n                                   11 12   1  281\n                                      13   1  488\n                                      14   1  387\n\n                       iii          6 11   2  246\n                                       9   1  503\n                                      10   2  518\n                                      12   2  246\n                                      13   2   23\n                                      14   2  214\n                                      15   2  218\n\n\n1 TIMOTHY.\n\n                       Chapter.   Verse. Vol Page\n\n                       i               5   1  290\n                                       5   1  373\n                                    5 19   1  503\n                                    5 19   2  368\n                                    5 19   2   75\n                                    9 10   1  322\n                                      13   1  557\n                                      15   1  424\n                                      17   1  143\n\n                       ii            1 2   2  655\n                                     1 2   2  637\n                                     1 5   2  101\n                                       4   2  195\n                                       5   2   99\n                                       5   1  420\n                                     5 6   1  480\n                                       6   1  461\n                                       6   1  590\n                                       8   2  604\n                                       8   2  209\n                                       8   2  124\n                                       8   2  115\n\n                       iii             1   2  268\n                                       2   2  429\n                                     2 3   2  277\n                                     2-7   2  280\n                                     2-7   2  287\n                                       9   1  503\n                                   14 15   2  350\n                                      15   2  232\n                                      15   2  248\n                                      15   2  349\n                                      16   2  454\n                                      16   1  127\n\n                       iv              1   2  358\n                                     1 3   2  364\n                                     1 3   2  429\n                                     1 6   1  503\n                                       5   2   67\n                                       5   2  112\n                                       6   1  494\n                                       6   1  382\n                                       8   2  130\n                                       8   1  383\n                                      10   1  635\n                                      10   1   24\n                                      13   1   92\n                                      14   2  272\n                                      14   2  626\n                                      16   1  382\n\n                       v               9   2  451\n                                       9   2  266\n                                      10   2  266\n                                      12   2  450\n                                      14   2  451\n                                      17   2  359\n                                      17   2  395\n                                      20   2  412\n                                      21   1  158\n                                      21   1  164\n                                      21   2  167\n                                      22   2  268\n                                      22   2  270\n\n                       vi             16   1  490\n                                      16   1   74\n                                      16   1  216\n                                   17-19   2   56\n                                      20   1  503\n                                      21   1  503\n\n\n2 TIMOTHY.\n\n                       Chapter.   Verse. Vol Page\n\n                       i               1   1  383\n                                       6   2  272\n                                       9   2    6\n                                       9   2   31\n                                       9   2  152\n                                       9   1  424\n                                    9 10   2  246\n                                      10   2  199\n                                      10   1  382\n                                      12   1  520\n                                      12   2  205\n                                      14   1  524\n\n                       ii             10   1  604\n                                   11 12   2   29\n                                      13   1   55\n                                      13   2  121\n                                      19   1   34\n                                      19   2  222\n                                      19   2  230\n                                      19   2  156\n                                      20   2   28\n                                      25   2  196\n                                      25   1  554\n                                      26   1  165\n                                      26   1  554\n\n                       iii             7   1  493\n                                       8   1  503\n                                   16 17   1   92\n                                      17   2   32\n\n                       iv              1   1  474\n                                       8   2   55\n                                       8   2  205\n                                      14   2  216\n                                      16   2  311\n\n\nTITUS.\n\n                       Chapter.   Verse. Vol Page\n\n                       i               1   1  502\n                                       1   2  161\n                                       5   2  265\n                                       5   2  270\n                                       5   2  274\n                                     5 7   2  266\n                                       6   2  429\n                                       7   2  299\n                                       7   2  268\n                                     7 9   2  264\n                                       9   2  274\n                                      13   1  503\n                                      15   2   68\n                                      15   2  441\n                                      15   2  574\n\n                       ii             11   2  246\n                                   11-13   2   31\n                                   11-14   1  621\n                                   12-13   2  199\n                                      13   1  644\n\n                       iii             1   2  655\n                                       2   2  548\n                                       4   1  423\n                                     4 5   1  303\n                                     4 5   2    7\n                                     4-7   2  246\n                                       5   2  511\n                                       5   2  478\n                                       6   2  480\n                                       7   2   26\n                                       7   2    7\n                                       9   1  424\n\n\nHEBREWS.\n\n                       Chapter.   