BOOK IV. ON THE EXTERNAL MEANS OR AIDS BY WHICH GOD CALLS US INTO COMMUNION WITH CHRIST, AND RETAINS US IN IT. — ARGUMENT. — CHAPTER I. THE TRUE CHURCH, AND THE NECESSITY OF OUR UNION WITH HER, BEING THE MOTHER OF ALL THE PIOUS. — CHAPTER II. THE TRUE AND FALSE CHURCH COMPARED. — CHAPTER III. THE TEACHERS AND MINISTERS OF THE CHURCH; THEIR ELECTION AND OFFICE. — CHAPTER IV. THE STATE OF THE ANCIENT CHURCH, AND THE MODE OF GOVERNMENT PRACTISED BEFORE THE PAPACY. — CHAPTER V. THE ANCIENT FORM OF GOVERNMENT ENTIRELY SUBVERTED BY THE PAPAL TYRANNY. — CHAPTER VI. THE PRIMACY OF THE ROMAN SEE. — CHAPTER VII. THE RISE AND PROGRESS OF THE PAPAL POWER TO ITS PRESENT EMINENCE, ATTENDED WITH THE LOSS OF LIBERTY TO THE CHURCH, AND THE RUIN OF ALL MODERATION. — CHAPTER VIII. THE POWER OF THE CHURCH RESPECTING ARTICLES OF FAITH, AND ITS LICENTIOUS PERVERSION, UNDER THE PAPACY, TO THE CORRUPTION OF ALL PURITY OF DOCTRINE. — CHAPTER IX. COUNCILS; THEIR AUTHORITY. — CHAPTER X. THE POWER OF LEGISLATION, IN WHICH THE POPE AND HIS ADHERENTS HAVE MOST CRUELLY TYRANNIZED OVER THE MINDS, AND TORTURED THE BODIES, OF MEN. — CHAPTER XI. THE JURISDICTION OF THE CHURCH, AND ITS ABUSE UNDER THE PAPACY. — CHAPTER XII. THE DISCIPLINE OF THE CHURCH; ITS PRINCIPAL USE IN CENSURES AND EXCOMMUNICATION. — CHAPTER XIII. VOWS: THE MISERY OF RASHLY MAKING THEM. — CHAPTER XIV. THE SACRAMENTS. — CHAPTER XV. BAPTISM. — CHAPTER XVI. PÆDOBAPTISM PERFECTLY CONSISTENT WITH THE INSTITUTION OF CHRIST AND THE NATURE OF THE SIGN. — CHAPTER XVII. THE LORD’S SUPPER AND ITS ADVANTAGES. — CHAPTER XVIII. THE PAPAL MASS NOT ONLY A SACRILEGIOUS PROFANATION OF THE LORD’S SUPPER, BUT A TOTAL ANNIHILATION OF IT. — CHAPTER XIX. THE FIVE OTHER CEREMONIES, FALSELY CALLED SACRAMENTS, PROVED NOT TO BE SACRAMENTS; THEIR NATURE EXPLAINED. — CONFIRMATION. — PENANCE. — EXTREME UNCTION. — ECCLESIASTICAL ORDERS. — MATRIMONY. — CHAPTER XX. ON CIVIL GOVERNMENT.
219
Three parts of the Apostles’ Creed, respecting God the Creator, Redeemer,
and Sanctifier, have been explained in the former books.
This last book is an exposition of what remains, relating to the Holy
Catholic Church, and the Communion of Saints.
The chapters contained in it may be conveniently arranged in three
grand divisions:—
I. The Church.
II. The Sacraments.
III. Civil Government.
The First Division, extending to the end of the thirteenth chapter,
contains many particulars, which, however, may all be referred to
four principal heads:—
I. The marks of the Church, or the criteria by which it may be distinguished;
since we must cultivate union with it—Chap. I. II.
II. The government of the church—Chap. III.-VII.
1. The order of government in the church—Chap. III.
2. The form practised by the ancient Christians—Chap. IV.
3. The nature of the present ecclesiastical government under the
220Papacy—Chap. V. The primacy of the Pope—Chap. VI. And
the degrees of his advancement to this tyrannical power—Chap.
VII.
III. The power of the church—Chap. VIII.-XI.
1. Relating to articles of faith,—which resides either in the respective
bishops—Chap. VIII.—or in the church at large,
represented in councils—Chap. IX.
2. In making laws—Chap. X.
3. In ecclesiastical jurisdiction—Chap. XI.
IV. The discipline of the Church—Chap. XII. XIII.
1. The principal use of it—Chap. XII.
2. The abuse of it—Chap. XIII.
The Second Division, relating to the sacraments, contains three parts.
I. The sacraments in general—Chap. XIV.
II. Each sacrament in particular—Chap. XV.-XVIII.
1. Baptism—Chap. XV. Distinct discussion of Pædobaptism—Chap.
XVI.
2. The Lord’s Supper—Chap. XVII.—and its profanation—Chap.
XVIII.
III. The five other ceremonies, falsely called sacraments—Chap. XIX.
The Third Division regards civil government.
I. This government in general.
II. Its respective branches.
1. The magistrates.
2. The laws.
3. The people.
That by the faith of the gospel Christ becomes ours, and
we become partakers of the salvation procured by him, and of
eternal happiness, has been explained in the preceding Book.
But as our ignorance and slothfulness, and, I may add, the
vanity of our minds, require external aids, in order to the production
of faith in our hearts, and its increase and progressive
advance even to its completion, God has provided such aids in
compassion to our infirmity; and that the preaching of the
221gospel might be maintained, he has deposited this treasure
with the Church. He has appointed pastors and teachers, that
his people might be taught by their lips; he has invested them
with authority; in short, he has omitted nothing that could
contribute to a holy unity of faith, and to the establishment of
good order.[703] First of all, he has instituted Sacraments,
which we know by experience to be means of the greatest
utility for the nourishment and support of our faith. For as,
during our confinement in the prison of our flesh, we have not
yet attained to the state of angels, God has, in his wonderful
providence, accommodated himself to our capacity, by prescribing
a way in which we might approach him, notwithstanding
our immense distance from him. Wherefore the order of
instruction requires us now to treat of the Church and its government,
orders, and power; secondly, of the Sacraments; and
lastly, of Civil Government; and at the same time to call off
the pious readers from the abuses of the Papacy, by which
Satan has corrupted every thing that God had appointed to be
instrumental to our salvation. I shall begin with the Church,
in whose bosom it is God’s will that all his children should be
collected, not only to be nourished by her assistance and ministry
during their infancy and childhood, but also to be governed
by her maternal care, till they attain a mature age, and at length
reach the end of their faith. For it is not lawful to “put asunder”
those things “which God hath joined together;”[704] that
the Church is the mother of all those who have him for their
Father; and that not only under the law, but since the coming
of Christ also, according to the testimony of the apostle, who
declares the new and heavenly Jerusalem to be “the mother
of us all.”[705]
II. That article of the Creed, in which we profess to believe
the Church, refers not only to the visible Church of which we
are now speaking, but likewise to all the elect of God, including
the dead as well as the living. The word BELIEVE is used,
because it is often impossible to discover any difference between
the children of God and the ungodly; between his peculiar
flock and wild beasts. The particle IN, interpolated by many,
is not supported by any probable reason. I confess that it is
generally adopted at present, and is not destitute of the suffrage
of antiquity, being found in the Nicene Creed, as it is transmitted
to us in ecclesiastical history. Yet it is evident from
the writings of the fathers, that it was anciently admitted
without controversy to say, “I believe the Church,” not “in
the Church.” For not only is this word not used by Augustine
and the ancient writer of the work “On the Exposition of the
222Creed,” which passes under the name of Cyprian, but they
particularly remark that there would be an impropriety in the
expression, if this preposition were inserted; and they confirm
their opinion by no trivial reason. For we declare that we believe
in God because our mind depends upon him as true, and
our confidence rests in him. But this would not be applicable
to the Church, any more than to “the remission of sins,” or
the “resurrection of the body.” Therefore, though I am
averse to contentions about words, yet I would rather adopt a
proper phraseology adapted to express the subject than affect
forms of expression by which the subject would be unnecessarily
involved in obscurity. The design of this clause is to
teach us, that though the devil moves every engine to destroy
the grace of Christ, and all the enemies of God exert the most
furious violence in the same attempt, yet his grace cannot
possibly be extinguished, nor can his blood be rendered barren,
so as not to produce some fruit. Here we must regard both
the secret election of God, and his internal vocation; because
he alone “knoweth them that are his;” and keeps them enclosed
under his “seal,” to use the expression of Paul;[706]
except that they bear his impression, by which they may be
distinguished from the reprobate. But because a small and
contemptible number is concealed among a vast multitude, and
a few grains of wheat are covered with a heap of chaff, we
must leave to God alone the knowledge of his Church whose
foundation is his secret election. Nor is it sufficient to include
in our thoughts and minds the whole multitude of the
elect, unless we conceive of such a unity of the Church, into
which we know ourselves to be truly ingrafted. For unless
we are united with all the other members under Christ our
Head, we can have no hope of the future inheritance. Therefore
the Church is called CATHOLIC, or universal; because there
could not be two or three churches, without Christ being divided,
which is impossible. But all the elect of God are so
connected with each other in Christ, that as they depend upon
one head, so they grow up together as into one body, compacted
together like members of the same body; being made
truly one, as living by one faith, hope, and charity, through the
same Divine Spirit, being called not only to the same inheritance
of eternal life, but also to a participation of one God and
Christ. Therefore, though the melancholy desolation which
surrounds us, seems to proclaim that there is nothing left of the
Church, let us remember that the death of Christ is fruitful,
and that God wonderfully preserves his Church as it were in
hiding-places; according to what he said to Elijah: “I have
223reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed
the knee to Baal.”[707]
III. This article of the creed, however, relates in some
measure to the external Church, that every one of us may
maintain a brotherly agreement with all the children of God,
may pay due deference to the authority of the Church, and, in
a word, may conduct himself as one of the flock. Therefore
we add THE COMMUNION OF SAINTS—a clause which, though
generally omitted by the ancients, ought not to be neglected,
because it excellently expresses the character of the Church;
as though it had been said that the saints are united in the fellowship
of Christ on this condition, that whatever benefits God
confers upon them, they should mutually communicate to each
other. This destroys not the diversity of grace, for we know
that the gifts of the Spirit are variously distributed; nor does
it disturb the order of civil polity, which secures to every individual
the exclusive enjoyment of his property, as it is necessary
for the preservation of the peace of society that men
should have peculiar and distinct possessions. But the community
asserted is such as Luke describes, that “the multitude of
them that believed were of one heart and of one soul;”[708]
and Paul, when he exhorts the Ephesians to be “one body,
and one spirit, even as they were called in one hope.”[709]
Nor is it possible, if they are truly persuaded that God is a
common Father to them all, and Christ their common Head,
but that, being united in brotherly affection, they should mutually
communicate their advantages to each other. Now, it
highly concerns us to know what benefit we receive from this.
For we believe the Church, in order to have a certain assurance
that we are members of it. For thus our salvation rests
on firm and solid foundations, so that it cannot fall into ruin,
though the whole fabric of the world should be dissolved.
First, it is founded on the election of God, and can be liable
to no variation or failure, but with the subversion of his eternal
providence. In the next place, it is united with the stability
of Christ, who will no more suffer his faithful people to be
severed from him, than his members to be torn in pieces.
Besides, we are certain, as long as we continue in the bosom
of the Church, that we shall remain in possession of the truth.
Lastly, we understand these promises to belong to us: “In
mount Zion shall be deliverance.”[710] God is in the midst of
her; she shall not be moved.“[711] Such is the effect of union
with the Church, that it retains us in the fellowship of God.
The very word communion likewise contains abundant consolation;
224for while it is certain that whatever the Lord confers
upon his members and ours belong to us, our hope is confirmed
by all the benefits which they enjoy. But in order to embrace
the unity of the Church in this manner, it is unnecessary, as
we have observed, to see the Church with our eyes, or feel it
with our hands; on the contrary, from its being an object of
faith, we are taught that it is no less to be considered as existing,
when it escapes our observation, than if it were evident
to our eyes. Nor is our faith the worse, because it acknowledges
the Church which we do not fully comprehend; for we
are not commanded here to distinguish the reprobate from the
elect, which is not our province, but that of God alone; we
are only required to be assured in our minds, that all those
who, by the mercy of God the Father, through the efficacious
influence of the Holy Spirit, have attained to the participation
of Christ, are separated as the peculiar possession and portion
of God; and that being numbered among them, we are partakers
of such great grace.
IV. But as our present design is to treat of the visible
Church, we may learn even from the title of mother, how useful
and even necessary it is for us to know her; since there is
no other way of entrance into life, unless we are conceived by
her, born of her, nourished at her breast, and continually preserved
under her care and government till we are divested of
this mortal flesh, and “become like the angels.”[712] For our
infirmity will not admit of our dismission from her school; we
must continue under her instruction and discipline to the end
of our lives. It is also to be remarked, that out of her bosom
there can be no hope of remission of sins, or any salvation,
according to the testimony of Joel and Isaiah;[713] which is confirmed
by Ezekiel,[714] when he denounces that those whom
God excludes from the heavenly life, shall not be enrolled
among his people. So, on the contrary, those who devote
themselves to the service of God, are said to inscribe their
names among the citizens of Jerusalem. For which reason the
Psalmist says, “Remember me, O Lord, with the favour that
thou bearest unto thy people: O visit me with thy salvation;
that I may see the good of thy chosen; that I may rejoice in
the gladness of thy nation; that I may glory with thine inheritance.”[715]
In these words the paternal favour of God, and
the peculiar testimony of the spiritual life, are restricted to his
flock, to teach us that it is always fatally dangerous to be
separated from the Church.
V. But let us proceed to state what belongs to this subject.
225Paul writes, that Christ, “that he might fill all things, gave
some apostles, and some prophets, and some evangelists, and
some pastors and teachers; for the perfecting of the saints, for
the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge
of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of
the stature of the fulness of Christ.”[716] We see that though
God could easily make his people perfect in a single moment,
yet it was not his will that they should grow to mature age,
but under the education of the Church. We see the means
expressed; the preaching of the heavenly doctrine is assigned
to the pastors. We see that all are placed under the same
regulation, in order that they may submit themselves with
gentleness and docility of mind to be governed by the pastors
who are appointed for this purpose. Isaiah had long before
described the kingdom of Christ by this character: “My Spirit
that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy
mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth
of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed’s seed, from
henceforth and for ever.”[717] Hence it follows, that all who
reject the spiritual food for their souls, which is extended to
them by the hands of the Church, deserve to perish with hunger
and want. It is God who inspires us with faith, but it is
through the instrumentality of the gospel, according to the
declaration of Paul, “that faith cometh by hearing.”[718] So
also the power to save resides in God, but, as the same apostle
testifies in another place, he displays it in the preaching of the
gospel. With this design, in former ages he commanded solemn
assemblies to be held in the sanctuary, that the doctrine
taught by the mouth of the priest might maintain the unity of
the faith; and the design of those magnificent titles, where the
temple is called God’s “rest,” his “sanctuary,” and “dwelling-place,”
where he is said to “dwell between the cherubim,”[719]
was no other than to promote the esteem, love, reverence, and
dignity of the heavenly doctrine; which the view of a mortal
and despised man would otherwise greatly diminish. That
we may know, therefore, that we have an inestimable treasure
communicated to us from earthen vessels,[720] God himself
comes forward, and as he is the Author of this arrangement, so
he will be acknowledged as present in his institution. Therefore,
after having forbidden his people to devote themselves to
auguries, divinations, magical arts, necromancy, and other superstitions,
he adds, that he will give them what ought to be
sufficient for every purpose, namely, that he will never leave
226them without prophets. Now, as he did not refer his ancient
people to angels, but raised up earthly teachers, who truly
discharged the office of angels, so, in the present day, he is
pleased to teach us by the instrumentality of men. And as
formerly he was not content with the written law, but appointed
the priests as interpreters, at whose lips the people might
inquire its true meaning, so, in the present day, he not only
requires us to be attentive to reading, but has appointed teachers
for our assistance. This is attended with a twofold
advantage. For on the one hand, it is a good proof of our
obedience when we listen to his ministers, just as if he were
addressing us himself; and on the other, he has provided for
our infirmity, by choosing to address us through the medium
of human interpreters, that he may sweetly allure us to him,
rather than to drive us away from him by his thunders. And
the propriety of this familiar manner of teaching, is evident to
all the pious, from the terror with which the majesty of God
justly alarms them. Those who consider the authority of the
doctrine as weakened by the meanness of the men who are called
to teach it, betray their ingratitude; because among so many
excellent gifts with which God has adorned mankind, it is a
peculiar privilege, that he deigns to consecrate men’s lips and
tongues to his service, that his voice may be heard in them.
Let us not therefore, on our parts, be reluctant to receive and
obey the doctrine of salvation proposed to us at his express
command; for though the power of God is not confined to external
means, yet he has confined us to the ordinary manner
of teaching, the fanatical rejecters of which necessarily involve
themselves in many fatal snares. Many are urged by pride,
or disdain, or envy, to persuade themselves that they can profit
sufficiently by reading and meditating in private, and so to
despise public assemblies, and consider preaching as unnecessary.
But since they do all in their power to dissolve and
break asunder the bond of unity, which ought to be preserved
inviolable, not one of them escapes the just punishment of this
impious breach, but they all involve themselves in pestilent
errors and pernicious reveries. Wherefore, in order that the
pure simplicity of faith may flourish among us, let us not be
reluctant to use this exercise of piety, which the Divine institution
has shown to be necessary, and which God so repeatedly
commends to us. There has never been found, among the
most extravagant of mortals, one insolent enough to say that
we ought to shut our ears against God; but the prophets and
pious teachers, in all ages, have had a difficult contest with
the wicked, whose arrogance can never submit to be taught
by the lips and ministry of men. Now, this is no other
than effacing the image of God, which is discovered to us in
227the doctrine. For the faithful under the former dispensation
were directed to seek the face of God in the sanctuary;[721] and
this is so frequently repeated in the law, for no other reason,
but because the doctrine of the law and the exhortations of the
prophets exhibited to them a lively image of God; as Paul
declares that his preaching displayed “the glory of God in the
face of Jesus Christ.”[722] And in so much the greater detestation
ought we to hold those apostates, who make it their study
to cause divisions in churches, as if they would drive away the
sheep from the fold, and throw them into the jaws of wolves.
But let us remember what we have quoted from Paul—that
the Church can only be edified by the preaching of this word,
and that the saints have no common bond of union to hold
them together, any longer than, while learning and profiting
with one accord, they observe the order which God has prescribed
for the Church. It was principally for this end, as I
have already stated, that the faithful under the law were commanded
to resort to the sanctuary; because Moses not only
celebrates it as the residence of God, but likewise declares it to
be the place where God has fixed the record of his name;[723]
which without the doctrine of piety, he plainly suggests, would
be of no use. And it is undoubtedly for the same reason that
David complains, with great bitterness of soul, of being prevented
from access to the tabernacle by the tyrannical cruelty
of his enemies.[724] To many persons perhaps this appears to
be a puerile lamentation, because it could be but a very trivial
loss, and not a privation of much satisfaction to be absent from
the court of the temple, provided he were in the possession of
other pleasures. But by this one trouble, anxiety, and sorrow,
he complains that he is grieved, tormented, and almost consumed;
because nothing is more valued by believers than
this assistance, by which God gradually raises his people from
one degree of elevation to another. For it is also to be remarked,
that God always manifested himself to the holy fathers,
in the mirror of his doctrine, in such a manner that their
knowledge of him was spiritual. Hence the temple was
not only called his face, but in order to guard against all superstition,
was also designated as his footstool.[725] And this is
that happy conjunction in the unity of the faith spoken of by
Paul, when all, from the highest to the lowest, are aspiring
towards the head. All the temples which the Gentiles erected
to God with any other design, were nothing but a profanation
of his worship—a crime which, though not to an equal extent,
was also frequently committed by the Jews. Stephen reproaches
228them for it in the language of Isaiah: “The Most
High dwelleth not in temples made with hands; as saith the
prophet, Heaven is my throne, and earth is my footstool,”[726]
because God alone sanctifies temples by his word, that they
may be legitimately used for his worship. And if we presumptuously
attempt any thing without his command, the evil
beginning is immediately succeeded by further inventions,
which multiply the mischief without end. Xerxes, however,
acted with great indiscretion, when, at the advice of the magi,
he burned or demolished all the temples of Greece, from an
opinion of the absurdity that gods, to whom all space ought to
be left perfectly free, should be enclosed within walls and
roofs. As if it were not in the power of God to descend in any
way to us, and yet at the same time not to make any change
of place, or to confine us to earthly means, but rather to use
them as vehicles to elevate us towards his celestial glory,
which fills all things with its immensity, as well as transcends
the heavens in its sublimity.
VI. Now, as the present age has witnessed a violent dispute
respecting the efficacy of the ministry, some exaggerating its
dignity beyond measure, and others contending that it is a
criminal transfer to mortal man of what properly belongs to
the Holy Spirit, to suppose that ministers and teachers penetrate
the mind and heart, so as to correct the blindness of the one,
and the hardness of the other,—we must proceed to a decision of
this controversy. The arguments advanced on both sides may
be easily reconciled by a careful observation of the passages, in
which God, the Author of preaching, connecting his Spirit with
it, promises that it shall be followed with success; or those in
which, separating himself from all external aids, he attributes
the commencement of faith, as well as its subsequent progress,
entirely and exclusively to himself. The office of the second
Elias, according to Malachi, was to illuminate the minds and to
“turn the hearts of the fathers to the children,” and the disobedient
to the wisdom of the just.[727] Christ declares that he
sent his disciples, that they “should bring forth fruit”[728] from
their labours. What that fruit was, is briefly defined by Peter,
when he says that we are “born again, not of corruptible seed,
but of incorruptible.”[729] Therefore Paul glories that he had
“begotten” the Corinthians “through the gospel,” and that
they were “the seal of his apostleship;”[730] and even that he
was “not a minister of the letter,” merely striking the ear with
a vocal sound, but that the energy of the Spirit had been given
to him to render his doctrine efficacious.[731] In the same sense,
229he affirms, in another Epistle, that his “gospel came not in word
only, but also in power.”[732] He declares also to the Galatians,
that they “received the Spirit by the hearing of faith.”[733] In
short, there are several places, in which he not only represents
himself as a “labourer together with God,”[734] but even attributes
to himself the office of communicating salvation. He
certainly never advanced all these things, in order to arrogate to
himself the least praise independent of God, as he briefly states
in other passages: “Our entrance in unto you was not in vain.”[735]
“I labour, striving according to his working, which worketh in
me mightily.”[736] “He that wrought effectually in Peter to the
apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me
toward the Gentiles.”[737] Besides, it is evident, from other
places, that he leaves ministers possessed of nothing, considered
in themselves: “Neither is he that planteth any thing, neither
he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase.”[738]
Again: “I laboured more abundantly than they all; yet not I,
but the grace of God which was with me.”[739] And it is certainly
necessary to bear in memory those passages, in which
God ascribes to himself the illumination of the mind and renovation
of the heart, and thereby declares it to be sacrilege for
man to arrogate to himself any share in either. Yet every one
who attends with docility of mind to the ministers whom God
has appointed, will learn from the beneficial effect, that this
mode of teaching has not in vain been pleasing to God, and
that this yoke of modesty has not without reason been imposed
upon believers.
VII. From what has been said, I conceive it must now be
evident what judgment we ought to form respecting the Church,
which is visible to our eyes, and falls under our knowledge.
For we have remarked that the word Church is used in the sacred
Scriptures in two senses. Sometimes, when they mention
the Church, they intend that which is really such in the sight of
God, into which none are received but those who by adoption and
grace are the children of God, and by the sanctification of the
Spirit are the true members of Christ. And then it comprehends
not only the saints at any one time resident on earth, but all the
elect who have lived from the beginning of the world. But the
word Church is frequently used in the Scriptures to designate the
whole multitude, dispersed all over the world, who profess to
worship one God and Jesus Christ, who are initiated into his
faith by baptism, who testify their unity in true doctrine and
charity by a participation of the sacred supper, who consent to
230the word of the Lord, and preserve the ministry which Christ
has instituted for the purpose of preaching it. In this Church
are included many hypocrites, who have nothing of Christ but
the name and appearance; many persons ambitious, avaricious,
envious, slanderous, and dissolute in their lives, who are tolerated
for a time, either because they cannot be convicted by a
legitimate process, or because discipline is not always maintained
with sufficient vigour. As it is necessary, therefore, to believe
that Church, which is invisible to us, and known to God alone,
so this Church, which is visible to men, we are commanded to
honour, and to maintain communion with it.
VIII. As far, therefore, as was important for us to know it,
the Lord has described it by certain marks and characters. It
is the peculiar prerogative of God himself to “know them that
are his,”[740] as we have already stated from Paul. And to guard
against human presumption ever going to such an extreme, the
experience of every day teaches us how very far his secret judgments
transcend all our apprehensions. For those who seemed
the most abandoned, and were generally considered past all hope,
are recalled by his goodness into the right way; while some,
who seemed to stand better than others, fall into perdition.
“According to the secret predestination of God,” therefore, as
Augustine observes, “there are many sheep without the pale
of the Church, and many wolves within.” For he knows and
seals those who know not either him or themselves. Of those
who externally bear his seal, his eyes alone can discern who
are unfeignedly holy, and will persevere to the end; which
is the completion of salvation. On the other hand, as he saw
it to be in some measure requisite that we should know who
ought to be considered as his children, he has in this respect
accommodated himself to our capacity. And as it was not
necessary that on this point we should have an assurance of
faith, he has substituted in its place a judgment of charity,
according to which we ought to acknowledge as members of
the Church all those who by a confession of faith, an exemplary
life, and a participation of the sacraments, profess the same God
and Christ with ourselves. But the knowledge of the body
itself being more necessary to our salvation, he has distinguished
it by more clear and certain characters.
IX. Hence the visible Church rises conspicuous to our view.
For wherever we find the word of God purely preached and
heard, and the sacraments administered according to the institution
of Christ, there, it is not to be doubted, is a Church of
God; for his promise can never deceive—“where two or three
are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of
231them.”[741] But, that we may have a clear understanding of
the whole of this subject, let us proceed by the following steps:
That the universal Church is the whole multitude, collected
from all nations, who, though dispersed in countries widely
distant from each other, nevertheless consent to the same truth
of Divine doctrine, and are united by the bond of the same
religion; that in this universal Church are comprehended
particular churches, distributed according to human necessity
in various towns and villages; and that each of these respectively
is justly distinguished by the name and authority of a
church; and that individuals, who, on a profession of piety, are
enrolled among Churches of the same description, though they
are really strangers to any particular Church, do nevertheless in
some respect belong to it, till they are expelled from it by a
public decision. There is some difference, however, in the mode
of judging respecting private persons and churches. For it
may happen, in the case of persons whom we think altogether
unworthy of the society of the pious, that, on account of the
common consent of the Church, by which they are tolerated in
the body of Christ, we may be obliged to treat them as brethren,
and to class them in the number of believers. In our private opinion
we approve not of such persons as members of the Church,
but we leave them the station they hold among the people of
God, till it be taken away from them by legitimate authority.
But respecting the congregation itself, we must form a different
judgment. If they possess and honour the ministry of the word,
and the administration of the sacraments, they are, without
all doubt, entitled to be considered as a Church; because it is
certain that the word and sacraments cannot be unattended
with some good effects. In this manner, we preserve the unity
of the universal Church, which diabolical spirits have always
been endeavouring to destroy; and at the same time without
interfering with the authority of those legitimate assemblies,
which local convenience has distributed in different places.
X. We have stated that the marks by which the Church
is to be distinguished, are, the preaching of the word and the
administration of the sacraments. For these can nowhere exist
without bringing forth fruit, and being prospered with the
blessing of God. I assert not that wherever the word is
preached, the good effects of it immediately appear; but that it
is never received so as to obtain a permanent establishment,
without displaying some efficacy. However this may be,
where the word is heard with reverence, and the sacraments
are not neglected, there we discover, while that is the case, an
appearance of the Church, which is liable to no suspicion of
232uncertainty, of which no one can safely despise the authority,
or reject the admonitions, or resist the counsels, or slight the
censures, much less separate from it and break up its unity.
For so highly does the Lord esteem the communion of his
Church, that he considers every one as a traitor and apostate
from religion, who perversely withdraws himself from any
Christian society which preserves the true ministry of the word
and sacraments. He commends the authority of the Church,
in such a manner as to account every violation of it an infringement
of his own. For it is not a trivial circumstance, that the
Church is called “the house of God, the pillar and ground of
truth.”[742] For in these words Paul signifies that in order to
keep the truth of God from being lost in the world, the Church
is its faithful guardian; because it has been the will of God,
by the ministry of the Church, to preserve the pure preaching
of his word, and to manifest himself as our affectionate Father,
while he nourishes us with spiritual food, and provides all
things conducive to our salvation. Nor is it small praise, that
the Church is chosen and separated by Christ to be his spouse,
“not having spot or wrinkle,”[743] to be “his body, the fulness
of him that filleth all in all.”[744] Hence it follows, that a
departure from the Church is a renunciation of God and Christ.
And such a criminal dissension is so much the more to be
avoided, because, while we endeavour, as far as lies in our
power, to destroy the truth of God, we deserve to be crushed
with the most powerful thunders of his wrath. Nor is it
possible to imagine a more atrocious crime, than that sacrilegious
perfidy, which violates the conjugal relation that the
only begotten Son of God has condescended to form with us.
XI. Let us, therefore, diligently retain those characters impressed
upon our minds, and estimate them according to the
judgment of God. For there is nothing that Satan labours
more to accomplish, than to remove and destroy one or both of
them; at one time to efface and obliterate these marks, and so
to take away all true and genuine distinction of the Church; at
another to inspire us with contempt of them, and so to drive
us out of the Church by an open separation. By his subtlety
it has happened, that in some ages the pure preaching of the
word has altogether disappeared; and in the present day he is
labouring with the same malignity to overturn the ministry;
which, however, Christ has ordained in his Church, so that if it
were taken away, the edification of the Church would be quite
at an end. How dangerous, then, how fatal is the temptation,
when it even enters into the heart of a man to withdraw himself
from that congregation, in which he discovers those signs
233and characters which the Lord has deemed sufficiently descriptive
of his Church! We see, however, that great caution requires
to be observed on both sides. For, to prevent imposture
from deceiving us, under the name of the Church, every congregation
assuming this name should be brought to that proof,
like gold to the touchstone. If it have the order prescribed by
the Lord in the word and sacraments, it will not deceive us;
we may securely render to it the honour due to all churches.
On the contrary, if it pretend to the name of a Church, without
the word and sacraments, we ought to beware of such delusive
pretensions, with as much caution as, in the other case,
we should use in avoiding presumption and pride.
XII. When we affirm the pure ministry of the word, and
pure order in the celebration of the sacraments, to be a sufficient
pledge and earnest, that we may safely embrace the society
in which both these are found, as a true Church, we carry
the observation to this point, that such a society should never
be rejected as long as it continues in those things, although in
other respects it may be chargeable with many faults. It is
possible, moreover, that some fault may insinuate itself into the
preaching of the doctrine, or the administration of the sacraments,
which ought not to alienate us from its communion.
For all the articles of true doctrine are not of the same description.
Some are so necessary to be known, that they
ought to be universally received as fixed and indubitable principles,
as the peculiar maxims of religion; such as, that there is
one God; that Christ is God and the Son of God; that our
salvation depends on the mercy of God; and the like. There
are others, which are controverted among the churches, yet
without destroying the unity of the faith. For why should
there be a division on this point, if one church be of
opinion, that souls, at their departure from their bodies, are
immediately removed to heaven; and another church venture
to determine nothing respecting their local situation, but be
nevertheless firmly convinced, that they live to the Lord; and
if this diversity of sentiment on both sides be free from all
fondness for contention and obstinacy of assertion? The language
of the apostle is, “Let us therefore, as many as be perfect,
be thus minded; and if in any thing ye be otherwise minded,
God shall reveal even this unto you.”[745] Does not this sufficiently
show, that a diversity of opinion respecting these nonessential
points ought not to be a cause of discord among
Christians? It is of importance, indeed, that we should agree
in every thing; but as there is no person who is not enveloped
with some cloud of ignorance, either we must allow of no
234church at all, or we must forgive mistakes in those things, of
which persons may be ignorant, without violating the essence
of religion, or incurring the loss of salvation. Here I would
not be understood to plead for any errors, even the smallest, or
to recommend their being encouraged by connivance or flattery.
But I maintain, that we ought not, on account of every
trivial difference of sentiment, to abandon the Church, which
retains the saving and pure doctrine that insures the preservation
of piety, and supports the use of the sacraments instituted
by our Lord. In the mean time, if we endeavour to correct
what we disapprove, we are acting in this case according to our
duty. And to this we are encouraged by the direction of Paul:
“If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the
first hold his peace.”[746] From which it appears, that every
member of the Church is required to exert himself for the
general edification, according to the measure of his grace, provided
he do it decently and in order; that is to say, that we
should neither forsake the communion of the Church, nor, by
continuing in it, disturb its peace and well regulated discipline.
XIII. But in bearing with imperfections of life, we ought
to carry our indulgence a great deal further. For this is a
point in which we are very liable to err, and here Satan lies in
wait to deceive us with no common devices. For there have
always been persons, who, from a false notion of perfect sanctity,
as if they were already become disembodied spirits, despised
the society of all men in whom they could discover any
remains of human infirmity. Such, in ancient times, were the
Cathari, and also the Donatists, who approached to the same
folly. Such, in the present day, are some of the Anabaptists,
who would be thought to have made advances in piety beyond
all others. There are others who err, more from an inconsiderate
zeal for righteousness, than from this unreasonable
pride. For when they perceive, that among those to whom
the gospel is preached, its doctrine is not followed by correspondent
effects in the life, they immediately pronounce, that
there no church exists. This is, indeed, a very just ground of
offence, and one for which we furnish more than sufficient
occasion in the present unhappy age; nor is it possible to excuse
our abominable inactivity, which the Lord will not suffer
to escape with impunity, and which he has already begun to
chastise with heavy scourges. Woe to us, therefore, who, by
the dissolute licentiousness of our crimes, cause weak consciences
to be wounded on our account! But, on the other
hand, the error of the persons of whom we now speak, consists
in not knowing how to fix any limits to their offence. For
235where our Lord requires the exercise of mercy, they entirely
neglect it, and indulge themselves in immoderate severity.
Supposing it impossible for the Church to exist, where there is
not a perfect purity and integrity of life, through a hatred of
crimes they depart from the true Church, while they imagine
themselves to be only withdrawing from the factions of the
wicked. They allege, that the Church of Christ is holy.
But that they may also understand, that it is composed of good
and bad men mingled together, let them hear that parable from
the lips of Christ, where it is compared to a net, in which
fishes of all kinds are collected, and no separation is made till
they are exposed on the shore.[747] Let them hear another
parable, comparing the Church to a field, which, after having
been sown with good seed, is, by the craft of an enemy, corrupted
with tares, from which it is never cleared till the harvest
is brought into the barn.[748] Lastly, let them hear another
comparison of the Church to a threshing-floor, in which
the wheat is collected in such a manner, that it lies concealed
under the chaff, till, after being carefully purged, by winnowing
and sifting, it is at length laid up in the garner.[749] But
if our Lord declares, that the Church is to labour under this
evil, and to be encumbered with a mixture of wicked men,
even till the day of judgment, it is vain to seek for a Church
free from every spot.
XIV. But they exclaim, that it is an intolerable thing that
the pestilence of crimes so generally prevails. I grant it would
be happy if the fact were otherwise; but in reply, I would
present them with the judgment of the apostle. Among the
Corinthians, more than a few had gone astray, and the infection
had seized almost the whole society; there was not only
one species of sin, but many; and they were not trivial faults,
but dreadful crimes; and there was not only a corruption of
morals, but also of doctrine. In this case, what is the conduct
of the holy apostle, the organ of the heavenly Spirit, by whose
testimony the Church stands or falls? Does he seek to separate
from them? Does he reject them from the kingdom of
Christ? Does he strike them with the thunderbolt of the
severest anathema? He not only does none of these things,
but, on the contrary, acknowledges and speaks of them as a
Church of Christ and a society of saints. If there remained a
church among the Corinthians, where contentions, factions,
and emulations were raging; where cupidity, disputes, and
litigations were prevailing; where a crime held in execration
even among the Gentiles, was publicly sanctioned; where the
name of Paul, whom they ought to have revered as their father,
236was insolently defamed; where some ridiculed the doctrine
of the resurrection, with the subversion of which the
whole gospel would be annihilated; where the graces of God
were made subservient to ambition, instead of charity; where
many things were conducted without decency and order;[750]
and if there still remained a Church, because the ministry of
the word and sacraments was not rejected—who can refuse
the name of a Church to those who cannot be charged with a
tenth part of those crimes? And those who display such violence
and severity against the Churches of the present age, I
ask, how would they have conducted themselves towards the
Galatians, who almost entirely deserted the gospel, but among
whom, nevertheless, the same apostle found Churches?[751]
XV. They object that Paul bitterly reproves the Corinthians
for admitting an atrocious offender into their company, and
follows this reproof with a general declaration, that with a
man of scandalous life it is not lawful even to eat.[752] Here
they exclaim, If it be not lawful to eat common bread with him,
how can it be lawful to unite with him in eating the bread of
the Lord? I confess it is a great disgrace, if persons of immoral
lives occupy places among the children of God; and if
the sacred body of Christ be prostituted to them, the disgrace is
vastly increased. And, indeed, if Churches be well regulated,
they will not suffer persons of abandoned characters among
them, nor will they promiscuously admit the worthy and the
unworthy to that sacred supper. But because the pastors are
not always so diligent in watching over them, and sometimes
exercise more indulgence than they ought, or are prevented
from exerting the severity they would wish, it happens that
even those who are openly wicked are not always expelled
from the society of the saints. This I acknowledge to be a
fault, nor have I any inclination to extenuate it, since Paul
sharply reproves it in the Corinthians. But though the Church
may be deficient in its duty, it does not therefore follow that it
is the place of every individual to pass judgment of separation
for himself. I admit that it is the duty of a pious man to withdraw
himself from all private intimacy with the wicked, and
not to involve himself in any voluntary connection with them.
But it is one thing to avoid familiar intercourse with the
wicked; and another thing, from hatred of them, to renounce
the communion of the Church. And persons who deem it
sacrilege to participate with them the bread of the Lord, are in
this respect far more rigid than Paul. For when he exhorts us
to a pure and holy participation of it, he requires not one to
237examine another, or every one to examine the whole Church,
but each individual to prove himself. If it were unlawful to
communicate with an unworthy person, Paul would certainly
have enjoined us to look around us, to see whether there were
not some one in the multitude by whose impurity we might be
contaminated. But as he only requires every one to examine
himself, he shows that it is not the least injury to us if some
unworthy persons intrude themselves with us. And this is
fully implied in what he afterwards subjoins: “He that eateth
and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to
himself.”[753] He says, not to others, but to himself, and with
sufficient reason. For it ought not to be left to the judgment
of every individual who ought to be admitted into the Church,
and who ought to be expelled from it. This authority belongs
to the whole Church, and cannot be exercised without legitimate
order, as will be stated more at large hereafter. It would be
unjust, therefore, that any individual should be contaminated
with the unworthiness of another, whose approach it is neither
in his power nor his duty to prevent.
XVI. But though this temptation sometimes arises even to
good men, from an inconsiderate zeal for righteousness, yet we
shall generally find that excessive severity is more owing to
pride and haughtiness, and a false opinion which persons entertain
of their own superior sanctity, than to true holiness, and a
real concern for its interests. Those, therefore, who are most
daring in promoting a separation from the Church, and act, as
it were, as standard-bearers in the revolt, have in general no
other motive than to make an ostentatious display of their own
superior excellence, and their contempt of all others. Augustine
correctly and judiciously observes—“Whereas the pious rule
and method of ecclesiastical discipline ought principally to regard
the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace, which the apostle
enjoined to be preserved by mutual forbearance, and which not
being preserved, the medicinal punishment is evinced to be not
only superfluous, but even pernicious, and therefore to be no
longer medicinal; those wicked children, who, not from a
hatred of the iniquities of others, but from a fondness for their
own contentions, earnestly endeavour to draw the simple and
uninformed multitude wholly after them, by entangling them
with boasting of their own characters, or at least to divide them;
those persons, I say, inflated with pride, infuriated with obstinacy,
insidious in the circulation of calumnies, and turbulent in
raising seditions, conceal themselves under the mask of a rigid severity,
lest they should be proved to be destitute of the truth;
238and those things which in the Holy Scriptures are commanded to
be done with great moderation, and without violating the sincerity
of love, or breaking the unity of peace, for the correction of
the faults of our brethren, they pervert to the sacrilege of schism,
and an occasion of separation from the Church.” To pious and
peaceable persons he gives this advice: that they should correct
in mercy whatever they can; that what they cannot, they should
patiently bear, and affectionately lament, till God either reform
and correct it, or, at the harvest, root up the tares and sift out
the chaff. All pious persons should study to fortify themselves
with these counsels, lest, while they consider themselves as
valiant and strenuous defenders of righteousness, they depart
from the kingdom of heaven, which is the only kingdom of
righteousness. For since it is the will of God that the communion
of his Church should be maintained in this external
society, those who, from an aversion to wicked men, destroy
the token of that society, enter on a course in which they are
in great danger of falling from the communion of saints. Let
them consider, in the first place, that in a great multitude there
are many who escape their observation, who, nevertheless, are
truly holy and innocent in the sight of God. Secondly, let
them consider, that of those who appear subject to moral maladies,
there are many who by no means please or flatter themselves
in their vices, but are oftentimes aroused, with a serious
fear of God, to aspire to greater integrity. Thirdly, let them
consider that judgment ought not to be pronounced upon a man
from a single act, since the holiest persons have sometimes most
grievous falls. Fourthly, let them consider, that the ministry
of the word, and the participation of the sacraments, have
too much influence in preserving the unity of the Church,
to admit of its being destroyed by the guilt of a few impious
men. Lastly, let them consider, that in forming an estimate
of the Church, the judgment of God is of more weight than
that of man.
XVII. When they allege that there must be some reason
why the Church is said to be holy, it is necessary to examine
the holiness in which it excels; lest by refusing to admit the
existence of a Church without absolute and sinless perfection,
we should leave no Church in the world. It is true, that, as
Paul tells us, “Christ loved the Church, and gave himself for
it, that he might sanctify and cleanse it, by the washing of water
by the word, that he might present it to himself a glorious
Church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing.”[754] It
is nevertheless equally true, that the Lord works from day to
day in smoothing its wrinkles, and purging away its spots;
239whence it follows, that its holiness is not yet perfect. The
Church, therefore, is so far holy, that it is daily improving,
but has not yet arrived at perfection; that it is daily advancing,
but has not yet reached the mark of holiness; as in
another part of this work will be more fully explained. The
predictions of the prophets, therefore, that “Jerusalem shall
be holy, and there shall no strangers pass through her any
more,” and that the way of God shall be a “way of holiness,
over which the unclean shall not pass,”[755] are not
to be understood as if there were no blemish remaining in
any of the members of the Church; but because they aspire
with all their souls towards perfect holiness and purity, the
goodness of God attributes to them that sanctity to which they
have not yet fully attained. And though such evidences of
sanctification are oftentimes rarely to be found among men, yet
it must be maintained, that, from the foundation of the world,
there has never been a period in which God had not his Church
in it; and that, to the consummation of all things, there never
will be a time in which he will not have his Church. For
although, in the very beginning of time, the whole human race
was corrupted and defiled by the sin of Adam; yet, from this
polluted mass, God always sanctifies some vessels to honour, so
that there is no age which has not experienced his mercy.
This he has testified by certain promises, such as the following:
“I have made a covenant with my chosen: I have sworn unto
David, my servant, Thy seed will I establish for ever, and build
up thy throne to all generations.”[756] Again: “The Lord
hath chosen Zion; he hath desired it for his habitation. This
is my rest for ever.”[757] Again: “Thus saith the Lord, which
giveth the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the
moon and of the stars for a light by night: If those ordinances
depart from before me, saith the Lord, then the seed of Israel
also shall cease from being a nation before me for ever.”[758]
XVIII. Of this truth Christ himself, the apostles, and almost
all the prophets, have given us an example. Dreadful are those
descriptions in which Isaiah, Jeremiah, Joel, Habakkuk, and
others, deplore the disorders of the Church of Jerusalem. There
was such general and extreme corruption in the people, in the
magistrates, and in the priests, that Isaiah does not hesitate to
compare Jerusalem to Sodom and Gomorrah. Religion was
partly despised, partly corrupted. Their manners were generally
disgraced by thefts, robberies, treacheries, murders, and
similar crimes. Nevertheless, the prophets on this account
neither raised themselves new churches, nor built new altars
240for the oblation of separate sacrifices; but whatever were the
characters of the people, yet because they considered that
God had deposited his word among that nation, and instituted
the ceremonies in which he was there worshipped, they lifted
up pure hands to him even in the congregation of the impious.
If they had thought that they contracted any contagion from
these services, surely they would have suffered a hundred deaths
rather than have permitted themselves to be dragged to them.
There was nothing therefore to prevent their departure from
them, but the desire of preserving the unity of the Church.
But if the holy prophets were restrained by a sense of duty
from forsaking the Church on account of the numerous and
enormous crimes which were practised, not by a few individuals,
but almost by the whole nation,—it is extreme arrogance in us,
if we presume immediately to withdraw from the communion
of a Church where the conduct of all the members is not compatible
either with our judgment, or even with the Christian
profession.
XIX. Now, what kind of an age was that of Christ and his
apostles? Yet the desperate impiety of the Pharisees, and the
dissolute lives every where led by the people, could not prevent
them from using the same sacrifices, and assembling in the same
temple with others, for the public exercises of religion. How
did this happen, but from a knowledge that the society of the
wicked could not contaminate those who with pure consciences
united with them in the same solemnities? If any one pay no
deference to the prophets and apostles, let him at least acquiesce
in the authority of Christ. Cyprian has excellently
remarked, “Although tares, or impure vessels, are found in the
Church, yet this is not a reason why we should withdraw from
it. It only behoves us to labour that we may be the wheat, and
to use our utmost endeavours and exertions, that we may be
vessels of gold or of silver. But to break in pieces the vessels
of earth belongs to the Lord alone, to whom a rod of iron is also
given. Nor let any one arrogate to himself what is exclusively
the province of the Son of God, by pretending to fan the floor,
clear away the chaff, and separate all the tares by the judgment
of man. This is proud obstinacy and sacrilegious presumption,
originating in a corrupt frenzy.” Let these two points, then,
be considered as decided; first, that he who voluntarily deserts
the external communion of the Church where the word of God
is preached, and the sacraments are administered, is without
any excuse; secondly, that the faults either of few persons or
of many, form no obstacles to a due profession of our faith in
the use of the ceremonies instituted by God; because the pious
conscience is not wounded by the unworthiness of any other
individual, whether he be a pastor or a private person; nor are
241the mysteries less pure and salutary to a holy and upright
man, because they are received at the same time by the impure.
XX. Their severity and haughtiness go to still greater
lengths. Acknowledging no church but such as is pure from
the smallest blemishes, they are even angry with honest teachers,
because, by exhorting believers to progressive improvements,
they teach them to groan under the burden of sins, and to seek
for pardon all their lifetime. For hereby, they pretend, the
people are drawn away from perfection. I confess, that in
urging men to perfection, we ought to labour with unremitting
ardour and diligence; but to inspire their minds with a persuasion
that they have already attained it, while they are
yet in the pursuit of it, I maintain to be a diabolical invention.
Therefore, in the Creed, the communion of saints is immediately
followed by the forgiveness of sins, which can only be
obtained by the citizens and members of the Church, as we
read in the prophet.[759] The heavenly Jerusalem, therefore,
ought first to be built, in which this favour of God may be
enjoyed, that whoever shall enter it, their iniquity shall be
blotted out. Now, I affirm that this ought first to be built;
not that there can ever be any Church without remission of
sins, but because God has not promised to impart his mercy,
except in the communion of saints. Our first entrance, therefore,
into the Church and kingdom of God, is the remission of
sins, without which we have no covenant or union with God.
For thus he speaks by the prophet: “In that day will I make
a covenant for them with the beasts of the field, and with the
fowls of heaven, and with the creeping things of the ground;
and I will break the bow and the sword, and the battle out of
the earth, and will make them to lie down safely. And I will
betroth thee unto me for ever; yea, I will betroth thee unto me
in righteousness, and in judgment, and in loving-kindness, and
in mercies.”[760] We see how God reconciles us to himself by his
mercy. So in another place, where he foretells the restoration
of the people whom he had scattered in his wrath, he says, “I
will cleanse them from all their iniquity, whereby they have
sinned against me.”[761] Wherefore it is by the sign of ablution,
that we are initiated into the society of his Church; by which
we are taught that there is no admittance for us into the family
of God, unless our pollution be first taken away by his
goodness.
XXI. Nor does God only once receive and adopt us into his
Church by the remission of sins; he likewise preserves and
keeps us in it by the same mercy. For to what purpose would
242it be, if we obtained a pardon which would afterwards be of
no use? And that the mercy of the Lord would be vain and
delusive, if it were only granted for once, all pious persons can
testify to themselves; for every one of them is all his lifetime
conscious of many infirmities, which need the Divine
mercy. And surely it is not without reason, that God particularly
promises this grace to the members of his family, and
commands the same message of reconciliation to be daily addressed
to them. As we carry about with us the relics of sin,
therefore, as long as we live, we shall scarcely continue in the
Church for a single moment, unless we are sustained by the
constant grace of the Lord in forgiving our sins. But the Lord
has called his people to eternal salvation; they ought, therefore,
to believe that his grace is always ready to pardon their sins.
Wherefore it ought to be held as a certain conclusion, that
from the Divine liberality, by the intervention of the merit of
Christ, through the sanctification of the Spirit, pardon of sins
has been, and is daily, bestowed upon us, who have been admitted
and ingrafted into the body of the Church.
XXII. It was to dispense this blessing to us, that the keys
were given to the Church.[762] For, when Christ gave commandment
to his apostles, and conferred on them the power
of remitting sins,[763] it was not with an intention that they
should merely absolve from their sins those who were converted
from impiety to the Christian faith, but rather that they should
continually exercise this office among the faithful. This is
taught by Paul, when he says, that the message of reconciliation
was committed to the ministers of the Church, that in the
name of Christ they might daily exhort the people to be reconciled
to God.[764] In the communion of saints, therefore, sins
are continually remitted to us by the ministry of the Church,
when the presbyters or bishops, to whom this office is committed,
confirm pious consciences, by the promises of the
gospel, in the hope of pardon and remission; and that as well
publicly as privately, according as necessity requires. For
there are many persons who, on account of their infirmity,
stand in need of separate and private consolation. And Paul
tells us that he “taught,” not only publicly, but also “from
house to house, testifying repentance toward God, and faith
toward our Lord Jesus Christ;”[765] and admonished every
individual separately respecting the doctrine of salvation. Here
are three things, therefore, worthy of our observation. First,
that whatever holiness may distinguish the children of God,
yet such is their condition as long as they inhabit a mortal
243body, that they cannot stand before God without remission of
sins. Secondly, that this benefit belongs to the Church; so
that we cannot enjoy it unless we continue in its communion.
Thirdly, that it is dispensed to us by the ministers and pastors
of the Church, either in the preaching of the gospel, or in the
administration of the sacraments; and that this is the principal
exercise of the power of the keys, which the Lord has conferred
on the society of believers. Let every one of us, therefore,
consider it as his duty, not to seek remission of sins any
where but where the Lord has placed it. Of public reconciliation,
which is a branch of discipline, we shall speak in its
proper place.
XXIII. But as those fanatic spirits, of whom I spoke, endeavour
to rob the Church of this sole anchor of salvation, our
consciences ought to be still more strongly fortified against
such a pestilent opinion. The Novatians disturbed the ancient
Churches with this tenet; but the present age also has witnessed
some of the Anabaptists, who resemble the Novatians
by falling into the same follies. For they imagine that by
baptism the people of God are regenerated to a pure and angelic
life, which cannot be contaminated by any impurities of
the flesh. And if any one be guilty of sin after baptism, they
leave him no prospect of escaping the inexorable judgment of
God. In short, they encourage no hope of pardon in any one
who sins after having received the grace of God; because they
acknowledge no other remission of sins than that by which we
are first regenerated. Now, though there is no falsehood more
clearly refuted in the Scripture than this, yet because its advocates
find persons to submit to their impositions, as Novatus
formerly had numerous followers, let us briefly show how very
pernicious their error is both to themselves and to others. In
the first place, when the saints obey the command of the Lord
by a daily repetition of this prayer, “forgive us our debts,”[766]
they certainly confess themselves to be sinners. Nor do they
pray in vain, for our Lord has not enjoined the use of any
petitions, but such as he designed to grant. And after he
had declared that the whole prayer would be heard by the
Father, he confirmed this absolution by a special promise.
What do we want more? The Lord requires from the saints
a confession of sins, and that daily as long as they live, and he
promises them pardon. What presumption is it either to assert
that they are exempt from sin, or, if they have fallen, to exclude
them from all grace! To whom does he enjoin us to grant forgiveness
seventy times seven times? Is it not to our brethren?
And what was the design of this injunction, but that we might
244imitate his clemency? He pardons, therefore, not once or
twice, but as often as the sinner is alarmed with a sense of his
sins, and sighs for mercy.
XXIV. But to begin from the infancy of the Church: the
patriarchs had been circumcised, admitted to the privileges of
the covenant, and without doubt instructed in justice and integrity
by the care of their father, when they conspired to
murder their brother. This was a crime to be abominated
even by the most desperate and abandoned robbers. At length,
softened by the admonitions of Judah, they sold him for a
slave. This also was an intolerable cruelty. Simon and Levi,
in a spirit of nefarious revenge, condemned even by the judgment
of their father, murdered the inhabitants of Sichem.
Reuben was guilty of execrable incest with his father’s concubine.
Judah, with an intention of indulging a libidinous
passion, violated the law of nature by a criminal connection
with his son’s wife. Yet they are so far from being expunged
out of the number of the chosen people, that, on the contrary,
they are constituted the heads of the nation.[767] What shall
we say of David? Though he was the official guardian of
justice, how scandalously did he prepare the way for the gratification
of a blind passion, by the effusion of innocent blood!
He had already been regenerated, and among the regenerate
had been distinguished by the peculiar commendations of the
Lord; yet he perpetrated a crime even among heathens regarded
with horror, and yet he obtained mercy.[768] And not
to dwell any longer on particular examples, the numerous
promises which the law and the prophets contain, of Divine
mercy towards the Israelites, are so many proofs of the manifestation
of God’s placability to the offences of his people. For
what does Moses promise to the people in case of their return
to the Lord, after having fallen into idolatry? “Then the
Lord thy God will turn thy captivity, and have compassion
upon thee, and will return and gather thee from all the nations,
whither the Lord thy God hath scattered thee. If any of thine
be driven out unto the outmost parts of heaven, from thence
will the Lord thy God gather thee.”[769]
XXV. But I am unwilling to commence an enumeration
which would have no end. For the prophets are full of such
promises, which offer mercy to the people, though covered
with innumerable crimes. What sin is worse than rebellion?
It is described as a divorce between God and the Church: yet
this is overcome by the goodness of God. Hear his language
by the mouth of Jeremiah: “If a man put away his wife, and
245she go from him, and become another man’s, shall he return
unto her again? Shall not that land be greatly polluted? But
thou hast played the harlot with many lovers, and thou hast
polluted the land with thy whoredoms and with thy wickedness.
Yet return again to me, thou backsliding Israel, saith
the Lord, and I will not cause mine anger to fall upon you;
for I am merciful, saith the Lord, and will not keep anger for
ever.”[770] And surely there cannot possibly be any other disposition
in him who affirms, that he “hath no pleasure in the
death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way
and live.”[771] Therefore, when Solomon dedicated the temple,
he appointed it also for this purpose, that prayers, offered to
obtain pardon of sins, might there be heard and answered.
His words are, “If they sin against thee, (for there is no man
that sinneth not,) and thou be angry with them, and deliver
them to the enemy, so that they carry them away captives
unto the land of the enemy, far or near; yet if they shall bethink
themselves, and repent in the land whither they were
carried captives, and repent and make supplication unto thee
in the land of those that carried them captives, saying, We have
sinned, and have done perversely, we have committed wickedness;
and pray unto thee toward the land which thou gavest
unto their fathers, the city which thou hast chosen, and the
house which I have built for thy name; then hear thou their
prayer and their supplication in heaven, and forgive thy people
that have sinned against thee, and all their transgressions
wherein they have transgressed against thee.”[772] Nor was it
without cause that in the law the Lord ordained daily sacrifices
for sins; for unless he had foreseen that his people would be
subject to the maladies of daily sins, he would never have appointed
these remedies.[773]
XXVI. Now, I ask whether, by the advent of Christ, in
whom the fulness of grace was displayed, believers have been
deprived of this benefit, so that they can no longer presume to
supplicate for the pardon of their sins; so that if they offend
against the Lord, they can obtain no mercy. What would
this be but to affirm, that Christ came for the destruction of his
people, and not for their salvation; if the loving-kindness of
God, in the pardon of sins, which was continually ready to be
exercised to the saints under the Old Testament, be maintained
to be now entirely withdrawn? But if we give any credit to
the Scriptures, which proclaim that in Christ the grace and
philanthropy of God have at length been fully manifested, that
his mercy has been abundantly diffused, and reconciliation
246between God and man accomplished,[774] we ought not to
doubt that the clemency of our heavenly Father is displayed
to us in greater abundance, rather than restricted or diminished.
Examples to prove this are not wanting. Peter, who had been
warned that he who would not confess the name of Christ before
men would be denied by him before angels, denied him
three times in one night, and accompanied the denial with
execrations; yet he was not refused pardon.[775] Those of the
Thessalonians who led disorderly lives, are reprehended by the
apostle, in order to be invited to repentance.[776] Nor does
Peter drive Simon Magus himself to despair; but rather directs
him to cherish a favourable hope, when he persuades him to
pray for forgiveness.[777]
XXVII. What are we to say of cases in which the most
enormous sins have sometimes seized whole Churches? From
this situation Paul rather mercifully reclaimed them, than abandoned
them to the curse. The defection of the Galatians was
no trivial offence.[778] The Corinthians were still less excusable,
their crimes being more numerous and equally enormous.[779]
Yet neither are excluded from the mercy of the Lord: on the
contrary, the very persons who had gone beyond all others in
impurity, unchastity, and fornication, are expressly invited to
repentance. For the covenant of the Lord will ever remain
eternal and inviolable, which he has made with Christ, the
antitype of Solomon, and with all his members, in these words:
“If his children forsake my law, and walk not in my judgments;
if they break my statutes, and keep not my commandments;
then will I visit their transgression with the rod, and their iniquity
with stripes. Nevertheless my loving-kindness will I not
utterly take from him.”[780] Finally, the order of the Creed
teaches us that pardon of sins ever continues in the Church of
Christ, because, after having mentioned the Church, it immediately
adds the forgiveness of sins.
XXVIII. Some persons, who are a little more judicious,
perceiving the notion of Novatus to be so explicitly contradicted
by the Scripture, do not represent every sin as unpardonable,
but only voluntary transgression, into which a person may
have fallen with the full exercise of his knowledge and will.
These persons admit of no pardon for any sins, but such as
may have been the mere errors of ignorance. But as the Lord,
in the law, commanded some sacrifices to be offered to expiate
the voluntary sins of believers, and others to atone for sins of
ignorance, what extreme presumption is it to deny that there
247is any pardon for voluntary transgression! I maintain, that
there is nothing more evident, than that the one sacrifice of
Christ is available for the remission of the voluntary sins of the
saints, since the Lord has testified the same by the legal victims,
as by so many types. Besides, who can plead ignorance
as an excuse for David, who was evidently so well acquainted
with the law? Did not David know that adultery and murder
were great crimes, which he daily punished in others? Did
the patriarchs consider fratricide as lawful? Had the Corinthians
learned so little that they could imagine impurity, incontinence,
fornication, animosities, and contentions, to be pleasing
to God? Could Peter, who had been so carefully warned, be
ignorant how great a crime it was to abjure his Master? Let
us not, therefore, by our cruelty, shut the gate of mercy which
God has so liberally opened.
XXIX. I am fully aware that the old writers have explained
those sins, which are daily forgiven to believers, to be the
smaller faults, which are inadvertently committed through the
infirmity of the flesh; but solemn repentance, which was then
required for greater offences, they thought, was no more to be
repeated than baptism. This sentiment is not to be understood
as indicating their design, either to drive into despair such persons
as had relapsed after their first repentance, or to extenuate
those errors, as if they were small in the sight of God. For they
knew that the saints frequently stagger through unbelief; that
they sometimes utter unnecessary oaths; that they occasionally
swell into anger, and even break out into open reproaches; and
that they are likewise chargeable with other faults, which the
Lord holds in the greatest abomination. They expressed
themselves in this manner, to distinguish between private offences
and those public crimes which were attended with great
scandal in the Church. But the difficulty, which they made,
of forgiving those who had committed any thing deserving of
ecclesiastical censure, did not arise from an opinion that it was
difficult for them to obtain pardon from the Lord; they only
intended by this severity to deter others from rashly running
into crimes, which would justly be followed by their exclusion
from the communion of the Church. The word of the Lord,
however, which ought to be our only rule in this case, certainly
prescribes greater moderation. For it teaches, that the rigour
of discipline ought not to be carried to such an extent, as to
overwhelm with sorrow the person whose benefit we are required
to regard as its principal object; as we have before
shown more at large.
248
We have already stated the importance which we ought to
attach to the ministry of the word and sacraments, and the extent
to which our reverence for it ought to be carried, so as to
account it a perpetual mark and characteristic of the Church.
That is to say, that wherever that exists entire and uncorrupted,
no errors and irregularities of conduct form a sufficient reason
for refusing the name of a Church. In the next place, that the
ministry itself is not so far vitiated by smaller errors, as to be
considered on that account less legitimate. It has further been
shown, that the errors which are entitled to this forgiveness
are those by which the grand doctrine of religion is not injured,
which do not suppress the points in which all believers ought
to agree as articles of faith, and which, in regard to the sacraments,
neither abolish nor subvert the legitimate institution
of their Author. But as soon as falsehood has made a breach
in the fundamentals of religion, and the system of necessary
doctrine is subverted, and the use of the sacraments fails, the
certain consequence is the ruin of the Church, as there is an
end of a man’s life when his throat is cut, or his heart is mortally
wounded. And this is evident from the language of Paul,
when he declares the Church to be “built upon the foundation
of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the
chief corner-stone.”[781] If the foundation of the Church be
the doctrine of the prophets and apostles, which enjoins believers
to place their salvation in Christ alone, how can the
edifice stand any longer, when that doctrine is taken away?
The Church, therefore, must of necessity fall, where that system
of religion is subverted which alone is able to sustain it.
Besides, if the true Church be “the pillar and ground of
truth,”[782] that certainly can be no Church where delusion and
falsehood have usurped the dominion.
II. As this is the state of things under the Papacy, it is easy
to judge how much of the Church remains there. Instead of
the ministry of the word, there reigns a corrupt government,
composed of falsehoods, by which the pure light is suppressed
or extinguished. An execrable sacrilege has been substituted
for the supper of the Lord. The worship of God is deformed
by a multifarious and intolerable mass of superstitions. The
doctrine, without which Christianity cannot exist, has been
249entirely forgotten or exploded. The public assemblies have
become schools of idolatry and impiety. In withdrawing ourselves,
therefore, from the pernicious participation of so many
enormities, there is no danger of separating ourselves from
the Church of Christ. The communion of the Church was
not instituted as a bond to confine us in idolatry, impiety,
ignorance of God, and other evils; but rather as a mean to
preserve us in the fear of God, and obedience of the truth. I
know that the Papists give us the most magnificent commendations
of their Church, to make us believe that there is no
other in the world; and then, as if they had gained their point,
they conclude all who dare to withdraw themselves from that
Church which they describe, to be schismatics, and pronounce
all to be heretics who venture to open their mouths in opposition
to its doctrine. But by what reasons do they prove theirs
to be the true Church? They allege from ancient records
what formerly occurred in Italy, in France, in Spain; that they
are descended from those holy men, who by sound doctrine
founded and raised the Churches in these countries, and confirmed
their doctrine and the edification of the Church by
their blood; and that the Church, thus consecrated among
them, both by spiritual gifts, and by the blood of martyrs, has
been preserved by a perpetual succession of bishops, that it
might never be lost. They allege the importance attached to
this succession by Irenæus, Tertullian, Origen, Augustine, and
others. To those who are willing to attend me in a brief
examination of these allegations, I will clearly show that they
are frivolous, and manifestly ridiculous. I would likewise exhort
those who advance them, to pay a serious attention to the
subject, if I thought my arguments could produce any effect
upon them; but as their sole object is to promote their own
interest by every method in their power, without any regard
to truth, I shall content myself with making a few observations,
with which good men, and inquirers after truth, may be able
to answer their cavils. In the first place, I ask them, why
they allege nothing respecting Africa, and Egypt, and all Asia.
It is because, in all those countries, there has been a failure of
this sacred succession of bishops, by virtue of which they boast
that the Church has been preserved among them. They come
to this point, therefore, that they have the true Church, because
from its commencement it has never been destitute of
bishops, for that some have been succeeded by others in an
uninterrupted series. But what if I oppose them with the example
of Greece? I ask them again, therefore, why they assert
that the Church has been lost among the Greeks, among whom
there has never been any interruption of that succession of
bishops, which they consider as the sole guard and preservative
250of the Church? They call the Greeks schismatics. For what
reason? Because, it is pretended, they have lost their privilege
by revolting from the Apostolical see. But do not they
much more deserve to lose it, who have revolted from Christ
himself? It follows, therefore, that their plea of uninterrupted
succession is a vain pretence, unless the truth of Christ, which
was transmitted from the fathers, be permanently retained pure
and uncorrupted by their posterity.
III. The pretensions of the Romanists, therefore, in the
present day, are no other than those which appear to have been
formerly set up by the Jews, when they were reproved by the
prophets of the Lord for blindness, impiety, and idolatry. For
as the Jews boasted of the temple, the ceremonies, and the
priesthood, in which things they firmly believed the Church to
consist; so, instead of the Church, the Papists produce certain
external forms, which are often at a great distance from the
Church, and are not at all necessary to its existence. Wherefore
we need no other argument to refute them, than that which was
urged by Jeremiah against that foolish confidence of the Jews:
“Trust ye not in lying words, saying, The temple of the Lord,
the temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord, are these.”[783]
For the Lord acknowledges no place as his temple, where his
word is not heard and devoutly observed. So, though the
glory of God resided between the cherubim in the sanctuary,
and he had promised his people that he would make it his
permanent seat, yet when the priests had corrupted his worship
by perverse superstitions, he departed, and left the place
without any sanctity. If that temple which appeared to be
consecrated to the perpetual residence of God, could be forsaken
and desecrated by him, there can be no reason for their pretending
that God is so attached to persons or places, or confined
to external observances, as to be constrained to remain among
those who have nothing but the name and appearance of the
Church. And this is the argument which is maintained by
Paul in the Epistle to the Romans, from the ninth chapter to
the twelfth. For it had violently disturbed weak consciences,
to observe that, while the Jews appeared to be the people of
God, they not only rejected, but also persecuted, the doctrine
of the gospel. Therefore, after having discussed that doctrine,
he removes this difficulty; and denies the claim of those Jews,
who were enemies of the truth, to be considered as the Church,
though in other respects they wanted nothing that could be
requisite to its external form. And the only reason for this
denial was, because they did not receive Christ. He speaks
rather more explicitly in the Epistle to the Galatians,[784] where,
251in a comparison between Ishmael and Isaac, he represents many
as occupying a place in the Church, who have no right to the
inheritance, because they are not the children of a free mother.
Hence he proceeds to a contrast of the two Jerusalems, because
as the law was given on Mount Sinai, but the gospel came
forth from Jerusalem, so many who have been born and educated
in bondage, confidently boast of being the children of God
and of the Church, and though they are themselves a spurious
offspring, look down with contempt on his genuine and legitimate
children. But as for us, on the contrary, who have once
heard it proclaimed from heaven, “Cast out the bondwoman
and her son,” let us confide in this inviolable decree, and resolutely
despise their ridiculous pretensions. For if they pride
themselves on an external profession, Ishmael also was circumcised.
If they depend on antiquity, he was the first born.
Yet we see that he was rejected. If the cause of this be inquired,
Paul tells us that none are accounted children but those
who are born of the pure and legitimate seed of the word.[785]
According to this reason, the Lord declares that he is not confined
to impious priests, because he had made a covenant with
their father Levi to be his angel or messenger.[786] He even
retorts on them their false boasting, with which they were
accustomed to oppose the prophets, that the dignity of the
priesthood ought to be held in peculiar estimation. This he
readily admits, and argues with them on this ground, because
he was prepared to observe the covenant, whereas they failed
of discharging the correspondent obligations, and therefore deserved
to be rejected. See, then, what such succession is
worth, unless it be connected with a continual imitation and
conformity. Without this, the descendants, who are convicted
of a departure from their predecessors, must immediately be
deprived of all honour; unless, indeed, because Caiaphas was
the successor of many pious priests, and there had been an
uninterrupted series even from Aaron to him, that execrable
assembly be deemed worthy to be called the Church. But it
would not be tolerated even in earthly governments, that the
tyranny of Caligula, Nero, Heliogabalus, and others, should be
called the true state of the republic, because they succeeded
the Bruti, the Scipios, and the Camilli. But in regard to the
government of the Church, nothing can be more frivolous than
to place the succession in the persons, to the neglect of the
doctrine. And nothing was further from the intentions of the
holy doctors, whose authority they falsely obtrude upon us,
than to prove that Churches existed by a kind of hereditary
right, wherever there has been a constant succession of bishops.