Verse. Vol Page\n\n                       i             1 2   2  344\n                                     1 2   2  601\n                                     1 2   1  446\n                                   1 2 3   1  381\n                                     2 3   1  122\n                                       3   1  251\n                                       3   1  128\n                                       3   1  188\n                                       4   1  158\n                                       6   1  159\n                                    6 10   1  140\n                                    6 10   1  127\n                                      10   1  145\n                                      14   2  105\n\n                       ii              3   1  532\n                                     3 4   1   27\n                                       7   1  138\n                                       9   1  462\n                                       9   1  145\n                                   10 11   1  431\n                                      14   1  431\n                                      14   2  350\n                                      14   1  664\n                                   14 15   1  462\n                                   14 16   1  429\n                                      15   1  466\n                                      16   1  432\n                                      16   1  158\n                                      17   1  429\n\n                       iii            14   1  506\n\n                       iv              9   1  355\n                                      14   2  472\n                                      15   1  467\n                                      15   1  429\n                                      15   1  426\n                                      15   1  420\n                                      15   2  550\n                                      16   1  473\n                                      16   2   99\n                                      16   2   90\n\n                       v               1   1  423\n                                       4   2  597\n                                       4   2  492\n                                     4 5   2  593\n                                       5   2  586\n                                    6 10   2  586\n                                       7   1  465\n                                       8   1  630\n\n                       vi              4   1  500\n                                       4   1  555\n                                     4-6   1  555\n                                     4-6   1  557\n                                      10   2   57\n                                      13   1  350\n                                      16   1  350\n                                      16   1  353\n\n                       vii           1 7   2  587\n                                      12   1  564\n                                   12 17   1  408\n                                   17 21   2  586\n                                      19   1  408\n                                      19   1  409\n                                   20 21   2  408\n                                      22   1  409\n                                      23   2  586\n                                      23   1  408\n                                      24   1  408\n                                      24   2  586\n                                      27   2  587\n\n                       viii            5   1  313\n\n                       ix              9   2  475\n                                   10-14   2  472\n                                      11   2  472\n                                      11   2  586\n                                   12 13   1  479\n                                   12 26   2  587\n                                   13 14   1  409\n                                      14   2   31\n                                      14   1  461\n                                   14 15   1  479\n                                      15   1  328\n                                   16 22   2  590\n                                      22   1  479\n                                      23   2  590\n                                      24   1  473\n                                      25   2  590\n                                      26   1  479\n                                      27   1  474\n                                      27   2  213\n                                      28   1  479\n                                      28   2  201\n\n                       x               1   1  408\n                                     1 2   2  475\n                                     1-4   2  472\n                                     1 4   1  409\n                                       2   2   75\n                                       2   2  368\n                                    3-14   1  328\n                                   10 14   2  587\n                                      14   1  603\n                                      20   2  100\n                                      21   2  586\n                                      26   1  558\n                                   26 27   1  555\n                                      29   2   31\n                                      29   1  555\n                                      36   1  527\n                                      36   1  533\n                                      38   2   56\n\n                       xi              1   1  530\n                                       1   2  199\n                                       2   2   66\n                                       3   1   58\n                                       3   1   70\n                                       3   1  182\n                                       6   2    6\n                                       6   2  125\n                                       6   1  667\n                                       7   1  519\n                                       9   1  396\n                                      13   2   31\n\n                       xii             3   1  548\n                                    5-11   1  592\n                                       8   1  634\n                                       9   1  173\n                                      18   1  413\n                                      22   1  158\n                                      23   1  158\n                                      23   2  208\n\n                       xiii            4   2  430\n                                       8   1  388\n                                      14   2  365\n                                      15   2  113\n                                      15   2  599\n                                      16   2   24\n                                      16   2  598\n                                      16   1  624\n                                      16   1  598\n                                      17   2  362\n                                      17   1  173\n\n                       xiv            18   2  587\n\n\nJAMES.\n\n                       Chapter.   Verse. Vol Page\n\n                       i             5 6   2   89\n                                      12   2   44\n                                   13 14   2  135\n                                      15   1  545\n                                      17   1  252\n                                      17   1  123\n                                      21   2  552\n\n                       ii              5   2  173\n                                      10   2   11\n                                   10 11   2   62\n                                      14   2   45\n                                      14   1  503\n                                      19   1  500\n                                   21-23   2   46\n                                   21 24   2   44\n\n                       iv              3   2   84\n                                       6   1  242\n                                       8   1  549\n                                   11 12   2  371\n\n                       v              12   1  352\n                                      13   2   83\n                                   14 15   2  617\n                                      15   2   89\n                                      16   1  566\n                                      16   1  571\n                                      16   2  110\n                                   17 18   2  108\n\n\n1 PETER.\n\n                       Chapter.   