252But as it was beyond all doubt that, from the beginning even
down to their times, no change had taken place in the doctrine,
they assumed, what would suffice for the confutation of all new
errors, that they were repugnant to the doctrine which had
been constantly and unanimously maintained even from the
days of the apostles. They will gain nothing, therefore, by
persisting to disguise themselves under the name of the Church.
The Church we regard with becoming reverence; but when
they come to the definition, they are miserably embarrassed, for
they substitute an execrable harlot in the place of the holy
spouse of Christ. That we may not be deceived by such a substitution,
beside other admonitions, let us remember this of Augustine;
for, speaking of the Church, he says, “It is sometimes
obscured and beclouded by a multitude of scandals; sometimes
it appears quiet and unmolested in a season of tranquillity, and
is sometimes disturbed and overwhelmed with the waves of
tribulations and temptations.” He produces examples, that
those who were its firmest pillars, have either undauntedly suffered
banishment on account of the faith, or secluded themselves
from all society.
IV. In the same manner, the Romanists in the present day
harass us, and terrify ignorant persons with the name of the
Church, though there are no greater enemies to Christ than
themselves. Although they may pretend therefore to the temple,
the priesthood, and other similar forms, this vain glitter, which
dazzles the eyes of the simple, ought by no means to induce us
to admit the existence of a Church, where we cannot discover
the word of God. For this is the perpetual mark by which our
Lord has characterized his people: “Every one that is of the
truth heareth my voice.”[787] And, “I am the good Shepherd,
and know my sheep, and am known of mine.” “My sheep
hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me.” He
had just before said, “The sheep follow their shepherd; for
they know his voice; and a stranger will they not follow, but
will flee from him, for they know not the voice of strangers.”[788]
Why, then, do we wilfully run into error in forming a judgment
of the Church, since Christ has designated it by an unequivocal
character, that wherever it is discovered, it infallibly assures
us of the existence of a Church, and wherever it is wanting,
there is no real evidence of a Church left. For Paul declares
the Church to be founded, not upon the opinions of
men, not upon the priesthood, but upon the “doctrine of the
apostles and prophets.”[789] And Jerusalem is to be distinguished
from Babylon, the Church of Christ from the synagogue
of Satan, by this difference, by which Christ has discriminated
253them from each other: “He that is of God, heareth God’s words;
ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.”[790]
In fine, as the Church is the kingdom of Christ, and he reigns
only by his word, can any person doubt the falsehood of those
pretensions, which represent the kingdom of Christ as destitute
of his sceptre, that is, of his holy word?
V. With respect to the charge which they bring against us of
heresy and schism, because we preach a different doctrine from
theirs, and submit not to their laws, and hold separate assemblies
for prayers, for baptism, for the administration of the
Lord’s supper, and other sacred exercises, it is indeed a most
heavy accusation, but such as by no means requires a long or laborious
defence. The appellations of heretics and schismatics
are applied to persons who cause dissension, and destroy the communion
of the Church. Now, this communion is preserved by
two bonds—agreement in sound doctrine, and brotherly love.
Between heretics and schismatics, therefore, Augustine makes
the following distinction—that the former corrupt the purity of
the faith by false doctrines, and that the latter break the bond
of affection, sometimes even while they retain the same faith.
But it is also to be remarked, that this union of affection is
dependent on the unity of faith, as its foundation, end, and rule.
Let us remember, therefore, that, whenever the unity of the
Church is enjoined upon us in the Scripture, it is required,
that, while our minds hold the same doctrines in Christ, our
wills should likewise be united in mutual benevolence in Christ.
Therefore, Paul, when he exhorts us to it, assumes as a foundation,
that there is “one Lord, one faith, and one baptism.”[791]
And when he inculcates our being “like-minded, and having
the same love, being of one accord, of one mind,”[792] he immediately
adds, that this should be in Christ, or according to
Christ; signifying that all union which is formed without the
word of the Lord, is a faction of the impious, and not an association
of believers.
VI. Cyprian, also, after the example of Paul, deduces the
origin of all ecclesiastical concord from the supreme bishopric
of Christ. He afterwards subjoins, “There is but one Church,
which is widely extended into a multitude by the offspring of
its fertility; just as there are many rays of the sun, but the
light is one; and a tree has many branches, but only one trunk,
fixed on a firm root. And when many rivers issue from one
source, though by its exuberant abundance the stream is multiplied
into numerous currents, yet the unity of the fountain
still remains. Separate a ray from the body of the sun, and its
unity sustains no division. Break off a branch from a tree, and
the broken branch can never bud. Cut off a river from the
254source, and it immediately dries up. So the Church, overspread
with the light of the Lord, is extended over the whole world:
yet it is one and the same light which is universally diffused.”
No representation could be more elegant to express that inseparable
connection which subsists between all the members of
Christ. We see how he continually recalls us to the fountain-head.
Therefore he pronounces the origin of heresies and
schisms to be, that men neither return to the source of truth,
nor seek the Head, nor attend to the doctrine of the heavenly
Master. Now, let the Romanists exclaim that we are heretics,
because we have withdrawn from their church; while the sole
cause of our secession has been, that theirs cannot possibly be
the pure profession of the truth. I say nothing of their having
expelled us with anathemas and execrations. But this reason
is more than sufficient for our exculpation, unless they are
determined to pronounce sentence of schism also against the
apostles, with whom we have but one common cause. Christ,
I say, foretold to his apostles, that for his name’s sake they
should be cast out of the synagogues.[793] Now, those synagogues,
of which he spoke, were then accounted legitimate
Churches. Since it is evident, then, that we have been cast
out, and we are prepared to prove that this has been done for
the name of Christ, it is necessary to inquire into the cause,
before any thing be determined respecting us, either on one side
or the other. But this point I readily relinquish to them. It is
sufficient for me that it was necessary for us to withdraw from
them, in order to approach to Christ.
VII. But it will be still more evident, in what estimation
we ought to hold all the Churches who have submitted to the
tyranny of the Roman pontiff, if we compare them with the
ancient Church of Israel, as delineated by the prophets. There
was a true Church among the Jews and the Israelites, while
they continued to observe the laws of the covenant; because
they then obtained from the favour of God those things which
constitute a Church. They had the doctrine of truth in the
law; the ministry of it was committed to the priests and
prophets; they were initiated into the Church by the sign of
circumcision; and were exercised in other sacraments for the
confirmation of their faith. There is no doubt that the commendations,
with which the Lord has honoured his Church,
truly belonged to their society. But after they deserted the
law of the Lord, and fell into idolatry and superstition, they
partly lost this privilege. For who would dare to refuse the
title of a Church to those among whom God deposited the
preaching of his word, and the observance of his mysteries?
255On the other hand, who would dare to give the appellation of
a Church, without any exception, to that society, where the
word of God is openly and fearlessly trampled under foot;
where its ministry, the principal sinew, and even the soul of
the Church, is discontinued?
VIII. What, then, it will be said, was there no particle of a
Church left among the Jews from the moment of their defection
to idolatry? The answer is easy. In the first place, I observe,
that in this defection there were several degrees. Nor will we
maintain the fall of Judah, and that of Israel, to have been exactly
the same, at the time when they both began to depart
from the pure worship of God. When Jeroboam made the
calves, in opposition to the express prohibition of God, and
dedicated a place which it was not lawful to use for the oblation
of sacrifices, in this case religion was totally corrupted. The
Jews polluted themselves with practical impieties and superstitions,
before they made any unlawful changes in the external
forms of religion. For though they generally adopted many
corrupt ceremonies in the time of Rehoboam, yet as the doctrine
of the law, and the priesthood, and the rites which God had
instituted, were still preserved at Jerusalem, believers had
in that kingdom a tolerable form of a Church. Among the
Israelites, there was no reformation down to the reign of Ahab,
and in his time there was an alteration for the worse. Of the
succeeding kings, even to the subversion of the kingdom, some
resembled Ahab, and others, who would be a little better, followed
the example of Jeroboam; but all, without exception, were
impious idolaters. In Judah there were various changes; some
kings corrupted the worship of God with false and groundless
superstitions, and others restored religion from its abuses; till,
at length, the priests themselves polluted the temple of God
with idolatrous and abominable rites.
IX. Now, however the Papists may extenuate their vices, let
them deny, if they can, that the state of religion is as corrupt and
depraved among them, as it was in the kingdom of Israel, in
the time of Jeroboam. But they practise a grosser idolatry, and
their doctrine is equally, if not more, impure. God is my
witness, and all men who are endued with moderate judgment,
and the fact itself declares, that in this I am guilty of no exaggeration.
Now, when they try to drive us into the communion
of their Church, they require two things of us—first, that we
should communicate in all their prayers, sacraments, and ceremonies;
secondly, that whatever honour, power, and jurisdiction,
Christ has conferred upon his Church, we should attribute
the same to theirs. With respect to the first point, I confess
that the prophets who were at Jerusalem, when the state of
affairs there was very corrupt, neither offered up sacrifices apart
256from others, nor held separate assemblies for prayer. For they
had the express command of God, that they were to assemble
in the temple of Solomon; and they knew that the Levitical
priests, because they had been ordained by the Lord as ministers
of the sacrifices, and had not been deposed, however
unworthy they might be of such honour, still retained the
lawful possession of that place. But, what is the principal
point of the whole controversy, they were not constrained to
join in any superstitious worship; on the contrary, they engaged
in no service that was not of Divine institution. But what
resemblance is there to this among the Papists? We can scarcely
assemble with them on a single occasion, without polluting
ourselves with open idolatry. The principal bond of their communion
is certainly the mass, which we abominate as the
greatest sacrilege. Whether we are right or wrong in this, will
be seen in another place. It is sufficient, at present, to show
that, in this respect, our case is different from that of the
prophets, who, though they were present at the sacrifices of
impious persons, were never compelled to use, or to witness,
any ceremonies but those which God had instituted. And if we
wish to have an example entirely similar, we must take it from
the kingdom of Israel. According to the regulations of Jeroboam,
circumcision continued, sacrifices were offered, the law was
regarded as sacred, the people invoked the same God whom
their fathers had worshipped; yet, on account of novel ceremonies
invented in opposition to the Divine prohibitions, God
disapproved and condemned all that was done there. Show me
a single prophet, or any pious man, who even once worshipped
or offered sacrifice at Bethel. They knew that they could not
do it without contaminating themselves with sacrilege. We
have established this point, therefore, that the attachment of
pious persons to the communion of the Church, ought not to be
carried to such an extent, as to oblige them to remain in it, if it
degenerated into profane and impure rites.
X. But against their second requisition, we contend upon still
stronger ground. For if the Church be held in such consideration
that we are required to revere its judgment, to obey its authority,
to receive its admonitions, to fall under its censures,
and scrupulously and uniformly to adhere to its communion,
we cannot allow their claim to the character of the Church,
without necessarily obliging ourselves to subjection and obedience.
Yet we readily concede to them what the prophets
conceded to the Jews and Israelites of their time, when things
among them were in a similar, or even in a better state. But
we see how they frequently exclaim, that their assemblies were
iniquitous meetings,[794] a concurrence in which were as criminal
257as a renunciation of God. And certainly, if those assemblies
were Churches, it follows that Elijah, Micaiah, and others in
Israel, were strangers to the Church of God; and the same
would be true of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Hosea, and others of that
description in Judah, whom the false prophets, priests, and people
of their day, hated and execrated as if they had been worse than
any heathens. If such assemblies were Churches, then the
Church is not the pillar of truth, but a foundation of falsehood,
not the sanctuary of the living God, but a receptacle of idols.
They found themselves under a necessity, therefore, of withdrawing
from all connection with those assemblies, which were
nothing but a conspiracy against God. For the same reason,
if any one acknowledges the assemblies of the present day,
which are contaminated with idolatry, superstition, and false
doctrine, as true Churches, in full communion with which a
Christian man ought to continue, and in whose doctrine he ought
to coincide, this will be a great error. For if they be Churches,
they possess the power of the keys; but the keys are inseparably
connected with the word, which is exploded from among
them. Again, if they be Churches, that promise of Christ must
be applicable to them—“Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth
shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever ye shall loose on
earth shall be loosed in heaven.”[795] On the contrary, all who
sincerely profess themselves to be the servants of Christ, they
expel from their communion. Either, therefore, the promise
of Christ must be vain, or in this respect they are not
Churches. Lastly, instead of the ministry of the word, they
have schools of impiety, and a gulf of every species of errors.
Either, therefore, in this respect they are not Churches, or no
mark will be left to distinguish the legitimate assemblies of
believers from the conventions of Turks.
XI. Nevertheless, as in former times the Jews continued in
possession of some peculiar privileges of the Church, so we
refuse not to acknowledge, among the Papists of the present
day, those vestiges of the Church which it has pleased the Lord
should remain among them after its removal. When God had
once made his covenant with the Jews, it continued among
them, rather because it was supported by its own stability
in opposition to their impiety, than in consequence of their
observance of it. Such, therefore, was the certainty and constancy
of the Divine goodness, the covenant of the Lord
remained among them; his faithfulness could not be obliterated
by their perfidy; nor could circumcision be so profaned by their
impure hands, but that it was always the true sign and sacrament
of his covenant. Hence the children that were born
258to them, God calls his own,[796] though they could not have
belonged to him but by a special benediction. So after he had
deposited his covenant in France, Italy, Germany, Spain, and
England, when those countries were oppressed by the tyranny
of Antichrist, still, in order that the covenant might remain inviolable,
as a testimony of that covenant, he preserved baptism
among them, which, being consecrated by his lips, retains its
virtue in opposition to all the impiety of men. He also, by his
providence, caused other vestiges of the Church to remain, that
it might not be entirely lost. And as buildings are frequently
demolished in such a manner as to leave the foundations and
ruins remaining, so the Lord has not suffered Antichrist either
to subvert his Church from the foundation, or to level it with
the ground; though, to punish the ingratitude of men who
despised his word, he has permitted a dreadful concussion and
dilapidation to be made; yet, amidst this devastation, he has
been pleased to preserve the edifice from being entirely destroyed.
XII. While we refuse, therefore, to allow to the Papists the
title of the Church, without any qualification or restriction, we do
not deny that there are Churches among them. We only contend
for the true and legitimate constitution of the Church, which
requires not only a communion in the sacraments, which are
the signs of a Christian profession, but above all, an agreement
in doctrine. Daniel and Paul had predicted that Antichrist
would sit in the temple of God.[797] The head of that cursed
and abominable kingdom, in the Western Church, we affirm to
be the Pope. When his seat is placed in the temple of God, it
suggests, that his kingdom will be such, that he will not abolish
the name of Christ, or the Church. Hence it appears, that we
by no means deny that Churches may exist, even under his
tyranny; but he has profaned them by sacrilegious impiety,
afflicted them by cruel despotism, corrupted and almost terminated
their existence by false and pernicious doctrines, like poisonous
potions; in such Churches, Christ lies half buried, the
gospel is suppressed, piety exterminated, and the worship of
God almost abolished; in a word, they are altogether in such a
state of confusion, that they exhibit a picture of Babylon, rather
than of the holy city of God. To conclude, I affirm that they
are Churches, inasmuch as God has wonderfully preserved
among them a remnant of his people, though miserably dispersed
and dejected, and as there still remain some marks of the Church,
especially those, the efficacy of which neither the craft of the
devil nor the malice of men can ever destroy. But, on the other
hand, because those marks, which we ought chiefly to regard in
259this controversy, are obliterated, I affirm, that the form of the
legitimate Church is not to be found either in any one of their
congregations, or in the body at large.
We must now treat of the order which it has been the Lord’s
will to appoint for the government of his Church. For although
he alone ought to rule and reign in the Church, and to have all
preëminence in it, and this government ought to be exercised
and administered solely by his word,—yet, as he dwells not
among us by a visible presence, so as to make an audible declaration
of his will to us, we have stated, that for this purpose
he uses the ministry of men whom he employs as his delegates,
not to transfer his right and honour to them, but only that he
may himself do his work by their lips; just as an artificer
makes use of an instrument in the performance of his work.
Some observations which I have made already, are necessary to
be repeated here. It is true that he might do this either by
himself, without any means or instruments, or even by angels;
but there are many reasons why he prefers making use of men.
For, in the first place, by this method he declares his kindness
towards us, since he chooses from among men those who are
to be his ambassadors to the world, to be the interpreters of
his secret will, and even to act as his personal representatives.
And thus he affords an actual proof, that when he so frequently
calls us his temples, it is not an unmeaning appellation,
since he gives answers to men, even from the mouths
of men, as from a sanctuary. In the second place, this is a
most excellent and beneficial method to train us to humility,
since he accustoms us to obey his word, though it is preached
to us by men like ourselves, and sometimes even of inferior
rank. If he were himself to speak from heaven, there would
be no wonder if his sacred oracles were instantly received
with reverence, by the ears and hearts of all mankind. For
who would not be awed by his present power? who would not
fall prostrate at the first view of infinite Majesty? who would
not be confounded by that overpowering splendour? But
when a contemptible mortal, who had just emerged from the
dust, addresses us in the name of God, we give the best
260evidence of our piety and reverence towards God himself, if we
readily submit to be instructed by his minister, who possesses
no personal superiority to ourselves. For this reason, also, he has
deposited the treasure of his heavenly wisdom in frail and
earthen vessels,[798] in order to afford a better proof of the
estimation in which we hold it. Besides, nothing was more
adapted to promote brotherly love, than a mutual connection
of men by this bond, while one is constituted the pastor to
teach all the rest, and they who are commanded to be disciples,
receive one common doctrine from the same mouth. For
if each person were sufficient for himself, and had no need of
the assistance of another, such is the pride of human nature,
every one would despise others, and would also be despised
by them. The Lord, therefore, has connected his Church
together, by that which he foresaw would be the strongest
bond for the preservation of their union, when he committed
the doctrine of eternal life and salvation to men, that by their
hands it might be communicated to others. Paul had this
in view when he wrote to the Ephesians, “There is one
body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of
your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and
Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you
all. But unto every one of us is given grace according to
the measure of the gift of Christ. Wherefore he saith, When
he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave
gifts unto men. (Now that he ascended, what is it but that
he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth? He
that descended is the same also that ascended up far above
all heavens, that he might fill all things.) And he gave some,
apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some,
pastors and teachers; for the perfecting of the saints, for the
work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ;
till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge
of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure
of the stature of the fulness of Christ; that we henceforth
be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about
with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning
craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; but, speaking
the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which
is the head, even Christ; from whom the whole body fitly
joined together, and compacted by that which every joint
supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure
of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying
of itself in love.”[799]
II. In this passage he shows that the ministry of men, which
261God employs in his government of the Church, is the principal
bond which holds believers together in one body. He also
indicates that the Church cannot be preserved in perfect safety,
unless it be supported by these means which God has been
pleased to appoint for its preservation. Christ, he says, “ascended
up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.”[800]
And this is the way in which he does it. By means of his
ministers, to whom he has committed this office, and on whom
he has bestowed grace to discharge it, he dispenses and distributes
his gifts to the Church, and even affords some manifestation
of his own presence, by exerting the power of his Spirit in
this his institution, that it may not be vain or ineffectual.
Thus is the restoration of the saints effected; thus is the body
of Christ edified; thus we grow up unto him who is our Head
in all things, and are united with each other; thus we are all
brought to the unity of Christ; if prophecy flourishes among
us, if we receive the apostles, if we despise not the doctrine
which is delivered to us. Whoever, therefore, either aims to
abolish or undervalue this order, of which we are treating, and
this species of government, attempts to disorganize the Church,
or rather to subvert and destroy it altogether. For neither the
light and heat of the sun, nor any meat and drink, are so necessary
to the nourishment and sustenance of the present life, as the
apostolical and pastoral office is to the preservation of the Church
in the world.
III. Therefore I have already remarked, that God has frequently
commended its dignity to us by every possible encomium,
in order that we might hold it in the highest estimation
and value, as more excellent than every thing else. That he
confers a peculiar favour upon men by raising up teachers for
them, he fully signifies, when he commands the prophet to
exclaim, “How beautiful are the feet of him that publisheth
peace;”[801] and when he calls the apostles “the light of the
world,” and “the salt of the earth.”[802] Nor could that office
be more splendidly distinguished than when he said to them,
“He that heareth you, heareth me.”[803] But there is no
passage more remarkable than that in Paul’s Second Epistle to
the Corinthians, where he professedly discusses this question.
He contends, that there is nothing more excellent or glorious
than the ministry of the gospel in the Church, inasmuch as
it is the ministration of the Spirit, and of righteousness, and of
eternal life.[804] The tendency of these and similar passages, is
to preserve that mode of governing the Church by its ministers,
which the Lord appointed to be of perpetual continuance, from
262sinking into disesteem, and, at length, falling into disuse through
mere contempt. And how exceedingly necessary it is, he has
not only declared in words, but shown by examples. When
he was pleased to illuminate Cornelius more fully with the
light of his truth, he despatched an angel from heaven to send
Peter to him. When he designs to call Paul to the knowledge
of himself, and to introduce him into the Church, he does not
address him with his own voice, but sends him to a man to receive
the doctrine of salvation, and the sanctification of baptism.
If it was not without sufficient reason, that an angel, who is
the messenger of God, refrains from announcing the Divine will
himself, and directs a man to be sent for in order to declare it,—and
that Christ, the sole Teacher of believers, committed Paul
to the instruction of a man, the same Paul whom he had determined
to elevate into the third heaven, and to favour with a
miraculous revelation of things unspeakable,—who can now
dare to despise that ministry, or to neglect it as unnecessary, the
utility and necessity of which God has been pleased to evince
by such examples?
IV. Those who preside over the government of the Church,
according to the institution of Christ, are named by Paul, first,
“apostles;” secondly, “prophets;” thirdly, “evangelists;”
fourthly, “pastors;” lastly, “teachers.”[805] Of these, only the
two last sustain an ordinary office in the Church: the others were
such as the Lord raised up at the commencement of his kingdom,
and such as he still raises up on particular occasions, when
required by the necessity of the times. The nature of the
apostolic office is manifest from this command: “Go preach
the gospel to every creature.”[806] No certain limits are prescribed,
but the whole world is assigned to them, to be reduced
to obedience to Christ; that by disseminating the gospel
wherever they could, they might erect his kingdom in all
nations. Therefore Paul, when he wished to prove his apostleship,
declares, not merely that he had gained some one city for
Christ, but that he had propagated the gospel far and wide,
and that he had not built upon the foundation of others, but had
planted Churches where the name of the Lord had never been
heard before. The “apostles,” therefore, were missionaries, who
were to reduce the world from their revolt to true obedience to
God, and to establish his kingdom universally by the preaching
of the gospel. Or, if you please, they were the first architects
of the Church, appointed to lay its foundations all over the
world. Paul gives the appellation of “prophets,” not to all
interpreters of the Divine will, but only to those who were
honoured with some special revelation. Of these, either there
263are none in our day, or they are less conspicuous. By “evangelists,”
I understand those who were inferior to the apostles
in dignity, but next to them in office, and who performed similar
functions. Such were Luke, Timothy, Titus, and others
of that description; and perhaps also the seventy disciples,
whom Christ ordained to occupy the second station from the
apostles.[807] According to this interpretation, which appears
to me perfectly consistent with the language and meaning of
the apostle, those three offices were not instituted to be of
perpetual continuance in the Church, but only for that age
when Churches were to be raised where none had existed before,
or were at least to be conducted from Moses to Christ.
Though I do not deny, that, even since that period, God has
sometimes raised up apostles or evangelists in their stead, as
he has done in our own time. For there was a necessity for
such persons to recover the Church from the defection of Antichrist.
Nevertheless, I call this an extraordinary office,
because it has no place in well-constituted Churches. Next
follow “pastors” and “teachers,” who are always indispensable
to the Church. The difference between them I apprehend to
be this—that teachers have no official concern with the discipline,
or the administration of the sacraments, or with admonitions
and exhortations, but only with the interpretation of the
Scripture, that pure and sound doctrine may be retained among
believers; whereas the pastoral office includes all these things.
V. We have now ascertained what offices were appointed to
continue for a time in the government of the Church, and what
were instituted to be of perpetual duration. If we connect
the evangelists with the apostles, as sustaining the same office,
we shall then have two offices of each description, corresponding
to each other. For our pastors bear the same resemblance
to the apostles, as our teachers do to the ancient prophets.
The office of the prophets was more excellent, on account of
the special gift of revelation, by which they were distinguished;
but the office of teachers is executed in a similar manner, and
has precisely the same end. So those twelve individuals,
whom the Lord chose to promulgate the first proclamation of
his gospel to the world, preceded all others in order and dignity.
For although, according to the meaning and etymology of the
word, all the ministers of the Church may be called apostles,
because they are all sent by the Lord, and are his messengers,
yet, as it was of great importance to have a certain knowledge
of the mission of persons who were to announce a thing new
and unheard before, it was necessary that those twelve, together
with Paul, who was afterwards added to their number, should
be distinguished beyond all others by a peculiar title. Paul
264himself, indeed, gives this name to “Andronicus and Junia,
who,” he says, “are of note among the apostles;”[808] but
when he means to speak with strict propriety, he never applies
that name except to those of the first order that we have mentioned.
And this is the common usage of the Scripture. But
the province of pastors is the same as that of the apostles, except
that they preside over particular Churches respectively
committed to each of them. Of the nature of their functions
let us now proceed to a more distinct statement.
VI. Our Lord, when he sent forth his apostles, commissioned
them, as we have just remarked, to preach the gospel, and to
baptize all believers for the remission of sins.[809] He had
already commanded them to distribute the sacred symbols of
his body and blood according to his own example.[810] Behold
the sacred, inviolable, and perpetual law imposed upon those
who call themselves successors of the apostles; it commands
them to preach the gospel, and to administer the sacraments.
Hence we conclude, that those who neglect both these duties
have no just pretensions to the character of apostles. But what
shall we say of pastors? Paul speaks not only of himself, but of
all who bear that office, when he says, “Let a man so account
of us, as of the ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries
of God.”[811] Again: “A bishop must hold fast the faithful word
as he hath been taught, that he may be able, by sound doctrine,
both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.”[812] From these
and similar passages, which frequently occur, we may infer that
the preaching of the gospel, and the administration of the sacraments,
constitute the two principal parts of the pastoral office.
Now, the business of teaching is not confined to public discourses,
but extends also to private admonitions. Thus Paul calls upon
the Ephesians to witness the truth of his declaration, “I have kept
back nothing that was profitable unto you, but have showed
you, and have taught you publicly, and from house to house,
testifying both to the Jews, and also to the Greeks, repentance
toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ.” And a
little after: “I ceased not to warn every one, night and day, with
tears.”[813] But it is no part of my present design, to enumerate
all the excellences of a good pastor, but only to show what is
implied in the profession of those who call themselves pastors;
namely, that they preside over the Church in that station, not
that they may enjoy a respectable sinecure, but to instruct the
people in true piety by the doctrine of Christ, to administer the
holy mysteries, to maintain and exercise proper discipline. For
the Lord denounces to all those who have been stationed as
265watchmen in the Church, that if any one perish in ignorance
through their negligence, he will require the blood of such a
person at their hands.[814] What Paul says of himself, belongs
to them all: “Woe is unto me, if I preach not the gospel,” because
“a dispensation of the gospel is committed unto me.”[815]
Lastly, what the apostles did for the whole world, that every
individual pastor ought to do for his flock to which he is
appointed.
VII. While we assign to them all respectively their distinct
Churches, yet we do not deny that a pastor, who is connected with
one Church, may assist others, either when any disputes arise,
which may require his presence, or when his advice is asked
upon any difficult subject. But because, in order to preserve
the peace of the Church, there is a necessity for such a regulation
as shall clearly define to every one what duty he has to do, lest
they should all fall into disorder, run hither and thither in uncertainty
without any call, and all resort to one place; and lest
those who feel more solicitude for their personal accommodation
than for the edification of the Church, should, without any
cause but their own caprice, leave the Churches destitute,—this
distribution ought as far as possible to be generally observed,
that every one may be content with his own limits, and not
invade the province of another. Nor is this an invention of
men, but an institution of God himself. For we read that Paul
and Barnabas “ordained elders in the respective Churches of
Lystra, Iconium, and Antioch;”[816] and Paul himself directed
Titus to “ordain elders in every city.”[817] So in other passages
he mentions “the bishops at Philippi,”[818] and Archippus,
the bishop of the Colossians.[819] And a remarkable speech
of his is preserved by Luke, addressed to “the elders of the
Church of Ephesus.”[820] Whoever, therefore, has undertaken
the government and charge of one Church, let him know that
he is bound to this law of the Divine call; not that he is fixed
to his station so as never to be permitted to leave it in a regular
and orderly manner, if the public benefit should require it; but
he who has been called to one place, ought never to think either
of departing from his situation, or relinquishing the office altogether,
from any motive of personal convenience or advantage.
But if it be expedient that he should remove to another station,
he ought not to attempt this on his own private opinion, but to
be guided by public authority.
VIII. In calling those who preside over Churches by the appellations
of bishops, elders, pastors, and ministers, without any distinction,
266I have followed the usage of the Scripture, which applies
all these terms to express the same meaning. For to all who
discharge the ministry of the word, it gives the title of “bishops.”
So when Paul enjoins Titus to “ordain elders in every city,”
he immediately adds, “For a bishop must be blameless.”[821]
So in another Epistle he salutes more bishops than one in one
Church.[822] And in the Acts he is declared to have sent for
the elders of the Church of Ephesus, whom, in his address to
them, he calls “bishops.”[823] Here it must be observed, that
we have enumerated only those offices which consist in the
ministry of the word; nor does Paul mention any other in the
fourth chapter of the Epistle to the Ephesians, which we have
quoted. But in the Epistle to the Romans, and the First Epistle
to the Corinthians, he enumerates others, as “powers,”
“gifts of healing,” “interpretation of tongues,” “governments,”
“care of the poor.”[824] Those functions which were merely
temporary, I omit, as foreign to our present subject. But there
are two which perpetually remain—“government,” and “the
care of the poor.” “Governors” I apprehend to have been
persons of advanced years, selected from the people, to unite
with the bishops in giving admonitions and exercising discipline.
For no other interpretation can be given of that injunction,
“He that ruleth, let him do it with diligence.”[825] Therefore,
from the beginning, every Church has had its senate or council,
composed of pious, grave, and holy men, who were invested
with that jurisdiction in the correction of vices, of which we
shall soon treat. Now, that this regulation was not of a single
age, experience itself demonstrates. This office of government
is necessary, therefore, in every age.
IX. The care of the poor was committed to the “deacons.”
The Epistle to the Romans, however, mentions two functions
of this kind. “He that giveth,” says the apostle, “let him do
it with simplicity: he that showeth mercy, with cheerfulness.”[826]
Now, as it is certain that he there speaks of the
public offices of the Church, it follows that there were two
distinct orders of deacons. Unless my judgment deceive me,
the former clause refers to the deacons who administered the
alms; and the other to those who devoted themselves to the
care of poor and sick persons; such as the widows mentioned
by Paul to Timothy.[827] For women could execute no other
public office, than by devoting themselves to the service of the
poor. If we admit this,—and it ought to be fully admitted,—there
will be two classes of deacons, of whom one will serve
267the Church in dispensing the property given to the poor, the
other in taking care of the poor themselves.—Though the
word itself (διακονια) is of more extensive signification, yet the
Scripture particularly gives the title of “deacons” to those
whom the Church has appointed to dispense the alms and take
care of the poor, and constituted stewards, as it were, of the
common treasury of the poor; and whose origin, institution,
and office, are described in the Acts of the Apostles. For
“when there arose a murmuring of the Grecians against the
Hebrews because their widows were neglected in the daily
ministration,”[828] the apostles pleaded their inability to discharge
both offices, of the ministry of the word and the service
of tables, and said to the multitude, “Wherefore, brethren, look
ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy
Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business.”
See what were the characters of the deacons in the apostolic
Church, and what ought to be the characters of ours, in conformity
to the primitive example.
X. Now, as “all things” in the Church are required to “be
done decently and in order,”[829] there is nothing in which this
ought to be more diligently observed, than the constitution of
its government; because there would be more danger from
disorder in this case than in any other. Therefore, that restless
and turbulent persons may not presumptuously intrude
themselves into the office of teaching or of governing, it is
expressly provided, that no one shall assume a public office
in the Church without a call. In order, therefore, that any
one may be accounted a true minister of the Church, it is necessary,
in the first place, that he be regularly called to it, and,
in the second place, that he answer his call; that is, by undertaking
and executing the office assigned to him. This may frequently
be observed in Paul; who, when he wishes to prove
his apostleship, almost always alleges his call, together with
his fidelity in the execution of the office. If so eminent a
minister of Christ dare not arrogate to himself an authority to
require his being heard in the Church, but in consequence of
his appointment to it by a Divine commission, and his faithful
discharge of the duty assigned him,—what extreme impudence
must it be, if any man, destitute of both these characters,
should claim such an honour for himself! But having already
spoken of the necessity of discharging the office, let us now
confine ourselves to the call.
XI. Now, the discussion of this subject includes four
branches: what are the qualifications of ministers; in what
manner they are to be chosen; by whom they ought to be
268appointed; and with what rite or ceremony they are to be introduced
into their office. I speak of the external and solemn
call, which belongs to the public order of the Church; passing
over that secret call, of which every minister is conscious to
himself before God, but which is not known to the Church.
This secret call, however, is the honest testimony of our heart,
that we accept the office offered to us, not from ambition or
avarice, or any other unlawful motive, but from a sincere fear
of God, and an ardent zeal for the edification of the Church.
This, as I have hinted, is indispensable to every one of us, if
we would approve our ministry in the sight of God. In the
view of the Church, however, he who enters on his office with
an evil conscience, is nevertheless duly called, provided his iniquity
be not discovered. It is even common to speak of private
persons as called to the ministry, who appear to be adapted
and qualified for the discharge of its duties; because learning,
connected with piety and other endowments of a good pastor,
constitutes a kind of preparation for it. For those whom the
Lord has destined to so important an office, he first furnishes
with those talents which are requisite to its execution, that
they may not enter upon it empty and unprepared. Hence
Paul, in his Epistle to the Corinthians, when he intended to
treat of the offices themselves, first enumerated the gifts which
ought to be possessed by the persons who sustain those offices.[830]
But as this is the first of the four points which I have proposed,
let us now proceed to it.
XII. The qualifications of those who ought to be chosen
bishops, are stated at large by Paul in two passages.[831] The
sum of all he says is, that none are to be chosen but men of
sound doctrine and a holy life, not chargeable with any fault
that may destroy their authority, or disgrace their ministry.
The same rule is laid down for the deacons and governors.
Constant care is required, that they be not unequal to the burden
imposed upon them, or, in other words, that they be endowed
with those talents which are necessary to the discharge
of their duty. So, when Christ was about to send forth his
apostles, he furnished them with such means and powers as
were indispensable to their success.[832] And Paul, after having
delineated the character of a good and genuine bishop, admonishes
Timothy not to contaminate himself by the appointment
of any one of a different description.[833] The question relating
to the manner in which they are to be chosen, I refer not
to the form of election, but to the religious awe which ought
to be observed in it. Hence the fasting and prayer, which
269Luke states to have been practised by the faithful at the ordination
of elders.[834] For knowing themselves to be engaged in a
business of the highest importance, they dared not attempt any
thing but with the greatest reverence and solicitude. And
above all things, they were earnest in prayers and supplications
to God for the spirit of wisdom and discretion.
XIII. The third inquiry we proposed was, by whom ministers
are to be chosen. Now, for this no certain rule can be
gathered from the appointment of the apostles, which was a case
somewhat different from the common call of other ministers.
For as theirs was an extraordinary office, it was necessary, in
order to render it conspicuous by some eminent character, that
they who were to sustain it should be called and appointed by the
mouth of the Lord himself. The apostles, therefore, entered upon
their work, not in consequence of any human election, but empowered
by the sole command of God and of Christ. Hence,
when they wish to substitute another in the place of Judas,
they refrain from a certain appointment of any one, but nominate
two, that the Lord may declare by lot which of them he
wills to be his successor.[835] In the same sense must be
understood the declaration of Paul, that he had been created
“an apostle, not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ,
and God the Father.”[836] The first clause, not of men, was
applicable to him in common with all pious ministers of the
word; for no man can lawfully exercise this ministry without
having been called by God. The other clause was special and
peculiar to himself. When he glories in this, therefore, he
not only claims what belongs to a true and lawful pastor,
but likewise brings forward an evidence of his apostleship.
For whereas there were, among the Galatians, some who, from
an eagerness to diminish his authority, represented him as a
common disciple deputed by the primary apostles,—in order to
vindicate the dignity of his preaching, against which he knew
these artifices were directed, he found it necessary to show
that he was not inferior to the other apostles in any respect.
Wherefore he affirms, that he had not been elected by the judgment
of men, like some ordinary bishop, but by the mouth and
clear revelation of the Lord himself.
XIV. But that the election and appointment of bishops by
men is necessary to constitute a legitimate call to the office, no
sober person will deny, while there are so many testimonies of
Scripture to establish it. Nor is it contradicted by that declaration
of Paul, that he was “an apostle, not of men, nor by man,”[837]
since he is not speaking in that passage of the ordinary election of
ministers, but claiming to himself what was the special privilege
270of the apostles. The immediate designation of Paul, by the
Lord himself, to this peculiar privilege, was nevertheless accompanied
with the form of an ecclesiastical call, for Luke states,
that “As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy
Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto
I have called them.”[838] What end could be answered by
this separation and imposition of hands after the Holy Spirit had
testified their election, unless it was the preservation of the order
of the Church in designating ministers by men? God could
not sanction that order, therefore, by a more illustrious example
than when, after having declared that he had constituted Paul
the apostle of the Gentiles, he nevertheless directed him to be
designated by the Church. The same may be observed in the
election of Matthias.[839] For the apostolic office being of such
high importance that they could not venture to fill up their number
by the choice of any one person from their own judgment,
they appointed two, one of whom was to be chosen by lot;
that so the election might obtain a positive sanction from Heaven,
and yet that the order of the Church might not be altogether
neglected.
XV. Here it is inquired, whether a minister ought to be
chosen by the whole Church, or only by the other ministers
and the elders who preside over the discipline, or whether he
may be appointed by the authority of an individual. Those
who attribute this right to any one man, quote what Paul says to
Titus: “For this cause I left thee in Crete, that thou shouldst
ordain elders in every city;”[840] and to Timothy: “Lay hands
suddenly on no man.”[841] But they are exceedingly mistaken,
if they suppose that either Timothy at Ephesus, or
Titus in Crete, exercised a sovereign power to regulate every
thing according to his own pleasure. For they presided over
the people, only to lead them by good and salutary counsels, not
to act alone to the exclusion of all others. But that this may
not be thought to be an invention of mine, I will prove it by a
similar example. For Luke relates, that elders were ordained
in the Churches by Paul and Barnabas, but at the same time he
distinctly marks the manner in which this was done,—namely,
by the suffrages or votes of the people; for this is the meaning
of the term he there employs—χειροτονησαντες πρεσβυτερους κατ᾽ ἐκκλησιαν.[842]
Those two apostles, therefore, ordained them; but the
whole multitude, according to the custom observed in elections
among the Greeks, declared by the elevation of their hands
who was the object of their choice. So the Roman historians
frequently speak of the consul, who held the assemblies, as
271appointing the new magistrates, for no other reason but because
he received the suffrages and presided at the election. Surely
it is not credible that Paul granted to Timothy and Titus more
power than he assumed to himself; but we see that he was accustomed
to ordain bishops according to the suffrages of the people.
The above passages, therefore, ought to be understood in the
same manner, to guard against all infringement of the common
right and liberty of the Church. It is a good remark, therefore,
of Cyprian, when he contends, “that it proceeds from Divine
authority, that a priest should be elected publicly in the presence
of all the people, and that he should be approved as a worthy
and fit person by the public judgment and testimony.” In the
case of the Levitical priests, we find it was commanded by the
Lord, that they should be brought forward in the view of the
people before their consecration. Nor was Matthias added to
the number of the apostles, nor were the seven deacons appointed,
without the presence and approbation of the people.—“These
examples,” says Cyprian, “show that the ordination
of a priest ought not to be performed but with the knowledge
and concurrence of the people, in order that the election
which shall have been examined by the testimony of all, may
be just and legitimate.” We find, therefore, that it is a legitimate
ministry according to the word of God, when those who
appear suitable persons are appointed with the consent and approbation
of the people; but that other pastors ought to preside
over the election, to guard the multitude from falling into any
improprieties, through inconstancy, intrigue, or confusion.
XVI. There remains the Form of ordination, which is the last
point that we have mentioned relative to the call of ministers.
Now, it appears that when the apostles introduced any one into
the ministry, they used no other ceremony than imposition of
hands. This rite, I believe, descended from the custom of the
Hebrews, who, when they wished to bless and consecrate any
thing, presented it to God by imposition of hands. Thus, when
Jacob blessed Ephraim and Manasseh, he laid his hands upon their
heads.[843] This custom was followed by our Lord, when he
prayed over infants.[844] It was with the same design, I apprehend,
that the Jews were directed in the law to lay their hands
upon their sacrifices. Wherefore the imposition of the hands
of the apostles was an indication that they offered to God the
person whom they introduced into the ministry. They used
the same ceremony over those on whom they conferred the
visible gifts of the Spirit. But, be that as it may, this was
the solemn rite invariably practised, whenever any one was
called to the ministry of the Church. Thus they ordained
272pastors and teachers, and thus they ordained deacons. Now,
though there is no express precept for the imposition of hands,
yet since we find it to have been constantly used by the
apostles, such a punctual observance of it by them ought to
have the force of a precept with us. And certainly this ceremony
is highly useful both to recommend to the people the dignity of
the ministry, and to admonish the person ordained that he is no
longer his own master, but devoted to the service of God and
the Church. Besides, it will not be an unmeaning sign, if it be
restored to its true origin. For if the Spirit of God institutes
nothing in the Church in vain, we shall perceive that this
ceremony, which proceeded from him, is not without its use,
provided it be not perverted by a superstitious abuse. Finally,
it is to be remarked, that the imposition of hands on the ministers
was not the act of the whole multitude, but was confined
to the pastors. It is not certain whether this ceremony was, in
all cases, performed by more pastors than one, or whether it
was ever the act of a single pastor. The former appears to have
been the fact in the case of the seven deacons, of Paul and Barnabas,
and some few others.[845] But Paul speaks of himself as
having laid hands upon Timothy, without any mention of many
others having united with him. “I put thee in remembrance, that
thou stir up the gift of God which is in thee, by the putting on of
my hands.”[846] His expression, in the other Epistle, of “the
laying on of the hands of the presbytery,”[847] I apprehend not
to signify a company of elders, but to denote the ordination
itself; as if he had said, Take care that the grace which thou
receivedst by the laying on of hands, when I ordained thee a
presbyter, be not in vain.
Hitherto we have treated of the mode of government in
the Church, as it has been delivered to us by the pure word of
God, and of the offices in it, as they were instituted by Christ.
Now, that all these things may be more clearly and familiarly
displayed, and more deeply impressed upon our minds, it will
be useful to examine what was the form of the ancient Church,
in these particulars. It will place before our eyes an actual
273exemplification of the Divine institution. For though the
bishops of those times published many canons, in which they
seemed to express more than had been expressed in the Holy
Scriptures, yet they were so cautious in framing their whole
economy according to the sole standard of the word of God, that
in this respect scarcely any thing can be detected among them
inconsistent with that word. But though there might be something
to be regretted in their regulations, yet because they directed
their sincere and zealous efforts to preserve the institution of
God, without deviating from it to any considerable extent, it will
be highly useful in this place to give a brief sketch of what their
practice was. As we have stated that there are three kinds of
ministers recommended to us in the Scripture, so the ancient
Church divided all the ministers it had into three orders. For
from the order of presbyters, they chose some for pastors and
teachers; the others presided over the discipline and corrections.
To the deacons was committed the care of the poor and the distribution
of the alms. Readers and Acolytes were not names of
certain offices, but young men, to whom they also gave the name
of clergy, whom they accustomed from their youth to certain
exercises in the service of the Church, that they might better understand
to what they were destined, and might enter upon their
office better prepared for it in due time; as I shall soon show more
at large. Therefore Jerome, after having mentioned five orders
of the Church, enumerates bishops, presbyters, deacons, the
faithful, or believers at large, and catechumens, or persons who
had not yet been baptized, but had applied for instruction in
the Christian faith. Thus he assigns no particular place to the
rest of the clergy and the monks.
II. All those to whom the office of teaching was assigned,
were denominated presbyters. To guard against dissension, the
general consequence of equality, the presbyters in each city
chose one of their own number, whom they distinguished by
the title of bishop. The bishop, however, was not so superior
to the rest in honour and dignity, as to have any dominion over
his colleagues; but the functions performed by a consul in the
senate, such as, to propose things for consideration, to collect
the votes, to preside over the rest in the exercise of advice,
admonition, and exhortation, to regulate all the proceedings by
his authority, and to carry into execution whatever had been
decreed by the general voice;—such were the functions exercised
by the bishop in the assembly of the presbyters. And
that this arrangement was introduced by human agreement, on
account of the necessity of the times, is acknowledged by the
ancient writers themselves. Thus Jerome, on the Epistle to
Titus, says, “A presbyter is the same as a bishop. And before
dissensions in religion were produced by the instigation of the
274devil, and one said, I am of Paul, and another, I am of Cephas,
the Churches were governed by a common council of presbyters.
Afterwards, in order to destroy the seeds of dissensions, the whole
charge was committed to one. Therefore, as the presbyters
know that according to the custom of the Church they are
subject to the bishop who presides over them, so let the
bishops know that their superiority to the presbyters is more from
custom than from the appointment of the Lord, and they ought
to unite together in the government of the Church.” In another
place, he shows the antiquity of this institution; for he says,
that at Alexandria, even from Mark the Evangelist to Heraclas
and Dionysius, the presbyters always chose one of their body
to preside over them, whom they called their bishop. Every
city, therefore, had its college of presbyters, who were pastors
and teachers. For they all executed the duties of teaching,
exhorting, and correcting, among the people, as Paul enjoins
bishops to do;[848] and in order to leave successors behind them,
they laboured in training young men, who had enlisted themselves
in the sacred warfare. To every city was assigned a certain
district, which received presbyters from it, and was reckoned
as a part of that Church. Every assembly, as I have stated, for
the sole purpose of preserving order and peace, was under the direction
of one bishop, who, while he had the precedence of all
others in dignity, was himself subject to the assembly of the
brethren. If the territory placed under his episcopate was too
extensive to admit of his discharging all the duties of a bishop
in every part of it, presbyters were appointed in certain stations,
to act as his deputies in things of minor importance. These
were called chorepiscopi, or country bishops, because in the
country they represented the bishop.
III. But with respect to the office of which we are now
treating, the bishops and presbyters were equally required to
employ themselves in the dispensation of the word and sacraments.
For at Alexandria only, because Arius had disturbed
the Church there, it was ordained that no presbyter should
preach to the people; as is asserted by Socrates in the ninth
book of his Tripartite History, with which Jerome hesitates
not to express his dissatisfaction. It would certainly have
been regarded as a prodigy, if any man had claimed the character
of a bishop, who had not shown himself really such in
his conduct. Such was the strictness of those times, that all
ministers were constrained to discharge the duties which the
Lord requires of them. I refer not to the custom of one age
only; for even in the time of Gregory, when the Church was
almost extinct, or at least had considerably degenerated from
its ancient purity, it would not have been permitted for any
275bishop to abstain from preaching. Gregory somewhere says,
“A priest dies, if his sound be not heard;[849] for he provokes
the wrath of the invisible Judge against him, if he go without
the sound of preaching.” And in another place: “When Paul
declares that he is ‘pure from the blood of all,’[850] by this declaration,
we, who are called priests, are convicted, confounded,
and declared to be guilty, who to all our own crimes add the
deaths of others; for we are chargeable with slaying all those
whom we daily behold advancing to death, while we are indifferent
and silent.” He calls himself and others silent, because
they were less assiduous in their work than they ought to be.
Since he spares not those who performed half of their duty, what
is it probable he would have done, if any one had neglected it
altogether? It was therefore long maintained in the Church,
that the principal office of a bishop was to feed the people with
the word of God, or to edify the Church both in public and
private with sound doctrine.
IV. The establishment of one archbishop over all the bishops
of each province, and the appointment of patriarchs at the
Council of Nice, with rank and dignity superior to the archbishops,
were regulations for the preservation of discipline. In
this disquisition, however, what was of the least frequent use
cannot be wholly omitted. The principal reason, therefore, for
the institution of these orders was, that if any thing should
take place in any Church which could not be settled by a few
persons, it might be referred to a provincial synod. If the
magnitude or difficulty of the case required a further discussion,
the patriarchs were called to unite with the synods; and from
them there could be no appeal but to a general council. This
constitution of government some called a hierarchy—a name, in
my opinion, improper, and certainly not used in the Scriptures.
For it has been the design of the Holy Spirit, in every thing
relating to the government of the Church, to guard against
any dreams of principality or dominion. But if we look at the
thing, without regarding the term, we shall find that the ancient
bishops had no intention of contriving a form of government
for the Church, different from that which God has prescribed
in his word.
V. Nor was the situation of deacons at that time at all different
from what it had been under the apostles. For they
received the daily contributions of believers and the annual
revenues of the Church, to apply them to their proper uses,
that is, to distribute part to the ministers, and part for the support
of the poor; subject, however, to the authority of the
bishop, to whom they also rendered an account of their administration
276every year. For when the canons invariably represent
the bishop as the dispenser of all the benefactions of the
Church, it is not to be understood as if he executed that charge
himself, but because it belonged to him to give directions to
the deacon, who were to be entirely supported from the funds
of the Church, to whom the remainder was to be distributed,
and in what proportion to each person; and because he had
the superintendence over the deacon, to examine whether he
faithfully discharged his office. Thus the canons, ascribed to
the apostles, contain the following injunction: “We ordain
that the bishop do have the property of the Church in his
own power. For if the souls of men, which are of superior
value, have been intrusted to him, there is far greater propriety
in his taking charge of the pecuniary concerns; so that all
things may be distributed to the poor by his authority through
the presbyters and deacons, and that they may be administered
with reverence, and all concern.” And in the Council of Antioch
it was decreed, that those bishops should be censured
who managed the pecuniary concerns of the Church without
the concurrence of the presbyters and deacons. But it is
unnecessary to argue this point any further, since it is evident
from many epistles of Gregory, that even in his time,
when the administration of the Church was in other respects
become very corrupt, yet this custom was still retained, that
the deacons were the stewards for the relief of the poor,
under the authority of the bishop. It is probable that subdeacons
were at first attached to the deacons, to assist them
in transacting the business of the poor; but this distinction
was soon lost. Archdeacons were first erected when the extent
of the property required a new and more accurate mode
of administration; though Jerome states that there were such
offices even in his time. In their hands was placed the amount
of the annual revenues, of the possessions, and of the household
furniture, and the management of the daily contributions.
Whence Gregory denounces to the archdeacon of Thessalonica,
that he would be held guilty, if any of the property of the
Church should be lost by him, either through negligence or
fraud. Their appointment to read the gospel, and to exhort
the people to pray, and their admission to the administration of
the cup in the sacred supper, were intended to dignify their
office, that they might discharge it with the more piety, in
consequence of being admonished by such ceremonies, that
they were not executing some profane stewardship, but that
their function was spiritual and dedicated to God.
VI. Hence it is easy to judge what use was made of the
property of the Church, and in what manner it was dispensed.
We often find it stated, both in the decrees of the councils, and
277by the ancient writers, that whatever the Church possessed,
whether in lands or in money, was the patrimony of the poor.
The bishops and deacons, therefore, are continually reminded
that they are not managing their own treasures, but those destined
to supply the necessity of the poor, which if they unfaithfully
withhold or embezzle, they will be guilty of murder.
Hence they are admonished to distribute this property to the
parties entitled to it, with the greatest caution and reverence,
as in the sight of God, and without respect of persons. Hence
also the solemn protestations of Chrysostom, Ambrose, Augustine,
and other bishops, assuring the people of their integrity.
Now, since it is perfectly equitable, and sanctioned by the law
of the Lord, that those who are employed in the service of
the Church should be maintained at the public expense of the
Church,—and even in that age some presbyters consecrated
their patrimonies to God, and reduced themselves to voluntary
poverty,—the distribution was such, that neither were the ministers
left without support, nor were the poor neglected. Yet,
at the same time, care was taken that the ministers themselves,
who ought to set an example of frugality to others, should not
have enough to be abused to the purposes of splendour or delicacy,
but only what would suffice to supply their necessities.
“For,” says Jerome, “those of the clergy who are able to
maintain themselves from their own patrimony, if they take
what belongs to the poor, are guilty of sacrilege, and by such
an abuse, they eat and drink judgment to themselves.”
VII. At first the administration was free and voluntary, the
bishops and deacons acting with spontaneous fidelity, and integrity
of conscience and innocence of life supplying the place of
laws. Afterwards, when the cupidity or corrupt dispositions
of some gave birth to evil examples, in order to correct these
abuses, canons were made, which divided the revenues of the
Church into four parts, assigning the first to the clergy, the
second to the poor, the third to the reparation of Churches and
other buildings, the fourth to poor strangers. For, though
other canons assign this last part to the bishop, this forms no
variation from the division which I have mentioned. For the
intention was, that it should be appropriated to him, neither
for his own exclusive consumption, nor for lavish or arbitrary
distribution, but to enable him to support the hospitality which
Paul requires of persons in that office.[851] And so it is explained
by Gelasius and Gregory. For Gelasius adduces
no other reason why the bishop should claim any thing for
himself, than to enable him to communicate to captives and
strangers. And Gregory is still more explicit. He says, “It
278is the custom of the apostolic see, at the ordination of a bishop,
to command him that all the revenue received by him be
divided into four portions; namely, one for the bishop and his
family, for the support of hospitality and entertainment; the
second for the clergy; the third for the poor; the fourth for the
reparation of Churches.” It was unlawful for the bishop,
therefore, to take for his own use any thing more than was
sufficient for moderate and frugal sustenance and clothing. If
any one began to transgress the due limits, either in luxury, or
in ostentation and pomp, he was immediately admonished by
his colleagues; and if he would not comply with the admonition,
he was deposed from his office.
VIII. The portion which they applied to ornament the
sacred edifices, at first was very small; and even after the
Church was become a little more wealthy, they did not exceed
moderation in this respect: whatever money was so employed,
still continued to be held in reserve for the poor, if any pressing
necessity should occur. Thus, when famine prevailed in the
province of Jerusalem, and there was no other way of relieving
their wants, Cyril sold the vessels and vestments, and expended
the produce in purchasing sustenance for the poor. In like
manner, when vast numbers of the Persians were almost perishing
with hunger, Acatius, bishop of Amida, after having
convoked his clergy, and made that celebrated speech, “Our
God has no need of dishes or cups, because he neither eats nor
drinks,” melted down the vessels, and converted them into
money, to redeem the wretched, and buy food for them. Jerome
also, while he inveighs against the excessive splendour
of the temples, makes honourable mention of Exuperius, at that
time bishop of Thoulouse, who administered the emblem of
our Lord’s body in a wicker basket, and the emblem of his
blood in a glass, but suffered no poor person to endure hunger.
The same that I have just said of Acatius, Ambrose relates of
himself; for when he was censured by the Arians for having
broken up the sacred vessels to pay the ransom of some captives,
he made the following most excellent defence: “He who
sent forth the apostles without gold, gathered Churches together
likewise without gold. The Church has gold, not to
keep, but to expend, and to furnish relief in necessities. What
need is there to keep that which is of no service? Do not we
know how much gold and silver the Assyrians plundered from
the temple of the Lord? Is it not better that it should be
melted down by the priest for the sustenance of the poor, if
other resources are wanting, than that it should be carried away
by a sacrilegious enemy? Will not the Lord say, Wherefore
hast thou suffered so many poor to die with hunger, and at the
same time hadst gold, with which thou mightest have supplied
279them with food? Why have so many been carried away into
captivity, and never been redeemed? Why have so many
been slain by the enemy? It would have been better to preserve
the vessels of living beings, than those of metals. To
these questions you could make no answer. For what would
you say? I was afraid that the temple of God would be destitute
of ornament. God would reply, The sacraments require
no gold, nor is gold any recommendation of that which is not
purchased with gold. The ornament of the sacraments is the
redemption of captives.” In short, we see that it was very
true which was observed by the same writer in another place,
“that whatever the Church possessed at that time, was appropriated
to the relief of the necessitous,” and “that all that a
bishop had, belonged to the poor.”
IX. These, which we have enumerated, were the offices of
the ancient Church. Others, which are mentioned by ecclesiastical
historians, were rather exercises and preparations, than
certain offices. For to form a seminary, which should provide
the Church with future ministers, those holy men took under
their charge, protection, and discipline, such youths as, with
the consent and sanction of their parents, enlisted themselves
in the spiritual warfare; and so they educated them from an
early age, that they might not enter on the discharge of their
office ignorant and unprepared. All who were trained in this
manner, were called by the general name of clergy. I could
wish, indeed, that some other more appropriate name had been
given them; for this appellation originated in error, or at least
in some improper views; for Peter calls the whole Church the
clergy, that is, the inheritance of the Lord.[852] The institution
itself, however, was pious and eminently beneficial; that those
who wished to consecrate themselves and their labours to the
Church, should be educated under the care of the bishop; that
no one might minister in the Church but one who had received
sufficient previous instruction, who from his early youth had
imbibed sound doctrine, who from a strict discipline had acquired
a certain habitual gravity, and more than common sanctity
of life, who had been abstracted from secular occupations,
and accustomed to spiritual cares and studies. Now, as young
soldiers by counterfeit battles are trained to real and serious
warfare, so the clergy were prepared by certain probationary
exercises, before they were actually promoted to offices. At
first they were charged with the care of opening and shutting
the temples, and they were called ostiarii, or door-keepers.
Afterwards they were called acoluthi, or followers, waiting upon
the bishop in domestic services, and accompanying him on all
280occasions, at first in a way of honour, and afterwards to prevent
all suspicion; moreover, that by degrees they might
become known to the people, and might acquire some consideration
among them, and at the same time that they might learn
to bear the presence of all, and have courage to speak before
them, that after being made presbyters, when they should come
to preach, they might not be confounded with shame, therefore
they were appointed to read the Scriptures from the pulpit. In
this manner they were promoted by degrees, that they might
approve their diligence in the respective exercises, till they
were made subdeacons. I only contend, that these were rather
preparations for pupils, than functions reckoned among the real
offices of the Church.
X. We have said, that the first point in the election of
ministers related to the qualifications of the persons to be
chosen, and the second to the religious reverence with which
the business ought to be conducted. In both these points, the
ancient Church followed the direction of Paul and the examples
of the apostles. For it was their custom to assemble for the
election of pastors with the greatest reverence and solemn invocation
of the name of God. They had likewise a form of examination,
in which they tried the life and doctrine of the
candidates by that standard of Paul. Only they ran into the
error of immoderate severity, from a wish to require in a bishop
more than Paul requires, and especially, in process of time, by
enjoining celibacy. In other things their practice was in conformity
with the description of Paul.[853] In the third point
which we have mentioned, namely, by whom ministers ought
to be chosen, they did not always observe the same order. In
the primitive times there was no one admitted among the number
of the clergy, without the consent of all the people; so
that Cyprian makes a laboured defence of his having appointed
one Aurelius a reader, without consulting the Church, because
he departed in this instance from the general custom, though
not without reason. He begins in the following manner: “In
appointing the clergy, my very dear brethren, we are accustomed
first to consult you, and to weigh the morals and merits
of every one of them in the general assembly.” But as there
was not much danger in these inferior exercises, because they
were admitted to a long probation, and not to a high office, the
consent of the people ceased to be asked. Afterwards, in the
other offices also, except the episcopate, the people generally
left the judgment and choice to the bishop and presbyters, so
that they determined who were capable and deserving; except
when new presbyters were appointed to the parishes, for then
281it was necessary to have the express consent of the body of the
people at each place. Nor is it any wonder that the people
were not very solicitous for the preservation of their right in
this case. For no one was made a subdeacon, who had not
been tried for a considerable time as one of the clergy, under
the severe discipline which was then practised. After he had
been tried in that station, he was constituted a deacon; in
which if he conducted himself with fidelity, he obtained the
rank of a presbyter. Thus no one was promoted who had not
really undergone an examination for many years, under the
eyes of the people. And there were many canons for the
punishment of their faults; so that the Church could not be
troubled with wicked presbyters or deacons, unless it neglected
the remedies within its reach. The election of presbyters,
however, always required the consent of the inhabitants of the
place; which is testified by the first canon, which is attributed
to Anacletus. And all ordinations took place at stated times
of the year, that no one might be introduced clandestinely,
without the consent of the faithful, or be promoted with too
much facility, without any attestation to his character.
XI. The right of voting in the election of bishops was retained
by the people for a long time, that no one might be
obtruded who was not acceptable to all. The Council of Antioch
therefore decreed, that no bishop should be appointed
without the consent of the people, which Leo the First expressly
confirms. Hence the following injunctions: “Let him be
chosen who shall be called for by the clergy and people, or at
least by the majority of them.” Again: “Let him who is to
preside over all, be chosen by all.” For he who is appointed
without having been previously known and examined, must of
necessity be intruded by force. Again: “Let him be elected
who shall have been chosen by the clergy and desired by the
people; and let him be consecrated by the bishops of that province,
with the authority of the metropolitan.” So careful were
the holy fathers that this liberty of the people should not by
any means be infringed, that when the general council, assembled
at Constantinople, appointed Nectarius, they would not do
it without the approbation of all the clergy and people; as is
evident from their epistle to the Council of Rome. Wherefore,
when any bishop appointed his successor, the appointment was
not confirmed but by the suffrages of all the people. Of such
a circumstance we have not only an example, but the particular
form in Augustine’s nomination of Eradius. And Theodoret,
when he states that Peter was nominated by Athanasius as
his successor, immediately adds, that this was confirmed by
the clergy, and ratified by the acclamations of the magistracy,
the nobility, and all the people.
282XII. I confess that there was the greatest propriety in the
decree of the Council of Laodicea, that the election should not
be left to the populace. For it scarcely ever happens that so
many heads concur in one opinion for the settlement of any
business; and almost every case verifies the observation, that
the uncertain vulgar are divided by contrary inclinations. But
to this danger was applied an excellent remedy. For in the
first place, the clergy alone made their choice, and presented
the person they had chosen to the magistracy, or to the senate
and governors. They deliberated on the election, and if it appeared
to them a proper one, confirmed it, or otherwise chose
another person whom they preferred. Then the business was
referred to the multitude, who, though they were not bound to
concur in these previous opinions, yet were less likely to be
thrown into disorder. Or if the business commenced with the
multitude, this method was adopted in order to discover who
was the principal object of their wishes; and after hearing the
wishes of the people, the clergy proceeded to the election.
Thus the clergy were neither at liberty to elect whom they
pleased, nor under a necessity of complying with the foolish
desires of the people. This order is stated by Leo in another
place, when he says, “It is requisite to have the votes of the
citizens, the testimonies of the people, the authority of the
governors, and the election of the clergy.” Again: “Let there
be the testimony of the governors, the subscription of the
clergy, the consent of the senate and people. Reason permits
it not to be done in any other way.” Nor is there any other
meaning in that decree of the Council of Laodicea, than that
the clergy and governors should not suffer themselves to be
carried away by the inconsiderate multitude, but by their prudence
and gravity should check, on every necessary occasion,
the folly and violence of popular desires.
XIII. This mode of election was still practised in the time
of Gregory, and it is probable that it continued long after.
There are many of his epistles which furnish sufficient evidence
of this fact. For in every case relating to the creation
of a new bishop in any place, he was accustomed to write to
the clergy, the senate, and the people; and sometimes to the
duke, according to the constitution of the government in the
place to which he was writing. And if, on account of disturbances
or dissensions in any Church, he confides the superintendence
of the election to some neighbouring bishop, yet he
invariably requires a solemn decree confirmed by the subscriptions
of all. Even when one Constantius was created bishop
of Milan, and on account of the incursions of the barbarians,
many of the Milanese had retired to Genoa, he thought the
election would not be legitimate, unless they also were called
283together, and gave their united consent. And what is more, it
was within the last five hundred years that Pope Nicholas made
this decree respecting the election of the Roman pontiff; that
the cardinals should take the lead, that in the next place they
should unite with them the rest of the clergy, and lastly that
the election should be confirmed by the consent of the people.
And at the conclusion he recites that decree of Leo, which I
have just quoted, and commands it to be observed in future.
If the cabals of the wicked should go to such a length as to
constrain the clergy to quit the city in order to make a proper
election, still he ordains that some of the people should be
present at the same time. The consent of the emperor, as far
as I can discover, was required only in two Churches, at Rome
and at Constantinople, because they were the two capitals of
the empire. For when Ambrose was sent to Milan with authority
from Valentinian to preside at the election of a new
bishop, that was an extraordinary measure, in consequence of
the grievous factions which raged among the citizens. At
Rome the authority of the emperor had anciently so much influence
in the creation of a bishop, that Gregory speaks of himself
as having been appointed to the government of the Church by
the sole command of the emperor, notwithstanding he had been
formally chosen by the people. But the custom was, that
when any one had been chosen by the senate, clergy, and
people, it was immediately reported to the emperor, that he might
either ratify the election by his approbation, or rescind it by his
negative. Nor is there any thing repugnant to this custom in
the decrees collected by Gratian; which only say, that it is by
no means to be suffered that a king should supersede all canonical
election by appointing a bishop at his own pleasure, and
that the metropolitans ought not to consecrate any one who
shall thus have been promoted by the violence of power. For
it is one thing to spoil the Church of its right, by transferring
the whole to the caprice of an individual, and another to give
a king or an emperor the honour of confirming a legitimate
election by his authority.
XIV. It remains for us to state, by what ceremony the
ministers of the ancient Church, after their election, were initiated
into their office. This the Latins have called ordination
or consecration. The Greeks have called it χειροτονια, extension
or elevation of hands, and sometimes χειροθεσια, imposition of
hands; though the former word properly signifies that kind of
election in which the suffrages are declared by the lifting up of
the hands. There is a decree of the Council of Nice, that the
metropolitan should meet with all the bishops of the province,
to ordain him who shall have been elected; but that if any of
them be prevented by the length of the journey, by sickness, or
284by any other necessary cause, at least three should meet, and
those who are absent should testify their consent by letters.
And when this canon from disuse had grown obsolete, it was renewed
in various councils. Now, the reason why all, or at least
as many as had no sufficient excuse, were commanded to be
present, was that there might be a more solemn examination
into the learning and morals of the person to be ordained; for
the business was not completed without examination. And it
appears from the epistles of Cyprian, that in the beginning the
bishops were not invited after the election, but used to be
present at the election, and that for the purpose of acting as
moderators, that nothing turbulent might take place among the
multitude. For after having said that the people have the
power either to choose the worthy for priests, or to reject the
unworthy, he adds, “Wherefore it is to be carefully held and
observed as a Divine and apostolical tradition, (which is observed
among us, and in almost all the provinces,) that for the due
performance of ordinations, all the neighbouring bishops of the
same province should meet with the people over whom a bishop
is to be ordained, and that the bishop should be chosen in the
presence of the people.” But because such an assembly was
sometimes very slowly collected, and there was danger that such
a delay might be abused by some for the purposes of intrigue, it
was deemed sufficient, if they assembled after the election was
made, and upon due examination consecrated the person who
had been chosen.
XV. This was the universal practice, without any exception.
By degrees a different custom was introduced, and the persons
elected went to the metropolitan city to seek ordination. This
change arose from ambition and a corruption of the ancient institution,
rather than from any good reason. And not long after,
when the authority of the see of Rome had increased, another
custom obtained, which was still worse; almost all the bishops
of Italy went to Rome to be consecrated. This may be seen
by the epistles of Gregory. Only a few cities, which did not so
easily yield, preserved their ancient right; of which there is an
example recorded by him in the case of Milan. Perhaps the
metropolitan cities were the only ones that retained their privilege.
For almost all the provincial bishops used to assemble
in the metropolitan city to consecrate their archbishop. The
ceremony was imposition of hands. For I read of no other ceremony
practised, except that in the public assembly the bishops
had some dress to distinguish them from the rest of the presbyters.
Presbyters and deacons also were ordained solely by imposition
of hands. But every bishop ordained his own presbyters,
in conjunction with the assembly of the other presbyters
of his diocese. Now, though they all united in the same act,
yet because the bishop took the lead, and the ceremony was
285performed under his direction, therefore it was called his ordination.
Wherefore it is often remarked by the ancient writers,
that a presbyter differs from a bishop in no other respect, than
that he does not possess the power of ordination.
Now, it is proper to exhibit the system of ecclesiastical government
at present maintained by the see of Rome, and all its
dependencies, with a full view of that hierarchy which is perpetually
in their mouths, and to compare it with the description
we have given of the primitive and ancient Church. This comparison
will show what kind of a Church there is among those
who fiercely arrogate this exclusive title, in order to oppress, or
rather to overwhelm us. Now, it is best to begin with the vocation,
that we may see who and what kind of men are called to
the ministry, and how they are introduced to it. We shall then
consider how faithfully they discharge their duty. We shall
give the first place to the bishops; and I wish it might be to
their honour to hold the first rank in this disquisition. But the
subject itself will not permit me to touch on this argument ever
so slightly, without involving their deepest disgrace. I shall
remember, however, the nature of the work in which I am now
engaged, and shall not suffer my discourse, which ought to be
confined to simple doctrine, to exceed its proper bounds. But
let some one of those who have not lost all shame, answer me;
What kind of bishops are now generally chosen? To examine
into their learning, is too obsolete; and if any regard be paid to it,
they choose some lawyer, who understands pleading in a court,
better than preaching in a Church. It is evident, that for a
hundred years, scarcely one in a hundred that has been chosen,
had any knowledge of the Holy Scripture. I say nothing of
the preceding ages; not that they were much better, but because
our business is only with the present Church. If we
inquire into their morals, we shall find that there have been few
or none who would not have been judged unworthy by the
ancient canons. He who has not been a drunkard, has been a
fornicator; and he who has been free from both these vices, has
been either a gambler or a hunter, or dissolute in some part of his
life. For the old canons exclude a man from the episcopal office
286for smaller vices than these. But the greatest absurdity of all is,
that even boys, scarcely ten years of age, have by the permission
of the pope been made bishops. And to such lengths of impudence
and stupidity have they proceeded, as not to be afraid of
that extreme and monstrous enormity, which is altogether repugnant
to the common sense of nature. Hence it appears
how solemn and conscientious must have been their elections,
which were marked with such extreme negligence.