Verse. Vol Page\n\n                       i               2   2  156\n                                       2   2    8\n                                       2   1  485\n                                     3 5   1  469\n                                       5   2   53\n                                    5 21   1  533\n                                       7   1  632\n                                       9   2   54\n                                     8 9   2  200\n                                    9 22   1  173\n                                   10-12   1  381\n                                      11   1  122\n                                      11   1  135\n                                      12   1  159\n                                      12   1  411\n                                      15   2   31\n                                      16   1  615\n                                   18 19   1  480\n                                   18 19   2   73\n                                      20   2  601\n                                      21   1  490\n                                      21   1  469\n                                      22   1  297\n                                      23   2  509\n                                      23   2  228\n                                      23   1  578\n                                   23-25   1  390\n\n                       ii            4 5   2  304\n                                       8   1   39\n                                       9   2  599\n                                       9   1  314\n                                       9   1  685\n                                      11   1  173\n                                      11   2   31\n                                   13 14   2  639\n                                   13 14   2  655\n                                      17   2  639\n                                      17   2  654\n                                      24   1  585\n                                      24   1  586\n                                      24   1  480\n                                      24   1  590\n                                      24   1  461\n                                      25   1  172\n\n                       iii             7   2  660\n                                      18   1  430\n                                      19   1  464\n                                      21   2  478\n                                      21   2   75\n                                      21   2  512\n                                      21   2  474\n                                      21   2  456\n                                      21   2  368\n                                      21   2  478\n\n                       iv              3   2   28\n                                       3   2  190\n                                       8   1  591\n                                       8   1  598\n                                      11   2  345\n                                      14   1  635\n                                      17   1  595\n\n                       v               1   2  305\n                                       2   2  302\n                                     2 3   2  371\n                                       3   2  279\n                                       5   1  680\n                                       7   1  201\n                                       8   1  165\n                                       8   1  161\n                                       9   1  161\n\n\n2 PETER.\n\n                       Chapter.   Verse. Vol Page\n\n                       i               4   2  215\n                                       4   1  661\n                                       4   2  523\n                                       5   1  296\n                                      10   2   29\n                                   13 14   1  172\n                                      14   2  207\n                                      19   1   92\n\n                       ii              1   2  356\n                                       4   1  164\n                                       4   1  167\n                                      19   1  240\n                                      22   1   38\n\n                       iii           4 8   1  533\n                                       9   2  196\n                                      16   1   38\n\n\n1 JOHN.\n\n                       Chapter.   Verse. Vol Page\n\n                       i               1   1  437\n                                       1   1  443\n                                     1-4   2  531\n                                       7   1  602\n                                       7   2  472\n                                       7   1  479\n                                       9   1  570\n                                       9   2   86\n                                      10   2  132\n\n                       ii              1   2  101\n                                       1   2   99\n                                     1 2   1  586\n                                       2   1  477\n                                      12   1  481\n                                      12   1  586\n                                      18   2  601\n                                      19   1  557\n                                      19   2  185\n                                      19   2  186\n                                      20   1  487\n                                      23   1  312\n\n                       iii             1   2  121\n                                       2   2  215\n                                       2   1  661\n                                       2   1  504\n                                       2   2  601\n                                       2   1  383\n                                       8   2   32\n                                       8   1   39\n                                     8 9   2   28\n                                       9   1  297\n                                       9   1  274\n                                      10   2   31\n                                      10   1  166\n                                      15   1  363\n                                      16   1  437\n                                      20   1  577\n                                      22   2   84\n                                      22   2   87\n                                      24   2   26\n                                      24   1  488\n                                      24   1  529\n                                      24   2  180\n\n                       iv              1   2  121\n                                       1   2  362\n                                       3   2  563\n                                      10   1  477\n                                      10   2    8\n                                   10 19   2   31\n                                      11   2   31\n                                      13   1  488\n                                      18   1  516\n                                      19   1  456\n\n                       v               4   1  511\n                                       4   1  215\n                                    4 18   1  297\n                                     7 8   1  485\n                                       8   2  472\n                                      12   2    5\n                                      12   2   26\n                                      14   2   81\n                                      15   2  139\n                                      20   1  146\n                                      20   1  128\n\n\nJUDE.\n\n                       Chapter.   Verse. Vol Page\n\n                                       6   1  164\n                                       6   1  166\n                                       9   1  167\n                                       9   1  157\n                                      20   2   82\n\n\nREVELATIONS.\n\n                       Chapter.   Verse. Vol Page\n\n                       i               5   2  472\n                                       6   1  453\n                                       6   2  599\n\n                       v              13   1  608\n\n                       vii            14   1  603\n                                      17   1  644\n\n                       xiv            13   1  612\n\n                       xix            10   1  114\n                                      10   1  159\n\n                       xx              4   2  206\n\n                       xxi            27   2  508\n\n                       xxii          8 9   1  159\n                                     8 9   1  114\n                                      18   2  355\n                                      19   2  355\n\n\n\n\n \u25cf Transcriber\u2019s Notes:\n    \u25cb Inconsistent spelling and hyphenation were made consistent only\n      when a predominant form was found in this book.\n    \u25cb Text that was in italics is enclosed by underscores (_italics_).\n    \u25cb Footnotes have been moved to follow the chapters in which they are\n      referenced.","title":"Institutes of the Christian Religion (Vol. 2 of 2)","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":337832}