II. All the right of the people to choose has been entirely
taken away. Their suffrages, assent, subscriptions, and every
thing of this kind, have disappeared. All the power is transferred
to the canons. They confer the bishopric on whom
they please, and then produce him before the people, but to be
adored, not to be examined. Leo, on the contrary, exclaims
that no reason permits this, and pronounces it to be a violent
imposition. When Cyprian declares it to be of Divine right,
that an election should not be made without the consent of the
people, he shows that a different method is repugnant to the
word of God. The decrees of various councils most severely
prohibit it to be done in any other way, and if it be done,
command it to be void. If these things be true, there is now
no canonical election remaining in all the Papacy, either according
to Divine or ecclesiastical right. Now, though there were
no other evil, how will they be able to excuse themselves for
having thus deprived the Church of her right? But they say,
the corruption of the times required, that as the people and
magistrates, in the choice of bishops, were rather carried away
by antipathies and partialities than governed by an honest and
correct judgment, the decision of this business should be intrusted
to a few. Let it be admitted that this was an extreme
remedy for a disease under desperate circumstances. Yet as
the medicine has been found more injurious than the disease
itself, why is there no remedy provided against this new malady?
They reply, The canons themselves have been particularly
directed what course they ought to pursue in an election. But
do we doubt, that the people formerly understood themselves
to be bound by the most sacred laws, when they saw the word
of God proposed as their rule, whenever they assembled for the
election of a bishop? For that one declaration of God, in
which he describes the true character of a bishop, ought to have
more weight than millions of canons. Yet, corrupted by a
most sinful disposition, they paid no regard to law or equity.
So in the present day, though there are the best written laws,
yet they remain buried in paper. At the same time, it has
been the general practice, and, as if it were founded in reason,
has obtained the general approbation, that drunkards, fornicators,
and gamblers, have been promoted to this honour.
287I do not say enough. Bishoprics are the rewards of adulterers
and panders. For when they are given to hunters and fowlers,
the business must be considered as well managed. To attempt
any excuse of such flagitious proceedings is abominable. The
people, I say, had a most excellent canon, in the direction of the
word of God, that “a bishop must be blameless, apt to teach, no
striker,” &c.[854] Why, then, was the right of election transferred
from the people to the canons? They reply, Because the word
of God was not attended to, amidst the tumults and factions of
the people. And why should it not now be again transferred
from them, who not only violate all laws, but, casting off all
shame, mingle and confound heaven and earth together, by
their lust, avarice, and ambition?
III. But it is a false pretence when they say, that the present
practice was introduced as a remedy. We read that in the
early times, cities were frequently thrown into confusion at the
election of their bishops; yet no one ever dared to think of
depriving the citizens of their right. For they had other ways,
either of guarding against these evils, or of correcting them
when they occurred. But I will state the real truth of the case.
When the people began to be negligent about choosing, and,
considering this care as less suitable to themselves, left it to
the presbyters, the latter abused this occasion to usurp a tyrannical
power, which they afterwards confirmed to themselves by
new canons. Their form of ordination is no other than a mere
mockery. For the appearance of examination which they display
in it, is so frivolous and jejune, that it is even destitute
of all plausibility. The power of nominating bishops, therefore,
which some princes have obtained by stipulation with
the Roman pontiff, has caused no new injury to the Church,
because the election has only been taken from the canons, who
had seized, or rather stolen, it without any just claim. It is
certainly a most disgraceful example, that courtiers are made
bishops, and sent from the court to seize upon the Churches;
and it ought to be the concern of all pious princes to refrain
from such an abuse. For it is an impious robbery of the
Church, whenever a bishop is imposed upon any people, who
have not desired, or at least freely approved of him. But the
disorderly custom which has long prevailed in the Churches,
has given occasion to princes to assume the presentation of
bishops to themselves. For they would rather have this at
their own disposal, than in the hands of those who had no more
right to it, and by whom it was not less abused.
IV. This is the goodly calling, in consequence of which
bishops boast of being successors of the apostles. The power
288of creating presbyters, they say, belongs exclusively to them.
But this is a gross corruption of the ancient institution; for
by their ordination they create, not presbyters to rule and feed
the people, but priests to offer sacrifice. So when they consecrate
deacons, they have nothing to do with their true and
proper office, but only ordain them to certain ceremonies about
the chalice and patine. In the Council of Chalcedon, on the
contrary, it was decreed, that there should be no absolute ordinations,
that is, without some place being at the same time
assigned to the persons ordained, where they were to exercise
their office. This decree was highly useful, for two reasons—first,
that the Churches might not be burdened with an unnecessary
charge, and the money which ought to be distributed to
the poor consumed upon idle men; secondly, that the persons ordained
might consider themselves not as promoted to an honour,
but as intrusted with an office to the discharge of which they
were bound by a solemn engagement. But the Romish doctors,
who think their belly ought to be all their care, even in matters
of religion, first explain the requisite title to consist in an income
sufficient for their support, whether arising from their own patrimony
or from a benefice. Therefore, when they ordain a
deacon or a presbyter, without giving themselves any concern
where he is to officiate, they readily admit him, if he be only
rich enough to maintain himself. But who can admit this, that
the title which the decree of the council requires is a competent
annual income? And because the more recent canons condemned
the bishops to maintain those whom they had ordained
without a sufficient title, in order to prevent their too great facility
in the admission of candidates, they have even contrived a
way to evade this penalty. For the person ordained mentions
any title whatever, and promises that he will be content with it.
By this engagement he is debarred from an action for maintenance.
I say nothing of a thousand frauds practised in this
business; as when some falsely exhibit empty titles of benefices,
from which they could not derive five pence a year;
others, under a secret stipulation, borrow benefices which they
promise to return immediately, but which, in many instances,
are never returned; and other similar mysteries.
V. But even though these grosser abuses were removed, is
it not always absurd to ordain a presbyter without assigning
him any station? For they ordain no one, but to offer sacrifice.
Now, the legitimate ordination of a presbyter consists in
a call to the government of the Church, and that of a deacon
to the collection of the alms. They adorn their procedure, indeed,
with many pompous ceremonies, that its appearance may
gain the veneration of the simple; but with judicious persons,
what can be gained by those appearances unaccompanied by
289any solidity or truth? For they use ceremonies either derived
from Judaism, or invented among themselves, from which it
would be better to refrain. But as to any real examination,
the consent of the people, and other necessary things, they are
not mentioned. The shadow they retain of these things, I
consider not worthy of notice. By shadow, I mean those
ridiculous gesticulations, used as a dull and foolish imitation of
antiquity. The bishops have their vicars, to inquire before
an ordination, into the learning of the candidates. But in
what manner? They interrogate them, whether they can
read their masses; whether they know how to decline some
common noun that may occur in reading, or to conjugate a
verb, or to tell the meaning of a word; for it is not necessary
for them to know how to give the sense of a verse. And yet
none are rejected from the priesthood, who are deficient even
in these puerile elements, provided they bring some present or
recommendation to favour. In the same spirit it is, that when
the persons to be ordained present themselves at the altar,
some one inquires three times, in a language not understood,
whether they are worthy of that honour. One (who never saw
them before, but, that no part of the process might be wanting,
acts his part in the farce) answers, They are worthy. What
accusation is there against these venerable fathers, but that by
sporting with such manifest sacrileges they are guilty of unblushing
mockery of God and men? But because they have
been long in possession of it, they suppose it is now become
right. For whoever ventures to open his mouth against these
glaring and atrocious enormities, they hurry him away to execution,
as if he had committed a capital crime. Would they
do this if they believed that there was any God?
VI. Now, how much better do they conduct themselves in
the collation of benefices?—a thing formerly connected with
ordination, but now entirely separated from it. The ways in
which this business is managed, are various. For the bishops
are not the only persons who confer benefices, and in those the
collation of which is ascribed to them, they do not always
possess the full power, but while they retain the name of the
collation for the sake of honour, the presentation belongs to
others. Besides these, there are nominations from the colleges,
resignations either absolute or made for the sake of exchange,
commendatory rescripts, preventions, and the like. But they
all conduct themselves in such a manner, that no one can
reproach another for any thing. I maintain that scarcely one
benefice in a hundred, in all the Papacy, is at present conferred
without simony, according to the definition which the ancients
gave of that crime. I do not say that they all purchase with
ready money; but show me one in twenty who obtains a
290benefice without any indirect recommendation. Some are promoted
by relationship, others by alliance, others by the influence
of parents, others gain favour by their services. In short, the
end for which sacerdotal offices are conferred, is not to provide
for the Churches, but for the persons to whom they are given.
And therefore they call them benefices, a name by which they
sufficiently declare that they view them in no other light than
as donatives of princes, by which they either conciliate the
favour of their soldiers, or reward their services. I forbear
to remark that these rewards are conferred upon barbers, cooks,
muleteers, and other dregs of the people. And, in the present
day, scarcely any litigations make more noise in the courts of
justice than those respecting benefices; so that they may be
considered as a mere prey thrown out for dogs to hunt after.
Is it tolerable even to hear the name of pastors given to men
who have forced themselves into the possession of a Church, as
into an enemy’s farm; who have obtained it by a legal process;
who have purchased it with money; who have gained it
by dishonourable services; who, while infants just beginning
to lisp, succeeded to it as an inheritance transmitted by their
uncles and cousins, and sometimes even by fathers to their illegitimate
children?
VII. Would the licentiousness of the people, however corrupt
and lawless, ever have proceeded to such a length? But it is
still more monstrous that one man—I say nothing of his qualifications,
only a man not capable of governing himself—should
preside over the government of five or six Churches. We
may now see, in the courts of princes, young men who hold
one archbishopric, two bishoprics, and three abbeys. It is
a common thing for canons to be loaded with five, six, or
seven benefices, of which they take not the least care, except
in receiving the revenues. I will not object that this is every
where condemned by the word of God, which has long ceased
to have the least weight with them. I will not object that
various councils have made many very severe decrees against
such disorder; for these also, whenever they please, they fearlessly
treat with contempt. But I maintain, that both these
things are execrable enormities, utterly repugnant to God, to
nature, and to the government of the Church—that one robber
should engross several Churches at once, and that the name
of pastor should be given to one who could not be present
with his flock, even if he would; and yet, such is their impudence,
they cover these abominable impurities with the name
of the Church, in order to exempt them from all censure. And,
moreover, that inviolable succession, to the merit of which they
boast that the Church owes its perpetual preservation, is included
in these iniquities.
291VIII. Now, let us see how faithfully they exercise their office,
which is the second mark by which we are to judge of a legitimate
pastor. Of the priests whom they create, some are monks,
others are called seculars. The former of these classes was
unknown to the ancient Church, and to hold such a place in
the Church was so incompatible with the monastic profession,
that anciently, when any one was chosen from a monastery to be
one of the clergy, he ceased to be a monk. And even Gregory,
in whose time there was much corruption, yet suffered not this
confusion to take place. For he enjoined, that they who became
abbots should be divested of their clerical character; for
that no one could be a monk and a clergyman at the same time,
because the one would be an impediment to the other. Now,
if I inquire how that man can duly discharge his office, whom
the canons declare to be unfit for it, what answer will they
make? I suppose they will cite those abortive decrees of Innocent
and Boniface, by which monks are admitted to the honour
and authority of the priesthood, so that they may still remain
in their monasteries. But what reason is there, that any illiterate
ass, as soon as he has once occupied the see of Rome, should
by one diminutive word overturn all the usages of antiquity?
But of this we shall say more hereafter. Suffice it at present
to remark, that during the purer times of the Church, it was
deemed a great absurdity for a monk to hold the office of a
priest. For Jerome denies that he performed the office of a
priest while he lived among the monks; but represents himself
as one of the people who ought to be governed by the priests.
But if we grant them this point, how do they execute their
office? There are some of the mendicants, and a few of the
others, who preach. All the rest of the monks either chant or
mutter over masses in their cloisters, as if it were the design
of Jesus Christ that presbyters should be appointed for this
purpose, or as if the nature of their office admitted of it. While
the Scripture clearly testifies that it is the duty of a presbyter
to govern his own Church,[855] is it not an impious profanation
to transfer to another object, or rather to make a total change
in, God’s sacred institution? For when they are ordained monks,
they are expressly forbidden to do things which the Lord enjoins
upon all presbyters. This direction is given to them: Let a
monk be content in his cloister, and not presume to administer
the sacraments, or to execute any other branch of public duty.
Let them deny, if they can, that it is a glaring mockery of God,
to create a presbyter in order that he may refrain from discharging
his true and genuine office, and to give a man the name,
who cannot possess the thing.
292IX. I proceed to the seculars; of whom some are called beneficiaries,
that is, they have benefices by which they are maintained;
others hire themselves to labour by the day, in saying
mass or singing, and live on the wages which they gain from
these employments. Benefices are either attended with cure of
souls, as bishoprics and parishes; or they are the stipends of
delicate men, who gain a livelihood by chanting, as prebends,
canonries, dignities, chaplainships, and the like. But in the
confusion which has been introduced, abbeys and priories are
conferred not only on secular priests, but also on boys, by
privilege, that is, by common and ordinary custom. As to the
mercenaries, who seek their daily sustenance, how could they
act otherwise than they do, that is, to offer themselves to hire
in a mean and shameful manner; especially among such a vast
multitude as now swarms in the world? Therefore, when
they are ashamed of open begging, or think they should gain
but little by that practice, they run about like hungry dogs,
and by their importunity, as by barking, extort from reluctant
hands some morsels to put into their mouths. Here if I should
endeavour to describe what a great disgrace it is to the Church,
that the office and dignity of the presbytery has been so degraded,
there would be no end. My readers, therefore, have
no reason to expect from me a long discourse, corresponding to
such a flagitious enormity. I only assert, in few words, that
if it be the duty of a presbyter, as the word of God prescribes,
and the ancient canons require, to feed the Church and administer
the spiritual kingdom of Christ,[856] all those priests who
have no work or wages, except in making merchandise of
masses, not only fail of executing their office, but have no
legitimate office to execute. For there is no place assigned to
them to teach; they have no people to govern. In short,
nothing remains to them but the altar upon which to offer up
Christ in sacrifice; and this is not sacrificing to God, but to
demons, as we shall see in another place.
X. Here I touch not on the external vices, but only on the
intestine evil which is deeply rooted in their institution, and
cannot be separated from it. I shall add a remark, which will
sound harshly in their ears, but because it is true, it must be
expressed—that canons, deans, chaplains, provosts, and all who
are supported by sinecures, are to be considered in the same
light. For what service can they perform for the Church?
They have discarded the preaching of the word, the superintendence
of discipline, and the administration of the sacraments,
as employments attended with too much labour and trouble.
What have they remaining, then, to boast of as true presbyters?
293They have chanting and the pomp of ceremonies. But what
is all this to the purpose? If they plead custom, usage, prescription
of long continuance, I will confront them with the
decision of Christ, where he has given us a description of true
presbyters, and what qualifications ought to be possessed by
those who wish to be considered as such. If they cannot bear
so hard a law as to submit themselves to the rule of Christ,
let them at least allow this cause to be decided by the authority
of the primitive Church. But their condition will not be
at all better, if we judge of their state by the ancient canons.
Those who have degenerated into canons, ought to be presbyters,
as they were in former times, to govern the Church in
common with the bishop, and to be his colleagues in the pastoral
office. These chapter dignities, as they call them, have
nothing to do with the government of the Church; much less
have the chaplainships, and the other dregs of similar offices.
In what estimation, then, shall we hold them all? It is certain
that the word of Christ and the practice of the ancient Church
agree in excluding them from the honour of the presbytery.
They contend, however, that they are presbyters; but the mask
must be torn off. Then we shall find, that their whole profession
is most foreign and remote from the office of presbyters,
which is described to us by the apostles, and which was required
in the primitive Church. All such orders, therefore, by
whatever titles they may be distinguished, since they are of
modern invention, or at least are not supported by the institution
of God, or the ancient usage of the Church, ought to have
no place in a description of the spiritual government, which
the Church has received, consecrated by the mouth of the Lord
himself. Or, if they wish me to use plainer language, since
chaplains, canons, deans, provosts, and other idlers of this
description, do not even with their little fingers touch a particle
of that duty which is necessarily required in presbyters, it
is not to be endured that they should falsely usurp the honour,
and thus violate the sacred institution of Jesus Christ.
XI. There remain the bishops and the rectors of parishes,
who would afford me great pleasure if they exerted themselves
to support their office. For we would readily admit to them,
that they have a pious and honourable office, provided they
discharged it. But when they wish to be considered as pastors,
notwithstanding they desert the churches committed to them,
and transfer the care of them to others, they act just as if the
office of a pastor consisted in doing nothing. If a usurer, who
never stirred his foot out of the city, should profess himself a
ploughman or vinedresser,—if a soldier, who had spent all his
time in the camp and in the field of battle, and had never seen
a court of justice or books, should offer himself as a lawyer,—who
294could endure such gross absurdities? But these men act
in a manner still more absurd, who wish to be accounted and
called legitimate pastors of the Church, and yet are not willing
to be so in reality. For how few of them are there, who
execute the government of their Churches even in appearance!
Many of them all their lifetime devour the revenues of Churches,
which they never approach even to look at them. Others
either go themselves, or send an agent once every year, that
nothing may be lost by farming them out. When this abuse
first intruded itself, they who wished to enjoy this kind of vacation
from duty, exempted themselves by special privileges.
Now, it is a rare case for any one to reside in his own Church;
for they consider their Churches as no other than farms, over
which they place their vicars, as bailiffs or stewards. But it is
repugnant to common sense, that a man should be pastor of a
flock, who never saw one of the sheep.
XII. It appears that some seeds of this evil had sprung up
in the time of Gregory, and that the rectors of Churches began
to be negligent in preaching and teaching; for he heavily
complains of it in the following passages: “The world is full
of priests; but yet there are few labourers found in the harvest;
because we undertake the sacerdotal office, but perform
not the work of the office.” Again: “Because they have no
bowels of charity, they wish to be considered as lords; they
do not acknowledge themselves to be fathers. They change
the place of humility into an aggrandizement of dominion.”
Again: “But, O ye pastors, what are we doing, who receive
the wages and are not labourers? We have fallen into extraneous
employments; we undertake one thing, and perform
another. We relinquish the office of preaching; and it is our
misfortune, I conceive, that we are called bishops, since we
hold a title of honour, but not of virtue.” Since he uses such
severity of language against those who were only chargeable
with a want of sufficient assiduity, or diligence, in their office,
what would he have said, if he had seen scarcely any, or very
few of the bishops, and among the rest hardly one in a hundred,
ascend a pulpit once in their lives? For things are
come to such a pitch of frenzy, that it is generally esteemed
beneath the dignity of a bishop to deliver a sermon to a congregation.
In the time of Bernard there had been some declension;
but we see how sharply he reproves and inveighs
against the whole body of the clergy, who, it is probable,
however, were far less corrupt in that age than they are in the
present.
XIII. Now, if any one will closely observe and strictly examine
this whole form of ecclesiastical government, which exists at
the present day under the Papacy, he will find it a nest of
295the most lawless and ferocious banditti in the world. Every
thing in it is clearly so dissimilar and repugnant to the
institution of Christ, so degenerated from the ancient regulations
and usages of the Church, so at variance with nature
and reason, that no greater injury can be done to Christ,
than by pleading his name in defence of such a disorderly
government. We (they say) are the pillars of the Church, the
prelates of religion, the vicars of Christ, the heads of the faithful,
because we have succeeded to the power and authority of
the apostles. They are perpetually vaunting of these fooleries,
as if they were talking to blocks of wood; but whenever they
repeat these boasts, I will ask them in return, what they have in
common with the apostles. For the question is not respecting
any hereditary honour, which may be given to men while
they are asleep, but of the office of preaching, which they so
carefully avoid. So, when we assert that their kingdom is the
tyranny of Antichrist, they immediately reply, that it is that
venerable hierarchy, which has been so often commended by
great and holy men. As though the holy fathers, when they
praised the ecclesiastical hierarchy, or spiritual government, as
it had been delivered to them by the hands of the apostles,
ever dreamed of this chaos of deformity and desolation, where
the bishops for the most part are illiterate asses, unacquainted
with the first and plainest rudiments of the faith, or, in some
instances, are children just out of leading-strings; and if any be
more learned,—which, however, is a rare case,—they consider a
bishopric to be nothing but a title of splendour and magnificence;
where the rectors of Churches think no more of feeding
the flock, than a shoemaker does of ploughing; where all
things are confounded with a dispersion worse than that of
Babel, so that there can no longer be seen any clear vestige of
the administration practised in the time of the fathers.
XIV. What if we proceed to inquire into their manners?
“Where is that light of the world,” which Christ requires?
where that “salt of the earth?”[857] where that sanctity, which
might serve as a perpetual example to others? There is no
class of men in the present day more infamous for profusion,
delicacy, luxury, and profligacy of every kind; no class of
men contains more apt or expert masters of every species of
imposture, fraud, treachery, and perfidy; nowhere can be found
equal cunning or audacity in the commission of crime. I say
nothing of their pride, haughtiness, rapacity, and cruelty; I
say nothing of the abandoned licentiousness of every part of
their lives;—enormities which the world is so wearied with
bearing, that there is no room for the least apprehension lest I
should be charged with excessive exaggeration. One thing I
296assert, which it is not in their power to deny—that there is
scarcely one of the bishops, and not one in a hundred of the
parochial clergy, who, if sentence were to be passed upon his
conduct according to the ancient canons, would not be excommunicated,
or, at the very least, deposed from his office. That
ancient discipline, which required a more accurate investigation
to be made into the conduct of the clergy, has so long
been obsolete, that I may be considered as making an incredible
assertion; but such is the fact. Now, let all, who fight
under the standards and auspices of the Roman see, go and
boast of their sacerdotal order. It is evident that the order
which they have is not derived from Christ, from his apostles,
from the fathers, or from the ancient Church.
XV. Now, let the deacons come forward, with that most
sacred distribution which they have of the property of the
Church. They do not at present, however, create their deacons
for any such purpose; for they enjoin them nothing but to
serve at the altar, to say or chant the gospel, and do I know
not what trifles. Nothing of the alms, nothing of the care of the
poor, nothing of the whole function which they executed in
primitive times. I speak of the institution itself. For if we
advert to the fact, it is now become no office at all, but only a
step towards the priesthood. In one circumstance, those who
act the part of a deacon at the mass, exhibit a useless and frivolous
resemblance of antiquity, in receiving the offerings before
the consecration. Now, it was the ancient custom, that before
the communion of the supper, the faithful kissed each other,
and then offered their alms at the altar; thus they expressed
their charity, first by a sign, and then by active beneficence.
The deacon, who was steward for the poor, received what was
given, in order to distribute it. Of the alms given at present,
no more reaches the poor than if they were thrown into the sea.
This false appearance of deaconship, therefore, is a mockery of
the Church. It contains nothing resembling the apostolic institution,
or the ancient usage. Even the distribution of the
property they have turned into another channel; and have
ordered it in such a way, that it is impossible to imagine any
thing more disorderly. For as robbers, after having murdered
some ill-fated travellers, divide the plunder among themselves,
so these men, after having extinguished the light of God’s
word, and, as it were, cut the throat of the Church, have concluded
that whatever had been dedicated to sacred uses, was
abandoned to plunder and rapine. They have therefore made a
division of it, and every one has seized as large a share as he
could.
XVI. Here, all the ancient usages which we have described,
have not only been disturbed, but entirely expunged and abolished
297The principal part of this plunder was seized by the bishops
and the presbyters of cities, who, being enriched by it, were
converted into canons. That the partition was made in confusion
is evident from the contentions which prevail among them,
even to this day, about their respective limits. But, however
it may be managed, they have taken care that not a penny of
all the property of the Church should reach the poor, who
were at least entitled to half of it. For the canons expressly
allot them one fourth part, and assign another fourth part to the
bishops, to be laid out in hospitality and other offices of charity.
I say nothing of what the clergy ought to do with their portion,
and to what use they ought to apply it. The residue, which is
appropriated to the reparation of temples, edifices, and other expenses,
it has been sufficiently shown, ought to be at the service
of the poor in time of necessity. If they had a single spark of the
fear of God in their hearts, could they bear this reflection of
conscience, that every thing they eat, and drink, and wear, is
the fruit of robbery, and even of sacrilege? But though they are
little affected with the judgment of God, they should at least
consider that those, whom they wish to persuade into a belief
of their possession of such an excellent and well regulated
system in their Church as they are accustomed to boast, are
men endued with sense and reason. Let them answer me, in a
word, whether deaconship be a license for theft and robbery?
If they deny this, they will also be obliged to confess, that they
have no such office left; seeing that among them the whole
administration of the revenues of the Church has been openly
perverted into a system of sacrilegious depredation.
XVII. But here they advance a most plausible plea. They
allege that the dignity of the Church is becomingly sustained
by this magnificence. And such is the impudence of some of
their faction, that they dare to boast in express terms, that this
princely state of the priesthood constitutes the only fulfilment
of those predictions in which the ancient prophets describe the
splendour of the kingdom of Christ. It is not in vain, they
say, that God has made the following promises to his Church:
“The kings of Tarshish and of the isles shall bring presents;
the kings of Sheba and Seba shall offer gifts. Yea, all kings
shall fall down before him.”[858] “Awake, awake; put on thy
strength, O Zion; put on thy beautiful garments, O Jerusalem.”[859]
“All they from Sheba shall come; they shall bring
gold and incense; and they shall show forth the praises of the
Lord. All the flocks of Kedar shall be gathered together unto
thee.”[860] If I should dwell long on a refutation of this presumption,
I fear I should expose myself to the charge of folly.
298Therefore I am not inclined to spend my words in vain. But
I ask, if any Jew were to abuse these passages in the same
manner, what reply would they make to him? There is no
doubt but they would reprove his stupidity, in transferring to
the flesh and the world things which are spiritually spoken of
the spiritual kingdom of the Messiah. For we know that,
under the image of earthly things, the prophets have represented
to us the heavenly glory of God, which ought to shine in
the Church. For of those external blessings which their words
express, the Church never had less abundance than in the days of
the apostles; and yet it is acknowledged by all that the kingdom
of Christ, then flourished in its greatest vigour. What, then, it
will be asked, is the meaning of these passages? I reply, that
every thing precious, high, and excellent, ought to be in subjection
to the Lord. In regard to the express declaration, that kings
shall submit their sceptres to Christ, cast their crowns at his feet,
and consecrate their wealth to the Church, when (they will say)
was it more truly and fully exemplified, than when Theodosius,
casting off the purple robes, and relinquishing the ensigns of
imperial majesty, submitted himself, like one of the common
people, to do solemn penance before God and the Church? than
when he and other such pious princes devoted their cares and
exertions to the preservation of pure doctrine in the Church,
and to the support and protection of sound teachers? But
how far the priests of that age were from rioting in superfluous
riches, a single expression of the Council of Aquileia, at which
Ambrose presided, sufficiently declares. “Poverty is honourable
in the priests of the Lord.” It is true that the bishops at
that time had some wealth, which they might have employed
to display the honour of the Church, if they had considered
them as the Church’s real ornaments. But knowing that there
was nothing more inconsistent with the office of pastors, than
to display and to pride themselves on the luxury of their tables,
the splendour of their apparel, a large retinue, and magnificent
palaces, they followed and maintained the humility and modesty,
and even the poverty which Christ has consecrated in
all his ministers.
XVIII. But not to dwell too long on this point, let us again
collect into a brief summary, how very much the present dispensation,
or rather dissipation, of the property of the Church,
differs from that true office of deacons, which the word of God
commends to us, and which the ancient Church observed.
That portion which is employed in the ornaments of temples, I
assert, is grossly misapplied, if it be not regulated by that
moderation which the nature of sacred things requires, and
which the apostles and holy fathers have prescribed both by
precept and by examples. But what is there seen like this, in
299the temples at the present day? Whatever is conformable, I
do not say to that primitive frugality, but to any honourable
mediocrity, is rejected. Nothing pleases, but what savours of
the profusion and corruption of the present times. At the same
time they are so far from feeling any just concern for the living
temples, that they would suffer thousands of the poor to perish
with hunger, rather than convert the smallest chalice or silver
pitcher into money, to relieve their wants. And, not of myself
to pronounce any thing more severe, I would only request my
pious readers to indulge this one reflection. If it could happen
that Exuperius,—that bishop of Toulouse whom we have
mentioned,—if Acacius, if Ambrose, or any other such,—should
be raised from the dead, what would they say? In such
extreme necessity of the poor, they surely would not approve
of the riches of the Church being applied to another use, and
that an unnecessary one. I forbear to remark, that these purposes
for which they are employed, even if there were no poor,
are in many respects injurious, but of no utility whatever. But
I will not appeal to the authority of men. The property has
been dedicated to Christ, and therefore ought to be dispensed
according to his will. It will be useless for them to allege, that
this portion has been employed for Christ, which they have
squandered in a manner inconsistent with his command. To
confess the truth, however, there is not much of the ordinary
revenue of the Church lost in these expenses. For there are no
bishoprics so opulent, no abbeys so rich, in short, no benefices
so numerous or ample, as to satisfy the voraciousness of the
priests. Wishing to spare themselves, therefore, they induce
the people, from superstitious motives, to take what ought to be
bestowed upon the poor, and apply it to the building of
temples, the erection of statues, the purchase of chalices and
shrines for relics, and the provision of costly vestments. This
is the gulf which swallows up all the daily alms.
XIX. Of the revenue which they derive from lands and
possessions, what can I say more than I have already said,
and which is evident to the observation of all men? We see
with what fidelity the principal portion is disposed of by those
who are called bishops and abbots. What folly is it to seek
here for any ecclesiastical order! Was it reasonable that they,
whose life ought to be an eminent example of frugality, modesty,
temperance, and humility, should emulate the pomp of
princes, in the number of their attendants, the splendour of
their palaces, the elegance of their apparel, and the luxury of
their tables? And how very inconsistent it was with the office
of those whom the eternal and inviolable decree of God forbids
to be greedy of filthy lucre,[861] and commands to be content
300with simple fare, not only to lay their hands upon towns and
castles, but to seize on the largest provinces, and even to assume
the reins of empire! If they despise the word of God,
what reply will they make to those ancient decrees of councils,
by which it is ordained that a bishop shall have a small house
near the Church, a frugal table, and humble furniture? What
will they say to that sentence of the Council of Aquileia, which
declares poverty to be honourable in the priests of the Lord?
For the direction given by Jerome to Nepotian, that poor persons
and strangers, and Christ among them, should be familiar guests
at his table, they will perhaps reject as too austere. But they
will be ashamed to contradict what he immediately subjoins—“that
it is the glory of a bishop to provide for the poor, and
the disgrace of all priests to seek to enrich themselves.” Yet
they cannot receive this, but they must all condemn themselves
to ignominy. But it is not necessary to pursue them with any
further severity at present, as it was only my intention to show,
that the legitimate office of deacon has long been entirely abolished
among them, to prevent their continuing to pride themselves
on this title, for the purpose of recommending their
Church. And this design, I think, I have fully accomplished.
Hitherto we have treated of those ecclesiastical orders which
existed in the government of the ancient Church, but which
afterwards, in process of time, being corrupted and gradually
more and more perverted, now in the Papal Church merely
retain their names, while in reality they are nothing but masks.
And this we have done, that by the comparison the pious
reader might judge what sort of a Church the Romanists have,
for the sake of which they represent us as guilty of schism,
because we have separated from it. But the head and summit
of the whole establishment, that is, the primacy of the Roman
see, by which they endeavour to prove that the Catholic Church
is exclusively theirs, we have not yet touched on; because it
originated neither in the institution of Christ nor in the usage
of the ancient Church, as did the other offices, which we have
shown were handed down from antiquity, but since, through the
corruption of the times, have degenerated, and even assumed
altogether a new form. And yet they endeavour to persuade
301the world, that the principal and almost only bond of the unity
of the Church is adherence to the see of Rome, and perseverance
in obedience to it. This is the foundation on which they
principally rest, when they wish to deny us all claim to the
Church, and to arrogate it to themselves; that they retain the
head, on which the unity of the Church depends, and without
which it must be torn asunder and crumble to pieces. For
their notion is, that the Church is like a mutilated and headless
body, unless it be subject to the Roman see as its head. Therefore,
when they dispute respecting their hierarchy, they always
commence with this axiom, that the Roman pontiff, as the vicar
of Christ, who is Head of the Church, presides over the universal
Church in his stead, and that the Church cannot be well constituted,
unless that see holds the primacy above all others.
Wherefore it is necessary to discuss this subject also, that nothing
belonging to the good government of the Church may be omitted.
II. Let the question, therefore, be stated thus: Whether it be
necessary to the true system of what they call the hierarchy or
government of the Church, that one see should have the preëminence
above all the rest in dignity and power, so as to be the
head of the whole body. Now, we subject the Church to very
unreasonable laws, if we impose this necessity upon it without
the word of God. Therefore, if our adversaries wish to gain
their cause, it is necessary for them, in the first place, to show
that this economy was instituted by Christ. For this purpose
they allege the high-priesthood ordained in the law, and the
supreme jurisdiction of the high-priest which God appointed
at Jerusalem. But it is easy to give an answer to this, or,
indeed, various answers, if they would not be satisfied with
one. In the first place, there is no reason for extending to the
whole world what was useful in a single nation; on the contrary,
the case of a single nation and that of the whole world are
widely different. Because the Jews were surrounded on all
sides with idolaters, God, in order to prevent their being distracted
by a variety of religions, fixed the seat of his worship in
the centre of the country, and there he set over them one principal
priest, to whom they were all to be subject, for the better
preservation of unity among them. Now, when the true
religion has been diffused over the whole world, who does not
perceive it to be utterly absurd to assign the government of the
east and west to one man? It is just as if it were contended,
that the whole world ought to be governed by one magistrate,
because there is only one in a small district. But there is
another reason why this ought not to be made a precedent for
imitation. Every one knows that the Jewish high-priest was
a type of Christ: now that the priesthood has been transferred,
that right must also be transferred. To whom, then, is it transferred?
302Certainly not to the pope, as he impudently presumes
to boast, when he assumes this title to himself; but to Christ,
who exercises that office alone without vicar or successor, and
resigns the honour to no other. For this priesthood, which
was prefigured in the law, consists not only in preaching or
doctrine, but in the propitiation of God, which Christ effected
in his death, and in that intercession which he is now making
with the Father.
III. There is no reason, therefore, why they should confine
us to this example, as if it were a law perpetually binding,
whereas we see it was only of temporary duration. From the
New Testament they have nothing to adduce in support of their
opinion, but that it was said to one, “Thou art Peter; and
upon this rock I will build my Church.”[862] Again: “Peter,
lovest thou me? Feed my sheep.”[863] But to render these
proofs substantial, it is necessary for them first to show that he
who is commanded to feed the flock of Christ, is invested with
authority over all Churches, and that binding and loosing are no
other than governing the whole world. But as Peter had received
the command from the Lord to feed the Church, so he exhorts
all other presbyters to do the same.[864] Hence it is easy to
infer, that this charge of Christ conferred nothing peculiar upon
Peter beyond others, or that Peter communicated equally to
others the right which he had received. But, not to dispute to
no purpose, we have in another place, from the mouth of Christ
himself, a clear explanation of what he intends by binding and
loosing, namely, “remitting and retaining sins.”[865] The manner
of binding and loosing is shown by the whole tenor of
Scripture, and particularly by Paul, when he says that the ministers
of the gospel have received a commission to reconcile men
to God,[866] and that they have authority to inflict punishment
on those who shall reject this favour.[867]
IV. How grossly they pervert those passages which make
mention of binding and loosing, I have hinted before, and shall
hereafter have to state more at large. At present it is worth
while to see what they can extract from that celebrated answer
of Christ to Peter. He promised him “the keys of the
kingdom of heaven.” He said, “Whatsoever thou shalt bind
on earth, shall be bound in heaven.”[868] If we can agree respecting
the word keys, and the manner of binding, all dispute
will immediately cease. For the pope himself will readily
relinquish the charge committed to the apostles, which, being
full of labour and trouble, would deprive him of his pleasures
without yielding him any profit. Since it is the doctrine of
303the gospel that opens heaven to us, it is beautifully expressed
by the metaphorical appellation of keys.—There is no other
way in which men are bound and loosed, than when some are
reconciled to God by faith, and others are more firmly bound
by their unbelief. If the pope assumed nothing but this to
himself, I am persuaded there is no man who would either
envy him or contend with him.—But this succession being
laborious, and by no means lucrative, and, therefore, not at all
satisfactory to the pope, hence arises a controversy on the
meaning of Christ’s promise to Peter. Therefore I infer from
the subject itself, that it only denotes the dignity of the apostolic
office, which cannot be separated from the burden of it.
For if the definition which I have given be admitted,—and it
cannot without the greatest effrontery be rejected,—then here is
nothing given to Peter that was not also common to his colleagues;
because otherwise there would not only be a personal
injury done to them, but the majesty of the doctrine would be
diminished. This our adversaries strenuously oppose. But
what does it avail them to strike upon this rock? For they
can never prove, but that as the preaching of the same gospel
was enjoined upon all the apostles, so they were all equally
armed with the power of binding and loosing. They allege
that Christ, when he promised to give the keys to Peter, constituted
him head of the universal Church. But what he there
promised to one, he in another passage confers upon all the
rest together, and delivers it, as it were, into their hands.[869]
If the same power, which had been promised to one, was
granted to all, in what respect is he superior to his colleagues?
His preëminence, they say, consists in this—that he receives
separately by himself, as well as in common with them, that
which is only given to the others in common. What if I reply,
with Cyprian and Augustine, that Christ did this, not to prefer
one man before others, but to display the unity of the Church?
For this is the language of Cyprian: “That in the person of
one man God gave the keys to them all, to signify the unity
of them all; that, therefore, the rest were, the same as Peter,
endued with an equal participation both of honour and of
power; but that Christ commences with one, to show that the
Church is one.” Augustine says, “If there had not been in
Peter a mysterious representation of the Church, the Lord
would not have said to him, I will give thee the keys; for if
this was said to Peter alone, the Church possesses them not;
but if the Church has the keys, Peter, when he received them,
must have represented the whole Church.” And in another
place: “When a question was put to them all, Peter alone answers,
Thou art the Christ; and to him Christ says, I will give
304thee the keys, as if the power of binding and loosing had been
conferred upon him alone; whereas he made that answer on
behalf of all, and received this power in common with all, as
sustaining the character of unity. He is mentioned, therefore,
one for all, because there is unity in all.”
V. But this declaration, “Thou art Peter, and upon this
rock I will build my Church,”[870] they say, is no where to be
found addressed to any other. As if in this passage Christ
affirmed any thing respecting Peter, different from what Paul,
and even Peter himself, asserts, respecting all Christians. For
Paul makes “Christ the chief corner-stone,” upon which they
are built who “grow unto a holy temple in the Lord.”[871]
And Peter enjoins us to be “as lively stones,” who, being
founded on that “corner-stone, elect and precious,”[872] are by
this connection at once united to our God and to each other.
This belongs to Peter, they say, above the rest, because it is
expressly attributed to him in particular. I readily allow
Peter the honour of being placed among the first in the structure
of the Church, or, if they insist upon it, the very first of
all the faithful; but I will not permit them to infer from this that
he possessed a primacy over the rest. For what kind of reasoning
is this: he excels the rest in ardour of zeal, in doctrine,
in magnanimity; therefore he possesses authority over them?
As though we might not with greater plausibility conclude
that Andrew was superior to Peter, because he preceded him
in time, and introduced him to Christ;[873] but this I pass over.
I am willing that Peter should have the precedence, but there
is a great difference between the honour of preceding others,
and authority over them. We see that the apostles generally
paid this deference to Peter, that he used to speak first in their
assembly, and took the lead in proposing, exhorting, and admonishing;
but we read not a word of his power.
VI. We are not yet, however, come to that question; I only
mean at present to show, that they have no solid argument, when
they wish to erect an empire over the universal church upon no
other foundation than the name of Peter. For those antiquated
fooleries with which they endeavoured at first to impose on the
world, are not worthy of a relation, much less of a refutation—that
the Church was founded on Peter, because it is said, “Upon
this rock I will build my Church.”[874] They allege in their
defence, that it has been so explained by some of the fathers.
But when this is contradicted by the whole tenor of Scripture,
what avails it to set up their authority in opposition to God?
And why do we dispute about the meaning of those words, as
though they were ambiguous or obscure? whereas nothing can
305be expressed with greater clearness or precision. Peter, in
his own name and that of his brethren, had confessed that Christ
was “the Son of God.”[875] Upon this rock Christ builds his
Church, because it is the only foundation, as Paul says, “other”
than which “can no man lay.”[876] Nor do I reject the authority
of the fathers in this case, from a want of testimonies
in their writings to support what I maintain, if I were inclined
to adduce them. But as I have observed, I am unwilling to
be unnecessarily tedious to my readers in arguing so clear a
subject; especially as it has been long ago discussed with
sufficient copiousness and care by other writers on our side of
the question.
VII. Yet, in fact, we can obtain no better decision of this
point than from the Scripture itself, if we compare all the places
where it shows what office and power Peter held among the
apostles, how he conducted himself, and in what manner he
was received by them. On an examination of the whole, we
shall only find that he was one of the twelve, equal to the rest,
their companion, not their master. He proposes to the assembly
indeed, if there be any thing to be done, and delivers his opinion
on what is necessary to be done; but he hears the observations
of others, and not only gives them the opportunity of speaking
their sentiments, but leaves them to decide, and when they
have determined, he follows and obeys.[877] When he writes
to pastors, he does not command them with authority like a
superior; but makes them his colleagues, and exhorts them
with a courteousness which is usual among equals.[878] When
he is accused for having associated with the Gentiles, though
this is an unjust accusation, yet he answers it, and vindicates
himself.[879] Commanded by his colleagues to go with John
to Samaria, he refuses not.[880] The apostles, by sending him,
declared that they did not consider him as their superior. By
his compliance and undertaking the commission intrusted to
him, he confessed that he was a colleague with them, but had
no authority over them. If none of these facts had remained
upon record, yet the Epistle to the Galatians might alone
easily remove every doubt; where Paul devotes nearly two
whole chapters to the sole purpose of showing that he was
equal to Peter in the dignity of the apostleship. Hence he
relates that he went to Peter, not to profess subjection to him,
but to testify to all the harmony of their doctrine; and that
Peter required no such thing as submission, but gave him the
right hand of fellowship, that they might labour together in
the vineyard of the Lord; that no less grace had been conferred
306upon him among the Gentiles, than upon Peter among the
Jews; and lastly, that when Peter acted with some degree of
unfaithfulness, he was reproved by him, and stood corrected
by the reproof.[881] All these things fully prove, either that
there was an equality between Paul and Peter, or at least that
Peter had no more power over the rest than they had over him.
And this, as I have already observed, is the professed object of
Paul—to prevent his being considered as inferior in his apostolic
character to Peter or John, who were his colleagues, not
his masters.
VIII. But though I grant them what they require respecting
Peter, by admitting that he was the chief of the apostles, and
superior in dignity to all the others, yet there is no reason why
they should convert a particular instance into a universal rule,
and make what was done but once a perpetual precedent; for
the cases are widely different. There was one chief among
the apostles; doubtless because they were few in number. If
there be one president over twelve men, will it therefore follow
that there ought to be but one president over a hundred thousand
men? That twelve should have one among them to
preside over the rest, is no wonder. For this is consistent
with nature, and the common sense of mankind requires, that
in every assembly, even though they are all equal in power,
yet there should be one to act as moderator, by whom the
others should be regulated. There is no court, council, parliament,
or assembly of any description, which has not its president
or chairman. So there would be no absurdity, if we
acknowledged that the apostles gave this preëminence to Peter.
But that which obtains among a small company is not immediately
to be applied to the whole world, to the government of
which no one man is sufficient. But the whole economy of
nature, they say, teaches us, that there ought to be one supreme
head over all. And in proof of this they adduce the
example of cranes and bees, which always choose for themselves
one leader, and no more. I admit the examples which
they produce; but do bees collect together from all parts of
the world to choose one king? Each king is content with his
own hive. So, among cranes, every flock has its own leader.
What will they prove from this, but that every Church ought
to have its own bishop? Next they call us to consider examples
from civil governments. They quote an observation from
Homer, that it is not good to have many governors, with similar
passages of other profane writers in commendation of monarchy.
The answer is easy; for monarchy is not praised by
Ulysses in Homer, or by any others, from an opinion that one
307king ought to govern the whole world. Their meaning is,
that one kingdom does not admit of two kings, and that no
prince can bear a partner in his throne.
IX. But supposing it to be, as they contend, good and
useful that the whole world should be comprehended in one
monarchy, which, however, is a monstrous absurdity; but if
this were admitted, I should not, therefore, grant the same system
to be applicable to the government of the Church. For the
Church has Christ for its sole Head, under whose sovereignty we
are all united together, according to that order and form of government
which he himself has prescribed. They offer a gross
insult to Christ, therefore, when they assign the preëminence
over the universal Church to one man, under the pretence
that it may not be destitute of a head. For “Christ is the
head; from whom the whole body, fitly joined together, and
compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to
the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh
increase of the body.”[882] We see how he places all men,
without exception, in the body, reserving to Christ alone the
honour and name of head. We see how he assigns to all
the members respectively a certain measure, and a determinate
and limited function; so that the perfection of grace, as
well as the supreme power of government, resides in Christ
alone. I am aware of their usual cavil in evasion of this
argument—that Christ is properly styled the sole Head, because
he alone governs by his own authority and in his own
name, but that this is no reason why there may not be under
him another ministerial head, as their phrase is, to act as his
vicegerent on earth. But they gain nothing by this cavil,
except they first prove that this ministry was ordained by
Christ. For the apostle teaches, that all the subordinate ministration
is distributed among the members, but that the power
proceeds from that one heavenly Head.[883] Or, if they wish
me to speak in plainer terms, since the Scripture declares
Christ to be the Head, and ascribes this honour to him alone,
it ought not to be transferred to any other, except to one
whom Christ himself has appointed his representative. But
such an appointment is not only nowhere to be found, but
may be abundantly refuted by various passages.
X. Paul gives us a lively description of the church on
various occasions, but without making any mention of its
having one head upon earth. On the contrary, from the description
which he gives, we may rather infer that such a
notion is foreign from the institution of Christ. Christ, at
his ascension, withdrew from us his visible presence; nevertheless
308“he ascended that he might fill all things.”[884] He
is still, therefore, present, and will always continue present
with the Church. With a view to show us the manner in
which he manifests himself, Paul calls our attention to the
offices which he employs. There is “one Lord,” he says, “in
you all. But unto every one of us is given grace according
to the measure of the gift of Christ. And he gave some,
apostles; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers.”[885]
Why does he not say, that he has appointed one
to preside over all as his vicegerent? For his subject absolutely
required it, and it ought by no means to have been
omitted, if it had been true. “Christ,” he says, “is present
with us.” How? “By the ministry of men whom he has
appointed to the government of the Church.” Why not
rather, “By the ministerial head, to whom he has delegated
his authority?” He mentions a unity; but it is in God, and
in the faith of Christ. He attributes nothing to men but a common
ministry, and to every individual his particular share. In
that commendation of unity, after having said, “There is one
body, one Spirit, one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith,
one baptism,”[886] why has he not likewise immediately added,
“one supreme pontiff to preserve the Church in unity?” For
if it had been true, nothing could have been more proper.
Let that passage be duly considered. There is no doubt that
he intends there a representation of the sacred and spiritual
government of the Church, which has since received the name
of hierarchy. Monarchy among ministers, or the government
of one over all the rest, he not only does not mention, but
indicates that there is no such thing. There is no doubt also
that he meant to express the nature of the union, by which the
faithful are connected with Christ their Head. Now, he not
only makes no mention of any ministerial head, but attributes
to every one of the members a particular operation, according
to the measure of grace distributed to each. Nor is
there any foundation for their far-fetched argument from a
comparison of the heavenly and earthly hierarchy; for, in judging
of the former, it is not safe to go beyond the discoveries
of the Scripture, and in constituting the latter, it is not right
to follow any other model than that which the Lord himself
has delineated in his word.
XI. Now, though I should make them another concession,
which they will never obtain from judicious persons, that the
primacy of the Church was established in Peter, and to be
continued by a perpetual succession, how will they prove that
its seat was fixed at Rome, so that whoever is bishop of that
309city must preside over the whole world? By what right do
they restrict to one place this dignity, which was conferred
without the mention of any place? Peter, they say, lived
and died at Rome. What shall we say of Christ himself?
Was it not at Jerusalem that he exercised the office of a bishop
while he lived, and fulfilled the priestly office by his death?
The Prince of pastors, the supreme Bishop, the Head of the
Church, could not obtain this honour for the place where he
lived and died; how then could Peter, who was far inferior to
him? Are not these follies worse than puerile? Christ gave
the honour of primacy to Peter; Peter settled at Rome; therefore
he fixed the seat of the primacy in that city. For the
same reason the ancient Israelites ought to have fixed the seat
of their primacy in the desert, because it was there that Moses,
their chief teacher, and the prince of their prophets, exercised
his ministry, and died.
XII. Let us see how wretchedly they reason. Peter, they
say, had the preëminence among the apostles. Therefore,
the Church in which he settled ought to have this privilege.
But where was he first stationed? They reply, at Antioch.
Then I infer that the Church of Antioch is justly entitled to
the primacy. They confess that it was originally the first,
but allege that Peter, on his removal from it, transferred the
honour which was attached to him to Rome. For there is an
epistle of Pope Marcellus to the presbyters of Antioch, in which
he says, “The see of Peter was at first among you, but at the
command of the Lord was afterwards removed to this city.”
So the Church of Antioch, which was originally the first, has
given place to the see of Rome. But I ask, By what oracle
did that wise pope know that the Lord had commanded this?
For if this cause is to be decided on the footing of right, it is
necessary for them to answer, whether this privilege be personal,
or real, or mixed. It must be one of these. If they
affirm it to be personal, then it has nothing to do with the
place. If they allege it to be real, then when it has once
been given to a place, it cannot be taken away from it by
the death or removal of the person. It remains, therefore,
for them to declare it to be mixed; and then it will not
be sufficiently simple to consider the place, unless there be an
agreement also with respect to the person. Let them choose
which they will, I shall immediately conclude, and will easily
prove, that the assumption of the primacy by the see of Rome
is without any foundation.
XIII. Let us suppose the case, however, that the primacy
was, as they pretend, transferred from Antioch to Rome. Why
did not Antioch retain the second place? For, if Rome has
the preëminence of all other sees, because Peter presided there
310till the close of his life, to what city shall the second place
be assigned, but to that which was his first see? How came
Alexandria, then, to have the precedence of Antioch? Is it
reasonable that the Church of a mere disciple should be superior
to the see of Peter? If honour be due to every Church
according to the dignity of its founder, what shall we say
of the other Churches? Paul mentions three apostles, “who
seemed to be pillars, James, Peter, and John.”[887] If the
first place be given to the see of Rome, in honour of Peter,
are not the second and third places due to Ephesus and Jerusalem,
the sees of John and James? But among the patriarchates,
Jerusalem had the last place; Ephesus could not be
allowed even the farthest corner. Other Churches also, as well
those which were founded by Paul, as those over which the
other apostles presided, were left without any distinction. The
see of Mark, who was only one of the disciples, obtained the
honour. Either let them confess that this was a preposterous
arrangement, or let them concede to us, that it is not a perpetual
rule, that every Church should be entitled to the degree of
honour which was enjoyed by its founder.
XIV. All that they say of the settlement of Peter in the
Church of Rome appears to me of very questionable authority.
The statement of Eusebius, that he presided there twenty-five
years, may be refuted without any difficulty. For it
appears, from the first and second chapter to the Galatians, that
about twenty years after the death of Christ, he was at Jerusalem,
and that from thence he went to Antioch, where he remained
for some time, but it is not certain how long. Gregory
says seven years, and Eusebius twenty-five. But from the
death of Christ to the end of the reign of Nero, under whom
they affirm Peter to have been slain, there were only thirty-seven
years. For our Lord suffered in the eighteenth year of the
reign of Tiberius. If we deduct twenty years, during which,
according to the testimony of Paul, Peter dwelt at Jerusalem,
there will remain only seventeen years, which must now be
divided between those two bishoprics. If he continued long
at Antioch, he could not have resided at Rome, except for a
very short time. This point is susceptible of still clearer proof.
Paul wrote his Epistle to the Romans on a journey when he
was going to Jerusalem,[888] where he was seized, and from
whence he was sent to Rome. It is probable, therefore, that
this Epistle was written four years before his arrival at Rome.
Yet it contains no mention of Peter; which ought on no account
to have been omitted, if he had presided over that Church.
And in the conclusion, where he recites a long catalogue of
311pious persons to whom he sends his salutations, where, in short,
he enumerates all that were known to him, he still says not a
word of Peter.[889] It is unnecessary to use any long or laboured
arguments with persons of sound judgment; for the case itself,
and the whole argument of the Epistle proclaims, that if Peter
had been at Rome, he ought not to have been omitted.
XV. Paul was afterwards brought as a prisoner to Rome.
Luke says that he was received by the brethren, but says
nothing of Peter.[890] From that city Paul wrote to several
Churches. In some of these epistles he introduces salutations,
in the names of certain brethren who were with him; but they
contain not a single word implying that Peter was there at that
time. Who will think it credible that, if he had been there,
Paul could have passed him over in total silence? Moreover,
in his Epistle to the Philippians, after having said that he had
no one who discovered such sincere concern respecting the
work of the Lord as Timothy, he complains that “all seek
their own.”[891] And to Timothy himself he makes yet a
heavier complaint: “At my first answer no man stood with
me, but all men forsook me.”[892] Where was Peter then?
For if they say that he was at Rome, how deep is the ignominy
which Paul fixes upon him, that he was a deserter of the
gospel? For he is speaking of the faithful, because he adds
his prayer, “that it may not be laid to their charge.” How
long, then, and at what time, did Peter hold that see? It will
be said, it is the uniform opinion of ancient writers, that he
governed that Church till his death. But those writers themselves
are not agreed who was his successor. Some say it was
Linus; and others, Clement. They likewise relate many absurd
and fabulous stories respecting the disputation held between
him and Simon Magus. And Augustine, when treating of
superstitions, acknowledges that the custom, which obtained at
Rome, of not fasting on the day on which Peter gained the
victory over Simon Magus, arose from an opinion entertained
without any sufficient authority. In the last place, the transactions
of that age are so perplexed by a variety of representations,
that we must not give implicit credit to every thing that
is recorded. Yet, in consequence of this agreement of the
ancient writers, I will not dispute his having died at Rome;
but that he was bishop there, and especially for any considerable
time, is what I cannot be persuaded to believe. Nor am I
anxious respecting this point, because Paul testifies that the
apostleship of Peter particularly belonged to the Jews, and that
his own was directed to us. To add our confirmation, therefore,
to the compact which they established between themselves,
312or rather to admit the validity of the ordinance of the
Holy Spirit, it becomes us rather to look up to the apostleship
of Paul than to that of Peter. For their different provinces
were allotted to them by the Holy Spirit, who sent Peter to
the Jews, and Paul to us. The Romanists, therefore, may seek
for their primacy elsewhere, but not in the word of God, which
affords not the least foundation for it.
XVI. Let us now proceed to show, that our adversaries
have no more reason for boasting of the authority of the ancient
Church than of the testimony of the word of God. For
when they bring forward this principle, that the unity of the
Church cannot be preserved, unless it have one supreme head
upon earth, to whom all the members should be subject, and
that, therefore, the Lord gave the primacy to Peter, and afterwards
by right of succession, to the see of Rome, that it might
remain there to the end of time,—they also assert that this has
been the usage from the beginning. Now, as they grossly
pervert various testimonies, I would first make this preliminary
remark. I do not deny that the ancient writers uniformly
give great honour to the Roman Church, and speak of it in
respectful terms. This I consider as arising principally from
three causes. In the first place, that opinion which, I know
not how, had been received, that it had been founded and settled
by the ministry of Peter, operated very powerfully to gain
it credit and authority, and, therefore, among the Western
churches it was called the Apostolic See. In the second place,
because it was the capital of the empire; and on this account
it is probable that it contained men superior in learning and
prudence, skill and experience, to those of any other place;
due regard was paid to this circumstance, that the glory of the
city and other far more excellent gifts of God might not appear
to be undervalued. In the third place, while the Eastern and
Greek Churches, and even those in Africa, were agitated by
numerous dissensions of opinion among themselves, the Church
of Rome was more peaceable and less disturbed. Hence it
happened, that pious and holy bishops, on being expelled from
their sees, frequently resorted thither, as to an asylum or port
of safety. For as the people of Europe have less subtlety and
activity of mind than the inhabitants of Asia and Africa, so
they are not so volatile or desirous of novelty. It considerably
increased the authority of the Church of Rome, therefore, that
in those uncertain times it was not so much agitated as the
other Churches, and was more tenacious of the doctrine
which it had once received than all the rest, as we shall presently
show more at large. On account of these three causes,
I say, it was held in more than common respect, and received
many honourable testimonies from ancient writers.
313XVII. But when our adversaries wish to make this a reason
for ascribing to that Church the primacy and sovereign power
over other Churches, they run, as I have already observed,
into a gross error. To make this the more evident, I will first
briefly show what the ancient writers thought respecting this
unity, on which our opponents so urgently insist. Jerome,
writing to Nepotian, after having enumerated many examples
of unity, at length descends to the hierarchy of the Church.
“Every Church,” he says, “has its distinct bishop, archpresbyter,
and archdeacon, and all the order of the Church depends upon
its governors.” This is the language of a Roman priest, recommending
unity in the order of the Church. Why does he
not mention that all Churches are connected together under one
head, as by a common bond? Nothing would have been
more in favour of his argument; nor can it be pretended that
he omitted it for want of recollection; he would most readily
have mentioned it, if the fact had permitted him. It is beyond
all doubt, therefore, that he saw this to be the true kind
of unity, which is most excellently described by Cyprian in
the following passage: “There is only one bishopric, of which
every bishop holds an integral part; and there is but one
Church, which is widely extended into a multitude by the offspring
of its fertility. As the sun has many rays, but only one
light; as a tree has many branches, but only one trunk, fixed
on a firm root; and as many rivers issue from one spring, and
notwithstanding the number of the streams in which its overflowing
abundance is diffused, yet the unity of the source
remains the same;—so also the Church, illuminated with the
light of the Lord, extends its rays over the whole earth, yet it
is one and the same light which is universally diffused, nor is
the unity of the body destroyed. It stretches its branches, it
pours out its ample streams, all over the world; yet there is
but one root, and one source.” Again: “The spouse of Christ
cannot be corrupted; she acknowledges one Master, and preserves
her fidelity to him inviolate.” We see how he attributes
the universal bishopric, which comprehends the whole
Church, to Christ alone, and says that integral portions of it
are confided to all those who discharge the episcopal office
under this head. Where is the primacy of the see of Rome,
if the universal bishopric be vested in Christ alone, and every
bishop hold an integral portion of it? My object, in these
quotations, has been, to convince the reader, by the way, that
this principle, which the Romanists assume as an admitted and
indubitable maxim, namely, that the unity of the Church requires
the supremacy of some earthly head, was altogether
unknown to the ancients.
314
In support of the antiquity of the primacy of the see of Rome,
there is nothing to be found anterior to the decree of the Council
of Nice, by which the bishop of Rome is allotted the first
place among the patriarchs, and is directed to superintend the
neighbouring Churches. When the council makes a distinction
between him and the other patriarchs, so as to assign to all their
respective limits, it clearly does not constitute him the head of
them all, but only makes him one of the principal. Vitus and
Vincentius attended the council on the behalf of Julius, who
at that time presided over the Church of Rome. They were
seated in the fourth place. If Julius had been acknowledged
as the head of the Church, would his representatives have been
degraded to the fourth seat? Would Athanasius have presided
in a general council, where the form of the hierarchical system
ought most particularly to have been observed? In the council
of Ephesus, it appears that Celestine, who was then bishop of
Rome, made use of a disingenuous artifice to secure the dignity
of his see. For when he sent his legates thither, he requested
Cyril, patriarch of Alexandria, who was otherwise to preside, to
act on his behalf. For what purpose could this request be
made, but that his name might, at any rate, occupy the first
place? For his legates sat in a lower station, were asked their
sentiments among others, and subscribed in their order; at the
same time the patriarch of Alexandria united Celestine’s name
with his own. What shall I say of the second Council of
Ephesus, where, though the legates of Leo were present, yet
Dioscorus, patriarch of Alexandria, presided as in his own right?
They will object, that this was not an orthodox council, because
it condemned Flavianus, a holy man, bishop of Constantinople,
and acquitted Eutyches, and sanctioned his heresy.
But when the council was assembled, and the bishops took
their respective seats, it is certain that the legates of the Roman
Church were present among the others, as in a holy and legitimate
council. Yet they contended not for the first place, but yielded
it to another, which they would not have done if they had
considered it as belonging to them. For the bishops of Rome
have never been ashamed of raising the greatest contentions for
their dignity, and they have not hesitated, on this account alone,
to harass and agitate the Church with various and pernicious
315controversies. But because Leo saw that it would be too presumptuous
a demand to require the first place for his legates,
therefore he waived it.
II. Next follows the Council of Chalcedon, in which, by the
permission of the emperor, the legates of the Roman Church
occupied the first place. But Leo himself confessed that this was
an extraordinary privilege. For when he requested it from
Marcian the emperor, and Pulcheria the empress, he did not
pretend it to be his right, but only alleged, in support of his
claim, that the Eastern bishops who presided in the Council of
Ephesus had thrown every thing into confusion, and abused
their power. Since it was necessary, therefore, to have a discreet
moderator, and it was improbable that those who had once
been so unsteady and disorderly would be fit for the office, he
requested that, on account of the misconduct and incompetence
of the others, the task of presiding should be transferred to him.
That which is sought as a special privilege and an exception to
a common custom, certainly does not arise from a general rule.
Where the only pretext is, that it was necessary to have a new
president, because the former ones had violated their duty, it is
evident that this had not been the case before, and it ought not to
be perpetual, but was merely done in the contemplation of
present danger. The bishop of Rome, therefore, had the first
place in the Council of Chalcedon, not because it was the right
of his see, but because the council was in want of a discreet
and suitable president, in consequence of those to whom that
honour belonged having excluded themselves from it by their
own intemperance and violence. And what I say was proved,
in fact, by Leo’s successor. For when he sent his legates to
the fifth Council of Constantinople, which was held a considerable
time after, he contended not for the first seat, but without
any difficulty suffered it to be taken by Menna, patriarch of
Constantinople. So in the Council of Carthage, at which Augustine
was present, the place of president was filled by Aurelius,
archbishop of that city, and not by the legates of the Roman
see, though the express object of their attendance was to support
the authority of the Roman pontiff. And, moreover, there was
a general council held in Italy, at which the bishop of Rome was
not present. This was the Council of Aquileia, at which Ambrose
presided, who was then in high credit with the emperor.
There was no mention made of the bishop of Rome. We see,
therefore, that the dignity of Ambrose caused the see of Milan at
that time to have the precedence above that of Rome.
III. With respect to the title of primacy, and other titles of
pride, of which the pope now strangely boasts, it is not difficult
to judge when and in what manner they were introduced.
Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, makes frequent mention of Cornelius,
316who was bishop of Rome. He distinguishes him by
no other appellation than that of brother, or fellow bishop,
or colleague. But when he writes to Stephen, the successor
of Cornelius, he not only treats him as equal to himself and
others, but even addresses him with considerable severity,
charging him at one time with arrogance, and at another with
ignorance. Since the time of Cyprian, we know what was
the decision of the whole African Church on this subject. For
the Council of Carthage prohibited that any one should be
called “the prince of priests,” or “the first bishop,” but only
“the bishop of the first see.” But any one who examines the
more ancient records, will find that at that time the bishop of
Rome was content with the common appellation of brother. It
is certain that as long as the Church retained its true and uncorrupted
form, all those names of pride, which in succeeding
times have been insolently usurped by the Roman see, were
altogether unknown: nothing was heard of a supreme pontiff
or a sole head of the Church upon earth. And if the bishop
of Rome had been presumptuous enough to make any such
assumption, there were judicious men who would immediately
have repressed his folly. Jerome, being a Roman presbyter,
was not reluctant to assert the dignity of his Church as far as
matter of fact and the state of the times admitted; yet we see
how he also reduces it to an equality with others. “If it be a
question of authority,” he says, “the world is greater than a
city. Why do you allege to me the custom of a single city?
Why do you set up a few instances, which have given rise to
pride, against the laws of the Church? Wherever there is a
bishop, whether at Rome, at Eugubium, at Constantinople, or
at Rhegium, he is of the same dignity and of the same priesthood.
The power of riches, or the abasement of poverty, makes
no bishop superior or inferior to another.”
IV. Respecting the title of universal bishop, the first contention
arose in the time of Gregory, and was occasioned by
the ambition of John, bishop of Constantinople. For he wanted
to make himself universal bishop—an attempt which had
never been made by any one before. In that controversy
Gregory does not plead against this as the assumption of a
right which belonged to himself, but resolutely protests against
it altogether, as a profane and sacrilegious application, and even
as the forerunner of Antichrist. He says, “If he who is called
universal falls, the foundation of the whole Church sinks at
once.” In another place: “It is a most melancholy thing to
hear with any patience, that our brother and companion in the
episcopal office should look down with contempt on all others,
and be called sole bishop. But what does this pride of his
indicate, but that the times of Antichrist are already at hand?
317For indeed he imitates him, who, despising the society of angels,
endeavoured to usurp supreme power to himself.” In
another place, writing to Eulogius, bishop of Alexandria, and
Anastasius, bishop of Antioch, he says, “None of my predecessors
would ever use this profane word. For if one patriarch
be called universal, the name of patriarch is taken away from
all the rest. But far be it from any Christian heart to wish to
arrogate to himself any thing that would in the least degree
diminish the honour of his brethren. To consent to that execrable
term is no other than to destroy the faith. Our obligation
to preserve the unity of the faith is one thing, and to
repress the haughtiness of pride is another. But I confidently
assert, that whoever calls himself universal bishop, or desires
to be so called, in such aggrandizement is the precursor of Antichrist,
because he proudly sets up himself above all others.”
Again, to Anastasius, bishop of Antioch: “I have said that
the bishop of Constantinople can have no peace with us, unless
he would correct the haughtiness of that superstitious and
proud title which has been invented by the first apostate; and
to say nothing of the injury done to your dignity, if one bishop
be called universal, when he falls, the whole Church sinks at
once.” But his assertion that this honour was offered to Leo
in the Council of Chalcedon has not the least appearance of
truth. For there is not a word of this in the acts of that
council. And Leo himself, who in many of his epistles censures
the decree passed there in favour of the see of Constantinople,
would certainly not have passed over this argument,
which would have been the most plausible of all, if that honour
had really been offered to him, and he had refused it; and,
having otherwise an immoderate thirst for honour, he would
not readily have omitted a circumstance so much to his praise.
Gregory was mistaken, therefore, in supposing that title to
have been given to the see of Rome by the Council of Chalcedon.
I forbear to remark how ridiculous it is for him to
assert that the holy council conferred such a title, which he at
the same time declares was profane, execrable, abominable,
proud, and sacrilegious, and even invented by the devil, and
published by the herald of Antichrist. And yet he adds that
his predecessor refused it, lest, by the dignity given to one
individual, all other bishops should be deprived of the honour
due to them. In another place he says, “No one has ever
wished to be called by such a name; no one has arrogated to
himself this presumptuous title; lest, by assuming to himself
the exclusive dignity of supreme bishop, he might seem to
deny the episcopal honour to all his brethren.”
V. I come now to the jurisdiction which the Roman pontiff
asserts that he indisputably holds over all churches. I know
318what violent contentions there were in ancient times on this
subject. For there has never been a period when the Roman
see did not aspire to some authority over other Churches. And
it will not be unsuitable to the present occasion to investigate
the means by which it gradually rose to some power. I am
not yet speaking of that unbounded empire which it has more
recently usurped; that I shall defer to its proper place. But
here it will be necessary to point out in a few words in what
manner and by what methods it formerly exalted itself, so as
to assume any jurisdiction over other Churches. When the
Eastern Churches were disturbed and divided by the factions
of the Arians, in the reign of Constantius and Constans, sons
of Constantine the Great, and Athanasius, the principal defender
of the orthodox faith, was driven from his see, that calamity
constrained him to go to Rome, in order that, by the authority
of the Roman see, he might in some degree repress the rage
of his enemies, and confirm the faithful, who were in extreme
distress. He was honourably received by Julius, then bishop
of Rome, and prevailed on the bishops of the West to undertake
the defence of his cause. Thus the pious in the Eastern
Churches, finding themselves in great want of foreign aid, and
seeing that their principal succour was to be obtained from
the Church of Rome, readily ascribed to it all the authority
that they possibly could. But all this amounted to nothing
more than that communion with it was held in high estimation,
and it was accounted ignominious to be excommunicated
from it. This dignity was afterwards considerably augmented
by men of wicked and abandoned lives; for to escape the
punishments which they deserved, they resorted thither as to a
common asylum. Therefore, if a priest was condemned by
his bishop, or a bishop by the synod of his province, they immediately
appealed to Rome. And the bishops of Rome
received such appeals with culpable eagerness, considering it
as a kind of extraordinary power to interfere in the concerns
of distant Churches. Thus when Eutyches was condemned
by Flavianus, patriarch of Constantinople, he complained to
Leo that he had been treated with injustice. Leo, without
any delay, but with equal temerity and expedition, undertook
the patronage of a bad cause, issued bitter invectives against
Flavianus, as if he had condemned an innocent man without
hearing his defence, and by this ambitious conduct he for some
time afforded considerable support to the impiety of Eutyches.
It appears that similar circumstances frequently happened in
Africa. For as soon as any wicked man was convicted before
the ordinary tribunal, he flew to Rome, and brought various
false accusations against his superiors; and the see of Rome
was always ready to interpose. This presumption constrained
319the African bishops to pass a decree that no one should appeal
beyond the sea on pain of excommunication.
VI. But however this might be, let us examine what jurisdiction
or power the Roman see then possessed. Now, ecclesiastical
power consists in these four things—the ordination of
bishops, the calling of councils, the hearing of appeals, or jurisdiction,
and corrective admonitions, or censures. All the ancient
councils command bishops to be ordained by their own metropolitans;
and they never direct the bishop of Rome to be called
to this office except in his own province. By degrees, however,
a custom was introduced for all the bishops of Italy to go to
Rome to be consecrated, except the metropolitans, who did not
suffer themselves to be subjected to this bondage. But when
any metropolitan was to be ordained, the bishop of Rome sent
one of his priests to assist at the ceremony, but not to preside.
There is an example of this in an epistle of Gregory, respecting
the consecration of Constantius, archbishop of Milan, after the
death of Laurentius. I do not suppose, however, that this was
a very ancient practice. It is probable that at first they sent
legates to each other, from a principle of respect and affection,
to witness the ordination, and testify their mutual communion;
and that what was originally voluntary, was afterwards considered
as necessary. However this may be, it is evident that in
ancient times the bishop of Rome did not possess the power of
consecrating bishops, except in his own province, that is, in the
Churches dependent upon his see; as is declared by one of the
canons of the Council of Nice. Consecration was followed by
the sending of a synodical epistle; and in this the bishop of
Rome had no superiority over others. It was the custom of
the patriarchs, immediately after their consecration, to make a
solemn declaration of their faith in a written communication to
their brethren, professing their adherence to the doctrine of the
holy and orthodox councils. Thus, by making a confession
of their faith, they mutually approved themselves to each other.
If the bishop of Rome had received such a confession from
others, and not given it to other bishops in his turn, this would
have been an instance of acknowledged superiority; but, as he
was under the same obligation to give it as to require it, and
was subject to the common law, it was certainly a token of
equality, and not of dominion. We have examples of this in
the epistles of Gregory to Anastasius and Cyriacus of Constantinople,
and to all the patriarchs together.
VII. Next follow admonitions or censures, which, as the
bishops of Rome formerly employed them towards others, they
also received from others in their turn. Irenæus, bishop of
Lyons, sharply reproved Victor, bishop of Rome, for having
raised a pernicious dissension in the Church on subjects of no
320importance. Victor submitted to the reproof without any opposition.
It was a liberty at that time commonly used by the holy
bishops to exercise the privilege of brethren towards the bishop
of Rome, by admonishing and reproving him whenever he
committed any fault. He, in like manner, when occasion required,
admonished others of their duty, and reproved them for
their faults. For Cyprian, when he exhorts Stephen, bishop of
Rome, to admonish the bishops of France, argues not from any
superior authority, but from the common rights which priests
enjoy among each other. If Stephen had then possessed any
authority over France, would not Cyprian have said, You
should chastise them, because they are subject to you? But
he expresses himself in a very different manner. “This fraternal
union,” says he, “by which we are connected together,
requires us to administer to each other mutual admonition.”
And we see with what severity of language, though otherwise
a man of a mild disposition, he censures even Stephen himself,
when he considered him assuming too much consequence. In
this respect, also, there is yet no appearance of the bishop of Rome
having been invested with any jurisdiction over those who were
not of his province.
VIII. With respect to the calling of councils, it was the duty
of every metropolitan, at stated seasons, to summon a provincial
synod. There the bishop of Rome had no authority. But a
universal council could only be called by the emperor. For if
any one of the bishops had attempted this, not only he would
not have been obeyed by those who were out of his province,
but such an attempt would have led to immediate confusion.
Therefore the emperor sent a summons to attend to all of them
alike. Socrates, indeed, in his Ecclesiastical History, states
that Julius, bishop of Rome, expostulated with the Eastern
bishops, for not having invited him to the Council of Antioch;
whereas the canons had forbidden that any thing should be
decreed without the knowledge of the bishop of Rome. But
who does not see that this is to be understood of those decrees
which bind the universal Church? Now, it is no wonder if
there was so much respect paid to the antiquity and eminence
of the city, and to the dignity of the see, as to determine that
no general decree respecting religion should be passed in the
absence of the bishop of Rome, unless he refused to be present.
But what is this towards dominion over the whole Church?
For we do not deny that the bishop of Rome was one of the
principal, but we will not admit, what the Romanists now
contend, that he had the authority over all.
IX. There remains the fourth kind of ecclesiastical power,
which consists in appeals. It is evident that he possesses
supreme authority, to whose tribunal appeals are made. Many
321often appealed to the bishop of Rome; and he also attempted
to assume the cognizance of causes; but he always became an
object of derision whenever he exceeded his proper limits. I
shall say nothing of the East, or of Greece; but it appears that
the bishops of France strenuously resisted him, when he discovered
an inclination to usurp authority over them. In Africa,
this subject occasioned a long controversy. For when the
Council of Milevum, at which Augustine was present, had denounced
excommunication against all who should appeal beyond
the sea, the bishop of Rome endeavoured to get this decree
rescinded. He sent legates to state that this privilege had been
given to him by the Council of Nice. The legates produced
certain acts which they alleged to be the acts of the Council of
Nice, and which they had brought from the archives of their
Church. They were resisted by the Africans, who denied that
the bishop of Rome ought to be credited in his own cause.
They therefore determined to send to Constantinople, and other
cities of Greece, to obtain copies liable to less suspicion. It
was found that these copies contained no such passages as the
Roman legates had pretended. So the decree was confirmed,
which had taken the supreme cognizance of appeals from the
bishop of Rome. This transaction discovered the scandalous
impudence of the Roman pontiff. For when he had fraudulently
substituted the council of Sardis for that of Nice, he was
disgracefully detected in a manifest falsehood. But still greater
wickedness and effrontery were betrayed by those who added
to the acts of the council a forged epistle, in which a bishop of
Carthage condemns the arrogance of his predecessor, Aurelius,
for having dared to withdraw himself from obedience to the
apostolic see, presents the submission of himself and his Church,
and humbly supplicates for pardon. These are the glorious
monuments of antiquity upon which the majesty of the Roman
see is founded; while, under the pretext of antiquity, they
advance such puerile falsehoods, as require not the least penetration
to detect. “Aurelius,” says this famous epistle, “elated
with diabolical audacity and obstinacy, was a rebel against
Christ and St. Peter, and therefore deserved to be anathematized.”
But what said Augustine? What said all the fathers
who were present at the Council of Milevum? But what
necessity is there for spending many words to refute that stupid
fabrication, which even the Romanists themselves, if they have
any modesty left, cannot look at without being exceedingly
ashamed? So Gratian, the compiler of the decretal,—whether
from wickedness or ignorance I know not,—after having recited
that canon, that those who appealed beyond the sea should be
excommunicated, adds this exception, unless they appeal to the
see of Rome. What can be done with such men, who are so
322destitute of common sense as to make that one case an exception
to a law, to guard against which every one sees that the law was
made? For the council, in condemning appeals beyond the
sea, only prohibited any one from appealing to Rome; and this
admirable expositor excepts Rome from the general prohibition!
X. But to put an end at once to this question, a single transaction,
related by Augustine, will be sufficient to show what
kind of jurisdiction was anciently possessed by the bishop of
Rome. Donatus, bishop of Casæ Nigræ, had accused Cæcilianus,
bishop of Carthage. The accused was condemned without
a hearing; for, knowing that the bishops had conspired
against him, he would not appear. The matter was then
brought before the Emperor Constantine. With a view to have
the cause decided by an ecclesiastical judgment, he referred the
cognizance of it to Melchiades, bishop of Rome, with whom
he associated some other bishops from Italy, France, and Spain.
If it was part of the ordinary jurisdiction of the see of Rome to
hear an appeal in an ecclesiastical cause, why did Melchiades
suffer any colleagues to be appointed with him at the pleasure
of the Emperor? and, moreover, why did he himself undertake
the business rather at the command of the Emperor than from
his own authority? But let us hear what took place afterwards.
Cæcilianus was victorious. Donatus of Casæ Nigræ
was convicted of calumny. He appealed. Constantine referred
the appeal to the bishop of Arles. He sat in judgment
on the decision of the bishop of Rome. If the Roman see possessed
the supreme jurisdiction, subject to no appeal, how did
Melchiades submit to such an insult, as for the bishop of Arles
to be preferred before him? And who was the Emperor that
did this? It was Constantine the Great, of whom they boast
that he not only devoted all his attention, but employed almost
all the power of his empire, to exalt the dignity of their see. We
see, then, how very far the bishop of Rome was at that time
from that supreme dominion which he pretends to have been
given him by Christ over all Churches, and which he falsely
boasts of having exercised in all ages with the consent of the
whole world.
XI. I know what numerous epistles, and rescripts, and
edicts, there are, in which the pontiffs have confidently advanced
the most extravagant claims respecting this power.
But it is also known to every person, possessed of the least
sense or learning, that most things contained in them are so extremely
absurd, that it is easy to discover at the first glance
from what source they have proceeded. For what man of
sound judgment, and in his sober senses, can suppose that
Anacletus was the author of that curious interpretation, which
Gratian quotes under his name—that Cephas means a head?
323There are many such fooleries collected together by Gratian
without any judgment, which the Romanists in the present
day employ against us in defence of their see; and such phantoms
with which they used to delude the ignorant in the darkest
times, they still persist in bringing forward amidst all the
light of the present age. But I have no intention to devote
much labour to the refutation of such things, which manifestly
refute themselves by their extreme absurdity. I confess that
there are also genuine epistles of the ancient pontiffs, in which
they extol the majesty of their see by the most magnificent
titles. Such are some epistles of Leo; who, though he was a
man of learning and eloquence, had likewise an immoderate
thirst for glory and dominion; but whether the Churches at
that time gave credit to his testimony when he thus exalted
himself, is a subject of inquiry. Now, it appears that many
were offended at his ambition, and resisted his claims. In one
epistle he deputes the bishop of Thessalonica to act as his representative
in Greece and other adjacent countries; in another
he delegates the bishop of Arles, or some other bishop, to be
his vicar in France. So he appoints Hormisdas, bishop of
Seville, his vicar in Spain. But in all cases he mentions, by
way of exception, that he makes such appointments on condition
that they shall in no respect infringe the ancient privileges
of the metropolitans. But Leo himself declares this to be one
of their privileges, that if any difficulty should arise, the metropolitan
was to be consulted in the first place. These delegations,
therefore, were accompanied with this condition—that
there was to be no interference with any bishop in his ordinary
jurisdiction, with any metropolitan in hearing appeals, or with
any provincial synod in the regulation of the Churches. Now,
what was this but to abstain from all jurisdiction, and only to
interpose for the settlement of disputes, as far as was consistent
with the law and nature of ecclesiastical communion?
XII. In the time of Gregory, this ancient custom had already
undergone a considerable change. For when the empire was
convulsed and torn asunder, when France and Spain were
afflicted with repeated and numerous wars and distresses, Illyricum
laid waste, Italy harassed, and Africa almost ruined
with incessant calamities,—in order to preserve the unity of the
faith amidst such a violent convulsion of civil affairs, or at least
to prevent its total destruction, all the bishops round about connected
themselves more closely with the bishop of Rome. The
consequence was, that the power as well as the dignity of that
see was greatly increased. I am not much concerned, however,
respecting the methods by which this was effected. It is
at least evident, that it was greater at that period than in the
preceding ages. And even then it was very far from an unlimited
324dominion, for one man to govern all others according
to his own pleasure. But the see of Rome was held in such
reverence, that its authority would repress and correct the refractory
and obstinate, who could not be confined to their duty
by the other bishops. For Gregory embraces every opportunity
of protesting, that he as faithfully maintained the rights of
others, as he required them to maintain his. “Nor under the
influence of ambition,” says he, “do I withhold from any one
that which is his right; but I desire to honour my brethren in
all things.”—There is not a sentence in his writings which
contains a prouder boast of the majesty of his primacy than the
following: “I know no bishop who is not subject to the apostolic
see, when he is found in fault.” But he immediately
adds, “Where there is no fault to require subjection, all are
equal by right of humility.” He attributes to himself the authority
to correct those who have transgressed; if all do their
duty, he places himself on an equality with them. But he assumed
this authority to himself, and they who were willing
consented to it, while others, who disapproved of it, were at
liberty to oppose it with impunity; and this, it is notorious,
was the conduct of the majority. Besides, it is to be remarked,
that he is there speaking of the primate of Constantinople, who
had been condemned by a provincial synod, and had disregarded
the united judgment of the assembly. His colleagues complained
to the emperor of his obstinacy. The emperor appointed
Gregory to decide the cause. We see, then, that he
made no attempt to interfere with the ordinary jurisdiction;
and that the very thing which he does for the assistance of
others, he does only at the command of the emperor.
XIII. This, therefore, was all the power which was then
possessed by the bishop of Rome,—to oppose rebellious and
refractory persons, in cases which required some extraordinary
remedy, and that in order to assist, not to hinder, other bishops.
Therefore he assumes to himself no more power over others
than he grants to all others over himself, when he professes
that he is ready to be reproved by all, and to be corrected by
all. So in another epistle he commands the bishop of Aquileia
to come to Rome to plead his cause in a controversy which
had arisen between him and his neighbours, respecting an article
of faith; nevertheless he gives this command, not from his
own authority, but in consequence of the mandate of the emperor.
Nor does he announce himself as the sole judge, but
promises to assemble a synod to judge of the whole affair.
But though there was still such moderation, that the power
of the Roman see had its certain limits, which it was not permitted
to exceed, and the bishop of Rome himself no more
presided over others than he was subject to them, yet it appears
325how very displeasing this situation was to Gregory. For
he frequently complains, that under the name of being a bishop,
he was forced back to the world, and that he was more involved
in secular cares than ever he had been while he was a
layman; so that in that honour he was oppressed with the
tumult of worldly business. In another passage he says,
“Such a vast burden of occupations presses me down, that my
mind is incapacitated for any elevation towards things above.
I am tossed about with numerous causes, like so many waves;
and after my former seasons of retirement and tranquillity, I am
disquieted with the tempests of a tumultuous life; so that I
may truly say, I am come into the depth of the sea, and the
tempest has drowned me.” Judge, then, what he would have
said, if he had fallen upon these times. If he did not fulfil the
office of a pastor, yet he was employed in it. He refrained
from all interference in the civil government, and acknowledged
himself to be subject to the emperor in common with
others. He never intruded into the care of other Churches,
except when he was constrained by necessity. And yet he
considered himself to be in a labyrinth, because he could not
wholly devote himself to the exclusive duties of a bishop.
XIV. The bishop of Constantinople, as we have already
stated, was at that time engaged in a contest with the bishop
of Rome, respecting the primacy. For after the seat of the
empire was fixed at Constantinople, the majesty of the government
seemed to require that Church to be the next in dignity to
the Church of Rome. And indeed at the beginning nothing
contributed more to establish the primacy in the Church of Rome
than the circumstance of that city being then the capital of the
empire. Gratian recites a rescript under the name of Pope Lucinus,
in which he says that the distinction of cities appointed
to be the residence of metropolitans and primates, was regulated
by no other rule than the nature of the civil government previously
established in them. There is another similar rescript,
also, under the name of Pope Clement, in which he says, that
patriarchs had been appointed in those cities which had anciently
been the stations of arch-flamens. This statement, though erroneous,
approaches to the truth. For it is certain, that in
order to make as little change as possible, the provinces were
divided according to the existing state of things, and that
primates and metropolitans were placed in those cities which
had precedence of the rest in dignity and power. Therefore,
in the Council of Turin, it was decreed, that those which were
the chief cities of the respective provinces in the civil government,
should be the principal sees of bishops; and that if the
honour of the civil government should happen to be transferred
from one city to another, the seat of the metropolitan should be
326removed to the same place. But Innocent, the Roman pontiff,
seeing the ancient dignity of his city beginning to decline, after
the translation of the seat of the empire to Constantinople, and
trembling for the honour of his see, enacted a contrary law;
in which he denies the necessity of a change of the ecclesiastical
capitals, in consequence of a change of the imperial capitals.
But the authority of a council ought to be preferred to the
sentence of an individual, and we may justly suspect Innocent
himself in his own cause. He proves by his decree, however,
that the original regulation had been for the seats of metropolitans
to be disposed according to the civil rank of the respective
cities.
XV. According to this ancient ordinance, it was decreed in
the first Council of Constantinople, that the bishop of that city
should have the next rank and dignity to the bishop of Rome,
because that was a new Rome. But when a similar decree was
passed long after in the Council of Chalcedon, Leo strenuously
opposed it. And he not only took the liberty of pouring
contempt on what had been decided by upwards of six hundred
bishops, but likewise heavily reproached them with having
taken from other sees the honour which they had ventured to
confer on the Church of Constantinople. Now, what could
incite him to disturb the world for so insignificant a cause, but
mere ambition? He says, that what had once been determined
by the Council of Nice, ought to have been maintained inviolable.
As if the Christian faith were endangered by the preference
of one Church to another, or as if the patriarchates had been
distributed by the Council of Nice with any other view than
the preservation of external order. Now, we know that external
order admits, and even requires, various changes, according to
the various circumstances of different periods. It is a futile pretence,
therefore, of Leo, that the honour, which the authority
of the Nicene council had given to the see of Alexandria, ought
not to be conferred on that of Constantinople. For common
sense dictates, that this was such a decree as might be abolished
according to the state of the times. And besides, the repeal
met with no opposition from the bishops of the East, who
were most interested in the matter. Proterius, who had been
appointed bishop of Alexandria instead of Dioscorus, was present;
as were other patriarchs, whose dignity was lessened by this
measure. It was for them to oppose it, and not Leo, who retained
his original station unaltered. When they all suffered it
to pass without any objection, and even assented to it, and
the bishop of Rome was the only one who resisted it, it is
easy to judge by what motive he was influenced. He foresaw,
what actually came to pass not long after, that as the glory of
Rome was declining, Constantinople would not be content with
327the second place, but would contend for the primacy. Yet all
his clamour was unavailing; the decree of the council was
confirmed. Therefore his successors, seeing themselves vanquished,
peaceably refrained from such obstinacy; for they decreed
that he should be accounted the second patriarch.
XVI. But a little while after, John, who presided over the
Church of Constantinople while Gregory was bishop of Rome, had
the arrogance to assume the title of universal patriarch. Gregory,
not afraid of defending his see in a good cause, resolutely
opposed this assumption. And certainly it betrayed intolerable
pride and folly in John to wish to make the limits of his
bishopric the same with those of the empire. Now, Gregory did
not claim to himself what he denied to another; but execrated
the title, by whomsoever it might be usurped, as wicked and
impious. In one of his epistles he expresses his displeasure
with Eulogius, bishop of Alexandria, for having complimented
him with such a title. “Behold,” says he, “in the preface
of the epistle which you have directed to myself, who have forbidden
it, you have taken care to introduce that appellation of
pride, by calling me universal pope. Which I entreat that your
holiness will not do any more; because all that you give to
another beyond what is reasonable, is deducted from yourself.
I consider nothing an honour to me, by which I see the honour
of my brethren diminished. For my honour is the honour of
the universal Church, and the perfect vigour of my brethren.
If your holiness calls me universal pope, this is denying that
you have any share in that which is wholly attributed to me.”
Gregory’s was a good and honourable cause; but John, being
supported by the favour of Mauritius the emperor, could not
be diverted from his purpose; and Cyriacus, his successor, was
equally inflexible.
XVII. At length Phocas, who ascended the throne after the
murder of Mauritius, being more favourable to the Romans,—for
what reason I know not, unless because he had been crowned
at Rome without any difficulty,—granted to Boniface the Third
what Gregory had never demanded,—that Rome should be
the head of all Churches. Thus the controversy was decided.
Yet this grant of the emperor could not have been so much
to the advantage of the see of Rome, if it had not been followed
by other things. For Greece and all Asia soon after separated
from its communion. France reverenced it only so far as
not to carry its obedience beyond its inclinations; nor was it
reduced to entire subjection, till Pepin had usurped the crown.
For after Zachary, the Roman pontiff, had assisted Pepin in the
commission of treason and robbery, in deposing his lawful
sovereign, and taking possession of the throne, he was rewarded
by having the see of Rome invested with jurisdiction over the
328Gallican Churches. As robbers are accustomed to divide their
common booty, so those worthy persons concerted together, that
Pepin should have the temporal and civil sovereignty after the
deposition of the rightful monarch, and that Zachary should
be made the head over all bishops, and enjoy the spiritual power.
At first this was feeble, as is generally the case with new establishments;
but it was afterwards confirmed by the authority of
Charlemagne, and almost from a similar cause; for he also was
indebted to the Roman pontiff, for his exertions in raising him to
the dignity of emperor. Now, though it is probable that the
Churches, before that time, had in general been greatly disfigured,
it is evident that in France and Germany the ancient form of
the Church was then entirely obliterated. The archives of
the parliament of Paris still contain brief registers of those times,
which, in relating ecclesiastical events, make frequent mention
of the treaties both of Pepin and Charlemagne with the Roman
pontiff; from which it may be concluded that an alteration
was then made in the ancient state of the Church.
XVIII. From that time, as things daily became worse and
worse, the tyranny of the Roman see was gradually established
and increased, and that partly through the ignorance, and partly
through the indolence, of the bishops. For while the Roman
pontiff was usurping every thing to himself, and proceeding
from one assumption to another, without any limits, in defiance
of law and justice, the bishops did not exert themselves with
the zeal which became them to repress his cupidity, and where
there was no want of inclination, they were destitute of real
learning and knowledge, so that they were not at all equal to such
an important undertaking. We see, therefore, what a horrible
profanation of every thing sacred, and what a total disorganization
of the Church there was at Rome in the days of Bernard. He
complains that the ambitious, the avaricious, the simoniacal,
the sacrilegious, the adulterous, the incestuous, and all who
were chargeable with the most atrocious crimes, from every
part of the world, resorted to Rome, in order to procure or to
retain ecclesiastical honours by the apostolical authority; and
that fraud, circumvention, and violence, were generally practised.
He says, that the judicial process which was then pursued
was execrable, and not only unbecoming of the Church, but
disgraceful to any civil court. He exclaims, that the Church
is full of ambitious men, and that there is not one who is any
more afraid of perpetrating the most flagitious crimes, than
robbers in their den when they are distributing the plunder
which they have seized on the highway. “Few,” he says,
“regard the mouth of the legislator; they all look at his hands,
and that not without cause, for those hands transact all that is
done by the pope. What a business it is, that they are bought
329with the spoils of the Church, who say to you, Well done, well
done! The life of the poor is sown in the streets of the rich;
silver glitters in the mire; people run to it from all parts; it is
borne away, not by the poorest, but by the strongest, or perhaps
by him who runs fastest. This custom, or rather this mortal
corruption, commenced not with you; I wish it may end with
you. In these circumstances you, a pastor, are proceeding,
covered with abundant and costly attire. If I might dare to
use the expression, these are rather the pastors of devils than
of sheep. Did Peter act in this manner? Was Paul guilty of
such trifling? Your court has been accustomed to receive
men good, more than to make them so. For the wicked are
not improved in it, but the good are corrupted.” The abuses
of appeals which he relates, no pious person can read without
the greatest horror. At length, respecting the insatiable cupidity
of the see of Rome in the usurpation of jurisdiction, he
concludes in the following manner: “I speak the murmur and
common complaint of the Churches. They exclaim that they
are divided and dismembered. There are few or none of them
who do not either bewail or dread this plague. Do you inquire
what plague? Abbots are torn away from their bishops, bishops
from their archbishops. It is wonderful if this can be excused.
By such conduct you prove that you have a plenitude of
power, but not of justice. You act thus because you can, but
the question is whether you ought. You are appointed to
preserve to all their respective honour and rank, and not
to envy them.” These few passages I have thought proper to
recite, out of a great many, partly that the readers may see how
sadly the Church had then declined, and partly that they may
know into what sorrow and lamentation all good men were
plunged by this calamity.
XIX. But though we should grant to the Roman pontiff in
the present day the same eminence and extent of jurisdiction
which this see possessed in the middle ages, as in the times of
Leo and Gregory, what is that to the Papacy in its present
state? I am not yet referring to the temporal and secular
power, which we shall afterwards examine in its proper place;
but the spiritual government itself of which they boast, what
resemblance has it to the condition of those times? For the
Romanists designate the pope no otherwise than as the supreme
head of the Church on earth, and universal bishop of the whole
world. And the pontiffs themselves, when they speak of their
authority, pronounce with great superciliousness, that they
have the power to command, and that to others is only left the
necessity to obey; that all their decrees are to be received as
if they were confirmed by the voice of St. Peter; that for
want of their presence, provincial synods have no authority;
330that they have the power to ordain priests and deacons for all
the Churches, and to summon to their see those who have been
elsewhere ordained. In the Decretal of Gratian there are innumerable
pretensions of this kind, which I forbear to recite,
lest I should be too tedious to my readers. But the sum of
them all comes to this; that the Roman pontiff alone has the
supreme cognizance of all ecclesiastical causes, whether in
judging and determining doctrines, in enacting laws, in regulating
discipline, or in exercising jurisdiction. It would also
be tedious and superfluous to enumerate the privileges which
they assume to themselves in reservations, as they call them.
But what is the most intolerable of all, they leave no judgment
on earth to curb or restrain their cupidity, if they abuse such
unlimited power. “It cannot be lawful,” they say, “for any
one to reject the judgment of this see, on account of the primacy
of the Roman Church.” Again: “The judge shall not be
judged, either by the emperor or by kings, or by all the clergy,
or by the people.” This is arrogance beyond all bounds, for one
man to constitute himself judge of all, and to refuse to submit to
the judgment of any. But what if he exercise tyranny over the
people of God, if he divide and desolate the kingdom of Christ,
if he disturb and overturn the whole Church, if he pervert the
pastoral office into a system of robbery? Even though he
should go to the greatest extremes of profligacy and mischief,
he denies that he is at all accountable for his conduct. For
these are the very words of the pontiffs: “God has been
pleased to decide the causes of other men by the judgment of
men, but the prelate of this see he has, without all question,
reserved to his own judgment.” Again, “The actions of our
subjects are judged by us; but ours by God alone.”
XX. And that such edicts might have the more weight,
they have falsely substituted the names of ancient pontiffs, as
if things had been so regulated from the beginning; whereas
it is very certain, that every thing, which attributes to the
Roman pontiff more than we have stated to have been given
him by the ancient councils, is a novel and recent fabrication.
They have even gone to such a pitch of impudence as to publish
a rescript, under the name of Anastasius, patriarch of Constantinople,
which declares that it had been ordained by the
ancient canons, that nothing should be done even in the remotest
provinces, without being first reported to the Roman
see. Beside the notorious falsehood of this, what man will
think it credible, that such a eulogium of the Roman see
proceeded from the adversary and rival of its honour and dignity?
But it was necessary that these Antichrists should be
carried to such an extreme of madness and blindness, that their
iniquity may be evident to all men of sound understanding,
331who only choose to open their eyes. But the Decretal Epistles,
complied by Gregory the Ninth, as well as the Constitutions
of Clement the Fifth, and the Decrees of Martin, still
more openly and expressly betray, in every page, the inhuman
ferocity and tyranny of barbarous kings. But these are the
oracles from which the Romanists wish their Papacy to be
appreciated. Hence proceeded those famous axioms, which at
the present day are universally received by them as oracles:
That the pope cannot err; that the pope is superior to all
councils; that the pope is the universal bishop of all Churches,
and supreme head of the Church upon earth. I pass over the
far greater absurdities, which foolish canonists maintain in
their schools; which, however, the Roman theologians not
only assent to, but even applaud, in order to flatter their idol.
XXI. I shall not treat them with all the severity which
they deserve. To this consummate insolence, another person
would oppose the declaration of Cyprian among the bishops at
the Council of Carthage, of which he was president: “No one of
us calls himself bishop of bishops, or, by tyrannical fear, constrains
his colleagues to the necessity of obeying him.” He would
object what was decreed at Carthage some time after, “That
no one should be called prince of priests, or first bishop.” He
would collect many testimonies from histories, many canons
of councils, and various passages from the writings of the fathers,
by which the Roman pontiff would be reduced to the
rank of other bishops. I pass over these things, however, that
I may not appear to lay too much stress upon them. But let
the most able advocates of the Roman see answer me, with
what face they can dare to defend the title of universal bishop,
which they find to have been so often anathematized by Gregory.
If the testimony of Gregory be entitled to any credit, they cannot
make their pontiff universal bishop without thereby declaring
him to be Antichrist. Nor was the title of head any more
in use at that time; for in one of his epistles he says, “Peter
is the principal member in the body; John, Andrew, and
James, were heads of particular people. Yet they are all
members of the Church under one head. Even the saints
before the law, the saints under the law, the saints under grace,
are all placed among the members, and no one ever wished
himself to be called universal.” The arrogant pretensions of
the pontiff to the power of commanding are very inconsistent
with an observation made by Gregory in another passage. For
when Eulogius, bishop of Alexandria, had represented himself
as commanded by him, he replies in the following manner:—“I
beseech you, let me not hear the word command mentioned
again; for I know what I am, and what you are. In station,
you are my brethren; in holiness, you are my fathers. Therefore
332I gave no command, but intended to suggest to you such
things as appeared to be useful.” By extending his jurisdiction,
as he does, without any limits, the pope does a grievous
and atrocious injury, not only to other bishops, but to all other
Churches, which he distracts and divides by such conduct, in
order to establish his own see upon their ruins. But when he
exempts himself from all the judgments of others, and determines
to reign in such a tyrannical manner as to have no law
but his own pleasure, this is certainly so unbecoming, and
foreign from the order of the Church, that it is altogether intolerable,
and incapable of any defence. For it is utterly repugnant,
not only to every sentiment of piety, but even of humanity.
XXII. But that I may not be obliged to pursue and discuss
every particular point, I again appeal to those of my contemporaries,
who would be considered as the most able and faithful
advocates of the Roman see, whether they are not ashamed to
defend the present state of the Papacy, which is evidently a
hundred times more corrupt than it was in the times of Gregory
and Bernard, but which even then so exceedingly displeased
those holy men. Gregory every where complains, that he was
excessively distracted with occupations unsuitable to his office;
that under the name of being a bishop, he was carried back to the
world; that he was involved in secular cares, to a greater extent
than he could remember to have been while he was a layman;
that he was oppressed with the tumult of worldly business, so
that his mind was incapacitated for any elevation towards things
above; that he was tossed about with numerous causes like so
many waves, and disquieted with the tempests of a tumultuous
life, so that he might justly say, “I am come into the depth of
the sea.” Amidst these worldly avocations, however, he could
still instruct the people by public preaching, give private admonition
and reproof to those who required it, regulate his
Church, give advice to his colleagues, and exhort them to their
duty; beside these things, he had some time left for writing;
yet he deplores his calamity, in being plunged into the depth
of the sea. If the administration of that age was a sea, what
must be said of the Papacy in its present state? For what
resemblance is there between them? Here we find no sermons
preached, no attention to discipline, no concern for the Churches,
no spiritual function performed; in a word, nothing but the
world. Yet this labyrinth is praised, as though nothing could
be found better constituted, or better administered. What
complaints are poured out by Bernard, what lamentations does
he utter, when he beholds the vices of his times? What would
he say, then, if he could behold this our iron, or, if possible, worse
than iron age? What impudence is it, not only pertinaciously
to defend as sacred and Divine what all the holy fathers have
333reprobated with one voice, but also to abuse their testimony in
vindication of the Papacy, which it is evident was utterly unknown
to them! In the time of Bernard, however, I confess
the corruption was so great that there was no great difference
between that age and the present; but those who adduce any
plea for the existing state of things from the time of Leo, Gregory,
and others in that middle period, must be destitute of all shame.
This conduct resembles that of any one, who, to vindicate the
monarchy of the Roman emperors, should commend the ancient
state of the Roman government; which would be no other
than borrowing the praises of liberty to adorn a system of
tyranny.
XXIII. Lastly, though all these things were conceded to
them, they would be called to a new controversy, when we
deny that there exists at Rome a Church in which such privileges
can reside, or a bishop capable of exercising these
dignified prerogatives. Supposing, therefore, all these things
to be true, which, however, we have already refuted,—that, by
the voice of Christ, Peter had been constituted head of the
universal Church; that the honour vested in him he had
committed to the Roman see; that this had been established
by the authority of the ancient Church, and confirmed by long
usage; that all men, with one consent, had invariably acknowledged
the supreme power of the Roman pontiff; that he had been
the judge in all causes and of all men, and had been subject to
the judgment of none;—though they should have all these
concessions, and any more that they wished, yet I reply in one
word, that none of them would be of any avail, unless there
be at Rome a Church and a bishop. They must of necessity
allow, that Rome cannot be the mother of Churches, unless it
be itself a Church, and that he cannot be the prince of bishops,
who is not a bishop himself. Do they wish, then, to make Rome
the apostolic see? Let them show me a true and legitimate
apostleship. Do they wish to have the supreme pontiff? Let
them show me a bishop. But where will they show us any
form or appearance of a Church? They mention it, indeed, and
have it frequently in their mouths. But the Church is known
by certain marks, and a bishopric is a name of office. I am not
now speaking of the people, but of the government itself, which
ought always to appear in the Church. Where is the ministry,
such as Christ’s institution requires? Let us remember what
has already been said of the office of presbyters and bishops.
If we bring the office of cardinals to that rule, we shall confess
that they have no resemblance to presbyters. And I should
wish to know what resemblance the pontiff himself bears to a
bishop. The first duty of the episcopal office is to instruct the
people from the word of God; the second duty, closely connected
334with the first, is to administer the sacraments; the third is
to admonish, exhort, and reprove those who offend, and to
regulate the people by holy discipline. Which of these duties
does he perform? Which of them does he even pretend to
perform? Let them tell me, then, upon what principle they
require him to be considered as a bishop, who never, even in
appearance, with his little finger touches the least portion of
the duty.
XXIV. The case of a bishop is different from that of a king,
who still retains the honour and title of a king, though he
execute none of the royal functions. But in judging of a
bishop, regard is to be paid to the commission of Christ, which
ought always to continue in force in the Church. Let the Romanists,
therefore, furnish me with a solution of this difficulty. I deny
that their pontiff is the chief of bishops, because he is not a
bishop himself. Now, they must prove this second member of
my position to be false, if they will obtain the victory in the first.
But what must be the conclusion, if he not only has no characteristic
of a bishop, but every thing contrary to it? But here
where shall I begin? with his doctrine, or his conduct? What
shall I say? What shall I omit? Where shall I stop? I will
make this assertion—that as the world is at present filled with
so many corrupt and impious doctrines, loaded with such various
kinds of superstitions, blinded with such numerous errors, and
immerged in such profound idolatry,—there is not one of these
evils which has not originated from the see of Rome, or at least
been confirmed by it. Nor is there any other cause for the
violent rage of the pontiffs against the revived doctrine of the
gospel, and for their exertion of all their power to crush it, and
their instigation of all kings and princes to persecute it, but that
they see that their whole kingdom will decline and fall to the
ground, where the primitive gospel of Christ shall be received.
Leo was cruel; Clement was sanguinary; Paul is ferocious.
But it is not so much that nature has impelled them to impugn the
truth, as that this was the only way to defend their power. As
they cannot be safe, therefore, without ruining Christ, they
labour in this cause as if it were in the defence of their religion,
their habitations, their lives. What, then, shall we consider
that as the apostolic see, where we behold nothing but a horrible
apostasy? Shall he be regarded as the vicar of Christ, who, by
his furious exertions in persecuting the gospel, unequivocally
declares himself to be Antichrist? Shall he be deemed Peter’s
successor, who rages with fire and sword to demolish all that
Peter built? Shall we acknowledge him to be head of the
Church, who, after severing the Church from Christ, its only
true Head, divides and tears it in pieces? Though it be admitted
that Rome was once the mother of all Churches, yet
335from the time when it began to be the seat of Antichrist, it has
ceased to be what it was before.
XXV. Some persons think us too severe and censorious,
when we call the Roman pontiff Antichrist. But those who
are of this opinion do not consider that they bring the same
charge of presumption against Paul himself, after whom we
speak, and whose language we adopt. And lest any one should
object, that we improperly pervert to the Roman pontiff those
words of Paul, which belong to a different subject, I shall briefly
show that they are not capable of any other interpretation than
that which applies them to the Papacy. Paul says, that Antichrist
“sitteth in the temple of God.”[893] In another place,
also, the Holy Spirit, describing his image in the person of
Antiochus, declares that his kingdom will consist in “speaking
great words,” or blasphemies, “against the Most High.”[894]
Hence we conclude, that it is rather a tyranny over the souls of
men, than over their bodies, which is erected in opposition to
the spiritual kingdom of Christ. And in the next place, that
this tyranny is one which does not abolish the name of Christ
or of his Church, but rather abuses the authority of Christ, and
conceals itself under the character of the Church, as under a
mask. Now, though all the heresies and schisms which have
existed from the beginning belong to the kingdom of Antichrist,
yet when Paul predicts an approaching apostasy, he signifies
by this description that that seat of abomination shall then be
erected, when a universal defection shall have seized the Church,
notwithstanding many members, dispersed in different places,
persevere in the unity of the faith. But when he adds, that even
in his days “the mystery of iniquity” did “already work”[895]
in secret what it was afterwards to effect in a more public
manner, he gives us to understand that this calamity was neither
to be introduced by one man, nor to terminate with one man.
Now, when he designates Antichrist by this character,—that he
would rob God of his honour in order to assume it to himself,—this
is the principal indication which we ought to follow in our
inquiries after Antichrist, especially where such pride proceeds
to a public desolation of the Church. As it is evident therefore
that the Roman pontiff has impudently transferred to himself
some of the peculiar and exclusive prerogatives of God and
Christ, it cannot be doubted that he is the captain and leader
of this impious and abominable kingdom.
XXVI. Now, let the Romanists go and object antiquity
against us; as if, in such a subversion of every thing, the
honour of the see could remain, where no see exists. Eusebius
relates that God, in order to make way for his vengeance,
336removed the Church from Jerusalem to Pella. What we are
informed did happen once, may have happened oftener. Therefore
to attach the honour of the primacy to any particular place,
so that he who is in fact the most inveterate enemy of Christ,
the greatest adversary of the gospel, the desolater and destroyer
of the Church, the most cruel murderer and butcher of all the
saints, must nevertheless be accounted the vicar of Christ, the
successor of Peter, the chief prelate of the Church, merely because
he occupies what was anciently the first see, is a thing
extremely ridiculous and absurd. I forbear to remark the immense
difference between the pope’s chancery, and a well regulated
administration of the Church; though this one thing
is sufficient to remove every difficulty on this subject. For no
man in his sound senses will include the episcopal office in lead
and in bulls, much less in that school of frauds and chicaneries, in
which the pope’s spiritual government consists. It has justly
been remarked, therefore, that the Roman Church which is
boasted of, has long ago been converted into a secular court,
which is all that is now to be seen at Rome. Nor am I here
accusing the vices of individuals, but proving that the Papacy
itself is diametrically opposite to the legitimate order of the
Church.
XXVII. But if we proceed to persons, it is well known
what kind of men we shall find sustaining the character of
vicars of Christ. Julius, and Leo, and Clement, and Paul,
will be pillars of the Christian faith, and the principal oracles
of religion, who never knew any thing of Christ, except what
they had learned in the school of Lucian. But why do I enumerate
three or four pontiffs, as though it were doubtful what
kind of religion the pontiffs and the whole college of cardinals
have professed long ago, and profess in the present day? For
of the secret theology which prevails among them, the first
article is, that there is no God; the second, that all that is
written and preached concerning Jesus Christ is falsehood
and imposture; the third, that the doctrine of a future life,
and that of the final resurrection, are mere fables. This opinion,
I confess, is not entertained by all, and is expressed by
few of them; yet it long ago began to be the ordinary religion
of the pontiffs. Though this is notorious to all who are acquainted
with Rome, yet the Roman theologians persist in
boasting that the possibility of error in the pope has been prevented
by the privilege of Christ, because he said to Peter,
“I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not.”[896] What
can they gain by such impudent mockery, except it be to convince
the whole world of their having arrived at such an
337extreme of presumption, that they neither fear God nor regard
men?
XXVIII. But let us suppose the impiety of those pontiffs,
whom I have mentioned, to be concealed, because they have
not published it by sermons or by writings, but only betrayed
it in their chambers and at their tables, or at least within the
walls of their palaces. But if they wish to establish this privilege
to which they pretend, they must expunge from the
number of the pontiffs John the Twenty-second, who publicly
maintained that souls are mortal, and that they perish together
with the bodies till the day of resurrection. And to show
that the whole see, with its principal pillars, was then entirely
overturned, not one of the cardinals resisted this capital error;
but the university of Paris urged the king of France to compel
the pope to a retraction. The king interdicted his subjects
from all communion with him, unless he should speedily repent;
and he caused this to be proclaimed, in the usual manner,
by a herald. Compelled by necessity, the pontiff abjured his
error. This example renders it unnecessary for me to dispute
any longer against the assertion of our adversaries, that the see
of Rome and its pontiffs cannot err respecting the faith, because
Christ said to Peter, “I have prayed for thee, that thy faith
fail not.” John certainly fell from the true faith in so disgraceful
a manner, that he might furnish to posterity a signal
proof, that those who succeed Peter in his bishopric are not all
Peters. The argument itself, however, is too puerile to need
any answer. For if they are determined to apply to Peter’s
successors every thing that was said to Peter, it will follow
that they are all Satans, because the Lord also said to Peter,
“Get thee behind me, Satan; thou art an offence unto me.”[897]
It will be as easy for us to retort this passage against them, as
it is for them to object the other against us.
XXIX. But it affords me no pleasure to contend with them
in such fooleries, and therefore I return from the digression.
To confine Christ, and the Holy Spirit, and the Church, to one
particular place, so that whoever presides there, even though
he be a devil, must, nevertheless, be deemed the vicar of Christ,
and the head of the Church, because that place was formerly
the see of Peter, I maintain to be not only impious and dishonourable
to Christ, but altogether absurd and repugnant to
common sense. The Roman pontiffs for a long time have
either been totally indifferent to religion, or have shown themselves
its greatest enemies. They are no more made the vicars
of Christ, therefore, by the see which they occupy, than an
idol is to be taken for God, because it is placed in his temple.
338Now, if a judgment is to be formed on their conduct, let the
pontiffs answer for themselves in what part of it they can at
all be recognized as bishops. In the first place, the mode of
life generally pursued at Rome, not only without any opposition
from them, but with their connivance, and even tacit approbation,
is altogether disgraceful to bishops, whose duty it
is to restrain the licentiousness of the people by a rigid discipline.
I will not, however, be so severe against them as
to charge them with the faults of other persons. But while
both themselves and their families, with almost the whole
college of cardinals, and the whole host of their clergy, are so
abandoned to all kinds of debauchery, impurity, and obscenity,
and to every species of enormity and crime, that they resemble
monsters rather than men, they prove themselves to have no
just claim to the character of bishops. They need not be
afraid, however, that I shall proceed to a further disclosure of
their turpitude. For it is unpleasant to meddle with such
abominable pollution, and it is necessary to spare chaste ears.
Besides, I conceive, I have more than sufficiently proved what
I intended, that even if Rome had anciently been the head
of all Churches, yet at the present day she is not worthy of
being accounted one of the smallest toes of the Church’s feet.
XXX. With respect to the cardinals, as they are called, I
know not how it has come to pass that they have so suddenly
risen to such high dignity. In the time of Gregory, this title
was exclusively applied to bishops; for whenever he mentions
cardinals, he speaks of them not only as belonging to the Church
of Rome, but to any other Churches; so that, in short, a cardinal
priest is no other than a bishop. I find no such title at all in
the writers of any preceding age; and at that time, I observe,
they were far inferior to bishops, to whom they are now so
far superior. This passage of Augustine is well known:
“Though, according to the titles of honour which have long
been used in the Church, a bishop is superior to a presbyter,
yet Augustine is in many things inferior to Jerome.” He
clearly makes not the least distinction between a presbyter of
the Roman Church and those of other Churches, but places
them all alike below the bishops. And this order was so long
observed, that in the Council of Carthage, when two legates
attended from the Roman see, one a bishop, the other a presbyter,
the presbyter was obliged to take the lowest seat. But
not to go too far into antiquity for examples, we have the acts
of a council held under Gregory at Rome, at which the presbyters
sat in the lowest place, and subscribed separately; and
the deacons were not allowed to subscribe at all. And, indeed,
the priests had no other office at that time, than to attend and
assist the bishop in the ministry of the word and the administration
339of the sacraments. Now, their condition is so changed,
that they are become the cousins of kings and emperors. And
there is no doubt but they rose by degrees, together with their
head, till they reached their present high dignity. This also
I have thought proper to suggest by the way in a few words,
that the reader may more fully understand, that the Roman see,
in its present circumstances, is widely different from its ancient
state, under the pretext of which it is now maintained and defended.
But whatever they may have been in former times,
since they have now no true and legitimate office in the Church,
and only retain a mere name and useless mask of one, and since
every thing belonging to them is quite contrary to it, it was
necessary that what Gregory often forebodes should actually
befall them: “I say it with tears, I denounce it with groans,
that since the sacerdotal order is fallen within, it will not long
be able to stand without.” Or rather it was necessary that
what Malachi declares of similar characters should be fulfilled
in them: “Ye are departed out of the way; ye have caused
many to stumble at the law; ye have corrupted the covenant
of Levi, saith the Lord of hosts. Therefore have I also made
you contemptible and base before all the people.”[898] I now
leave it to all pious persons to consider the nature of the lofty
fabric of the Roman hierarchy, to which the Papists, with nefarious
impudence, and without any hesitation, sacrifice even
the word of God itself, which ought to have been held venerable
and sacred by heaven and earth, by men and angels.
The next subject is the power of the Church, which is to
be considered as residing, partly in the respective bishops, partly
in councils, and those either provincial or general. I speak
only of the spiritual power which belongs to the Church. Now,
it consists either in doctrine, in legislation, or jurisdiction. The
subject of doctrine contains two parts—the authority to establish
doctrines, and the explication of them. Before we enter on the
particular discussion of each of these points, we would apprize
340the pious readers, that whatever is asserted respecting the power
of the Church, they should be mindful to refer to the end for
which Paul declares it to have been given, namely, “to edification,
and not to destruction;”[899] and all who make a legitimate
use of it, consider themselves as nothing more than
“servants of Christ,”[900] and the people’s “servants for Jesus’
sake.”[901] Now, the only way to edify the Church is, for the
ministers themselves to study to preserve to Jesus Christ his
rightful authority, which can no longer be secure than while
he is left in possession of what he has received from the Father,
that is, to be the sole Master in the Church.[902] For of him
alone, and of no other, is it said, “Hear ye him.”[903] The
power of the Church, therefore, is not to be depreciated, yet it
must be circumscribed by certain limits, that it may not be
extended in every direction, according to the caprice of men.
It will, therefore, be highly useful to observe how it is described
by the prophets and apostles. For if we simply grant to men
the power which they may be pleased to assume, it must be
obvious to every one, what a door will be opened for tyranny,
which ought never to be seen in the Church of Christ.
II. Here, therefore, it is necessary to remember, that whatever
authority and dignity is attributed by the Holy Spirit, in
the Scripture, either to the priests and prophets under the law,
or to the apostles and their successors, it is all given, not in a
strict sense to the persons themselves, but to the ministry over
which they were appointed, or, to speak more correctly, to the
word, the ministration of which was committed to them. For
if we examine them all in succession, we shall not find that
they were invested with any authority to teach or to answer
inquiries, but in the name and word of the Lord. For when
they were called to their office, it was at the same time enjoined
that they should bring forward nothing of themselves,
but should speak from the mouth of the Lord. Nor did he
send them forth in public to address the people, before he had
instructed them what they should say, that they might speak
nothing beside his word. Moses himself, the prince of all the
prophets, was to be heard above all others; but he was first furnished
with his commission, that he might not be able to announce
any thing except from the Lord. Therefore the people,
when they received his doctrine, were said to “believe the
Lord and his servant Moses.”[904] The authority of the priests
also, that it might not fall into contempt, was confirmed by the
severest punishments.[905] But, on the other hand, the Lord
shows on what condition they were to be heard, when he says,
341“My covenant was with Levi. The law of truth was in his
mouth.” And just afterwards, “The priest’s lips should keep
knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth; for
he is the messenger of the Lord of hosts.”[906] Therefore, if
a priest would be heard, it was necessary for him to prove
himself the messenger of God, by faithfully communicating
the commands which he had received from his master; and
where attention to the priests is enjoined, it is expressly stated,
that “they shall teach the sentence of the law”[907] of God.
III. The power of the prophets is fully and beautifully described
in Ezekiel. “Son of man,” says the Lord, “I have
made thee a watchman unto the house of Israel; therefore
hear the word at my mouth, and give them warning from
me.”[908] When he is commanded to hear from the mouth of
the Lord, is he not prohibited to invent any thing of himself?
And what is it to give warning from the Lord, but, to speak in
such a manner as to be able to declare with confidence that
the message he has brought is not his own, but the Lord’s?
The Lord expresses the same thing in other words in the prophecy
of Jeremiah: “The prophet that hath a dream, let him
tell a dream; and he that hath my word, let him speak my word
faithfully.”[909] He clearly delivers a law for them all; its
import is, that he permits no one to teach more than he has
been commanded; and he afterwards gives the appellation of
“chaff” to every thing that has not proceeded from himself
alone. Not one of the prophets opened his mouth, therefore,
without having first received the words from the Lord. Hence
their frequent use of these expressions: “The word of the
Lord,” “The burden of the Lord,” “Thus saith the Lord,”
“The mouth of the Lord hath spoken;” and this was highly
necessary; for Isaiah exclaimed, “I am a man of unclean
lips;”[910] and Jeremiah said, “Behold, I cannot speak, for I am
a child.”[911] What could proceed from the pollution of the
one, and the folly of the other, but impure and foolish speeches,
if they had spoken their own words? But their lips were holy
and pure, when they began to be the organs of the Holy Spirit.
While the prophets were bound by this law to deliver nothing
but what they had received, they were likewise adorned with
eminent power and splendid titles. For when the Lord declares,
“See, I have this day set thee over the nations, and
over the kingdoms, to root out, and to pull down, and to destroy,
and to throw down, and to build, and to plant,” he at
the same time assigns the reason—“Behold, I have put my
words in thy mouth.”[912]
342IV. If we advert to the apostles, they are certainly honoured
with many extraordinary characters. It is said that they are
“the light of the world,” and “the salt of the earth;”[913] that
“he that heareth” them “heareth Christ;”[914] that “whatsoever”
they “shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and
whatsoever” they “shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”[915]
But their very name shows what degree of liberty
they were allowed in their office; that if they were apostles, they
were not to declaim according to their own pleasure, but to deliver
with strict fidelity the commands of him who had sent them.
And the language of Christ is sufficiently clear, in which he has
defined their message by the following commission: “Go ye,
and teach all nations whatsoever I have commanded you.”[916]
He had even received and imposed on himself the same law,
in order that no one might refuse to submit to it. “My doctrine,”
says he, “is not mine, but his that sent me.”[917] He
who was always the eternal and only counsellor of the Father,
and was constituted by the Father the Lord and Master of all,
yet because he sustained the office of a teacher, prescribed, by
his own example, the rule which all ministers ought to follow
in their teaching. The power of the Church, therefore, is not
unlimited, but subject to the word of the Lord, and, as it were,
included in it.
V. But whereas it has been a principle received in the
Church from the beginning, and ought to be admitted in the
present day, that the servants of God should teach nothing
which they have not learned from him, yet they have had different
modes of receiving instruction from him, according to the
variety of different periods; and the present mode differs from
those which have preceded it. In the first place, if the assertion
of Christ be true, that “no man knoweth the Father
except the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal
him,”[918] it must always have been necessary for those who
would arrive at the knowledge of God, to be directed by that
eternal wisdom. For how could they have comprehended the
mysteries of God, or how could they have declared them,
except by the teaching of him, to whom alone the secrets of
the Father are intimately known? The saints in former ages,
therefore, had no other knowledge of God than what they
obtained by beholding him in the Son, as in a mirror. By this
observation I mean that God never manifested himself to man
in any other way than by his Son, his only wisdom, light, and
truth. From this fountain Adam, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob,
and others, drew all the knowledge which they possessed
343of heavenly doctrine; from this fountain the prophets themselves
drew all the celestial oracles which they spoke and
wrote. But this wisdom has not always manifested itself in
the same way. With the patriarchs God employed secret
revelations; for the confirmation of which, however, he at the
same time added such signs that they could not entertain the
least doubt that it was God who spake to them. What the
patriarchs had received, they transmitted from hand to hand to
their posterity; for the Lord had committed it to them on the
express condition that they should so propagate it. Succeeding
generations, from the testimony of God in their hearts,
knew that what they heard was from heaven, and not from
the earth.
VI. But when it pleased God to raise up a more visible form
of a church, it was his will that his word should be committed
to writing, in order that the priests might derive from it whatever
they would communicate to the people, and that all the
doctrine which should be delivered might be examined by that
rule. Therefore, after the promulgation of the law, when the
priests were commanded to teach “out of the mouth of the
Lord,” the meaning is, that they should teach nothing extraneous,
or different from that system of doctrine which the Lord
had comprised in the law; it was not lawful for them to add to
it or to diminish from it. Afterwards followed the prophets,
by whom God published new oracles, which were to be added
to the law; yet they were not so new but that they proceeded
from the law, and bore a relation to it. For in regard to doctrine,
the prophets were merely interpreters of the law, and
added nothing to it except prophecies of things to come. Except
these, they brought forward nothing but pure explication
of the law. But because it pleased God that there should be a
more evident and copious doctrine, for the better satisfaction of
weak consciences, he directed the prophecies also to be committed
to writing, and to be accounted a part of his word. To
these likewise were added the histories, which were the productions
of the prophets, but composed under the dictation
of the Holy Spirit. I class the Psalms with the prophecies,
because what we attribute to the prophecies is common to the
Psalms. That whole body of Scripture, therefore, consisting
of the Law, the Prophets, the Psalms, and the Histories, was
the word of God to the ancient Church; and to this standard
the priests and teachers, even to the coming of Christ,
were bound to conform their doctrine; nor was it lawful for
them to deviate either to the right hand or to the left, because
their office was wholly confined within these limits, that they
should answer the people from the mouth of God. And this
may be inferred from that remarkable passage of Malachi,
344where he commands the Jews to remember the law, and to be
attentive to it, even till the publication of the gospel.[919] For in
that injunction he drives them off from all adventitious doctrines,
and prohibits even the smallest deviation from the path which
Moses had faithfully showed them. And it is for this reason
that David so magnifies the excellence of the law, and recounts
so many of its praises; to prevent the Jews from desiring any
addition to it, since it contained every thing necessary for them
to know.
VII. But when, at length, the Wisdom of God was manifested
in the flesh, it openly declared to us all that the human mind is
capable of comprehending, or ought to think, concerning the
heavenly Father. Now, therefore, since Christ, the Sun of
Righteousness, has shone upon us, we enjoy the full splendour
of Divine truth, resembling the brightness of noonday, whereas
the light enjoyed before was a kind of twilight. For certainly
the apostle intended to state no unimportant fact when he said,
that “God, who, at sundry times, and in divers manners, spake
in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these
last days spoken unto us by his Son;”[920] for he here suggests,
and even plainly declares, that God will not in future, as in
ages past, speak from time to time by one and another, that he
will not add prophecies to prophecies, or revelations to revelations,
but that he has completed all the branches of instruction
in his Son, so that this is the last and eternal testimony
that we shall have from him; for which reason this whole
period of the New Testament, from the appearance of Christ
to us in the first promulgation of his gospel, even to the day
of judgment, is designated as “the last time,” “the last times,”
“the last days;” in order that, being content with the perfection
of the doctrine of Christ, we may learn neither to invent
any thing new or beyond it ourselves, nor to receive any such
thing from the invention of others. It is not without cause,
therefore, that the Father has given us his Son by a peculiar
privilege, and appointed him to be our teacher, commanding
attention to be paid to him, and not to any mere man. He has
recommended his tuition to us in few words, when he says, “Hear
ye him;”[921] but there is more weight and energy in them than
is commonly imagined; for they call us away from all the instructions
of men, and place us before him alone; they command
us to learn from him alone all the doctrine of salvation,
to depend upon him, to adhere to him, in short, as the words
express, to listen solely to his voice. And, indeed, what ought
now to be either expected or desired from man, when the
Word of Life himself has familiarly presented himself before
345us? It is rather necessary that the mouths of all men should
be shut, since he has once spoken, in whom it has pleased the
heavenly Father that all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge
should be hidden,[922] and has spoken in a manner becoming
the wisdom of God, in which there is no imperfection, and
the Messiah, who was expected to reveal all things;[923] that
is, has spoken in such a manner as to leave nothing to be said
by others after him.
VIII. Let us lay down this, then, as an undoubted axiom,
that nothing ought to be admitted in the Church as the word
of God, but what is contained first in the law and the prophets,
and secondly in the writings of the apostles, and that there is
no other method of teaching aright in the Church than according
to the direction and standard of that word. Hence we
conclude, also, that the apostles were allowed no more discretion
than the prophets before them—namely, to expound the
ancient Scripture, and to show that the things delivered in it
were accomplished in Christ; but this they were only to do
from the Lord, that is to say, under the guidance and dictation
of the Spirit of Christ. For Christ limited their mission by
this condition, when he ordered them to go and teach, not the
fabrications of their own presumption, but whatsoever he had
commanded them.[924] And nothing could be more explicit
than what he said on another occasion: “Be not ye called
Rabbi; for one is your Master, even Christ.”[925] To fix this
more deeply in their minds, he repeats it twice in the same
place. And because their weakness was such that they were
unable to comprehend the things which they had heard and
learned from the lips of their Master, the Spirit of truth was
promised to them, to lead them into the true understanding of
all things.[926] For that restriction is to be attentively remarked,
which assigns to the Holy Spirit the office of suggesting to
their minds all that Christ had before taught them with his
mouth.
IX. Therefore Peter, who had been fully taught by his
Master how far his office extended, represents nothing as left
for himself or others, but to dispense the doctrine committed
to them by God. “If any man speak,” says he, “let him
speak as the oracles of God;”[927] that is, not with hesitation
or uncertainty, like persons conscious of no sufficient authority,
but with the noble confidence which becomes a servant of
God furnished with his certain commission. What is this but
rejecting all the inventions of the human mind, from whatever
head they may proceed, in order that the pure word of God
346may be taught and learned in the Church of believers? What
is this but removing all the decrees, or rather inventions of
men, whatever be their station, that the ordinances of God
alone may be observed? These are the spiritual “weapons,
mighty through God to the pulling down of strong-holds,” by
which the faithful soldiers of God “cast down imaginations,
and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge
of God, and bring into captivity every thought to the obedience
of Christ.”[928] This is the extent of the power with which
the pastors of the Church, by whatever name they may be
distinguished, ought to be invested;—that by the word of
God they may venture to do all things with confidence; may
constrain all the strength, glory, wisdom, and pride of the
world to obey and submit to his majesty; supported by his
power, may govern all mankind, from the highest to the lowest;
may build up the house of Christ, and subvert the house
of Satan; may feed the sheep, and drive away the wolves;
may instruct and exhort the docile; may reprove, rebuke, and
restrain the rebellious and obstinate; may bind and loose; may
discharge their lightnings and thunders, if necessary; but all
in the word of God. Between the apostles and their successors,
however, there is, as I have stated, this difference—that
the apostles were the certain and authentic amanuenses of the
Holy Spirit, and therefore their writings are to be received as
the oracles of God; but succeeding ministers have no other
office than to teach what is revealed and recorded in the sacred
Scriptures. We conclude, then, that it is not now left to
faithful ministers to frame any new doctrine, but that it behoves
them simply to adhere to the doctrine to which God has
made all subject, without any exception. In making this
observation, my design is to show, not only what is lawful to
individuals, but also to the universal Church. With respect
to particular persons, Paul had certainly been appointed by the
Lord an apostle to the Corinthians; yet he denies that he had
any dominion over their faith.[929] Who can now dare to
arrogate to himself a dominion which Paul testifies did not
belong to him? If he had sanctioned such a license of teaching,
that whatever the pastor delivered, he might require, as a
matter of right, that the same should be implicitly believed, he
would never have recommended to the same Corinthians such a
regulation as this: “Let the prophets speak two or three, and
let the other judge. If any thing be revealed to another that
sitteth by, let the first hold his peace.”[930] For here he exempted
none, but made the authority of every one subject to
the control of the word of God. But the case of the universal
347Church, it will be said, is different. I reply—Paul has obviated
this objection in another place, when he says that “faith
cometh by hearing, and hearing, by the word of God.”[931] But
if it be the word of God alone upon which faith is suspended,
towards which it looks, and on which it relies, I ask what is
there left for the word of the whole world? Here it will be
impossible for any man to hesitate who has really known what
faith is. For it ought to rest on such firm ground as to stand
invincible and undismayed in opposition to Satan, to all the machinations
of hell, and to all the assaults of the world. This
stability we shall find in the word of God alone. Besides
the reason which we are here required to consider is of universal
application—that God denies to man the right of promulgating
any new article of faith, in order that he alone may
be our Master in spiritual doctrine, as he alone is true beyond
all possibility of deceiving or being deceived. This reason is
no less applicable to the whole Church than to every individual
believer.
X. But if this power, which we have shown to belong to
the Church, be compared with that which has now for some
ages past been claimed over the people of God by the spiritual
tyrants who have falsely called themselves bishops and prelates
of religion, there will be no more resemblance than there is
between Christ and Belial. It is not my intention here to
expose the shameful methods in which they have exercised
their tyranny: I shall only state the doctrine, which they defend
in the present age, not only by their writings, but also by
fire and sword. As they take it for granted that a universal
council is the true representative of the Church, having assumed
this principle, they at once determine, as beyond all doubt,
that such councils are under the immediate direction of the
Holy Spirit, and therefore cannot err. Now, as they themselves
influence the councils, and even constitute them, the
fact is, that they assume to themselves all that they contend
for as belonging to the councils. They wish our faith, therefore,
to stand or fall at their pleasure, that whatever they may
have determined on one side or the other, may be implicitly
received by our minds as fully decided; so that if they approve of
any thing, we must approve of the same without any hesitation;
and if they condemn any thing, we must unite in the condemnation
of it. At the same time, according to their own caprice,
and in contempt of the word of God, they fabricate doctrines
which, for no other reason than this, they require to be believed.
For they acknowledge no man as a Christian, who
does not fully assent to all their dogmas, affirmative as well as
348negative, if not with an explicit, at least with an implicit faith,
because they pretend that the Church has authority to make
new articles of faith.
XI. First, let us hear by what arguments they prove this
authority to have been given to the Church; and then we shall
see how far their allegations respecting the Church contribute
to support their cause. The Church, they say, has excellent
promises, that she is never to be forsaken by Christ, her spouse,
but will be led by his Spirit into all truth.[932] But of the promises
which they are accustomed to allege, many are given
no less to each believer in particular, than collectively to
the whole Church. For though the Lord was addressing the
twelve apostles when he said, “Lo, I am with you alway,
even unto the end of the world;”[933] and “I will pray the
Father, and he shall give you another comforter, even the
Spirit of truth;”[934] he made these promises not only to the
apostles considered as a body, but to every one of the number,
and even to the other disciples whom he had already received,
or who were afterwards to be added to them. Now, when
they interpret these promises, replete with peculiar consolation,
in such a sense as if they were given to no individual Christian,
but only to the whole Church collectively, what is this
but depriving all Christians of the confidence with which such
promises ought to animate them? Here I do not deny that
the whole society of believers, being adorned with a manifold
variety of gifts, possesses a more ample and precious treasure
of heavenly wisdom, than each particular individual; nor do I
intend that these things are spoken of believers in common, as
if they were all equally endued with the spirit of understanding
and doctrine; but we must not allow the adversaries of
Christ, in defence of a bad cause, to wrest the Scripture to a
sense which it was not intended to convey. Leaving this
remark, I freely acknowledge that the Lord is continually present
with his servants, and that he guides them by his Spirit;
that this is not a spirit of error, ignorance, falsehood, or darkness,
but “the spirit of wisdom, and revelation, and truth,”
from whom they may certainly learn “the things that are
given to” them “of God,” or, in other words, “may know
what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the
glory of his inheritance in the saints.”[935] But as it is nothing
more than the first fruits, a kind of foretaste of that Spirit that
is enjoyed by believers in the present state, even by those of
them who are favoured with more excellent graces than others,
there remains nothing for them, but that, conscious of their
349imbecility, they solicitously confine themselves within the
limits of the word of God; lest, if they proceed far by their
own sense, they should wander from the right way, in consequence
of being not yet fully enlightened by that Spirit, by
whose teaching alone truth is distinguished from falsehood.
For all confess with Paul, that they have not yet attained the
mark; therefore they rather press on towards daily improvement,
than boast of perfection.[936]
XII. But they will object, that whatever is partially attributed
to every one of the saints, completely and perfectly belongs to
the whole Church. Notwithstanding the plausibility of this
position, yet I deny it to be true. I admit that God distributes
the gifts of his Spirit by measure to every member of his
Church, in such a manner that nothing necessary is wanting to
the whole body, when those gifts are bestowed in common.
But the riches of the Church are always such as to be very far
from that consummate perfection boasted by our adversaries. Yet
the Church is not left destitute in any respect, but that it always
has what is sufficient; for the Lord knows what its necessity
requires. But to restrain it within the bounds of humility and
pious modesty, he bestows no more than he sees to be expedient.
Here, I know, they are accustomed to object, that the
Church has been “cleansed by the washing of water by the
word, that he might present it to himself a glorious Church,
not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing, but that it
should be holy and without blemish;”[937] and that for this
reason it is called “the pillar and ground of the truth.”[938]
But the former of these passages rather indicates what Christ is
daily performing in his Church, than any thing that he has already
accomplished. For if he is daily sanctifying, purifying, polishing,
and cleansing his people, it must be evident that they still
have some spots and wrinkles, and that something is still wanting
to their sanctification. How vain and visionary is it to imagine
the Church already perfectly holy and immaculate, while all
its members are the subjects of corruption and impurity! It is
true that the Church is sanctified by Christ, but it is only the
commencement of their sanctification that is seen in the present
state; the end and perfect completion of it will be when Christ,
the Holy of Holies, shall fill it truly and entirely with his
holiness. It is likewise true that its spots and wrinkles are
effaced, but in such a manner that they are in a daily course
of obliteration, till Christ at his coming shall entirely efface all
that remains. For, unless we admit this, we must of necessity
assert, with the Pelagians, that the righteousness of believers is
perfect in the present life, and with the Cathari and Donatists,
350must allow no infirmity in the Church. The other passage, as
we have already seen, has a meaning totally different from
what they pretend. For after Paul had instructed Timothy in
the true nature of the office of a bishop, he says, “These things
I write unto thee, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest
to behave thyself in the house of God;” and to enforce his
conscientious attention to this object, he adds, that the Church
itself is “the pillar and ground of the truth.”[939] Now, what
is the meaning of this expression, but that the truth of God is
preserved in the Church, and that by the ministry of preaching?
As in another place he states, that Christ “gave some apostles,
and some prophets, and some evangelists, and some pastors and
teachers, that we be no more carried about with every wind of
doctrine,” or deluded by men, but that, being enlightened with
the true knowledge of the Son of God, we may “all come into
the unity of the faith.”[940] The preservation of the truth,
therefore, from being extinguished in the world, is in consequence
of the Church being its faithful guardian, by whose
efforts and ministry it is maintained. But if this guardianship
consists in the ministry of the prophets and apostles, it follows
that it wholly depends on the faithful preservation of the purity
of the word of God.
XIII. And that the readers may better understand upon what
point this question principally turns, I will briefly state what our
adversaries require, and wherein we oppose them. When they
assert that the Church cannot err, their meaning is, as they
themselves explain it, that as it is governed by the Spirit of
God, it may safely proceed without the word; that whithersoever
it goes, it can neither think nor speak any thing that is
not true; and, therefore, that if it determine any thing beyond
or beside the Divine word, the same is to be considered in no
other light than as a certain oracle of God. If we grant the
first point, that the Church cannot err in things essential to
salvation, our meaning is, that its security from error is owing
to its renouncing all its own wisdom, and submitting itself to
the Holy Spirit, to be taught by means of the word of God.
This, then, is the difference between us. They ascribe to the
Church an authority independent of the word; we maintain it
to be annexed to the word, and inseparable from it. And what
is there surprising that the spouse and disciple of Christ is subject
to her Lord and Master, so as to be assiduously and sedulously
awaiting his commands and instructions? For it is the order of
a well regulated family, for the wife to obey the command of
the husband; it is the order of a well disciplined school, that
nothing be heard there but the instructions of the master.
351Wherefore let not the Church be wise of itself, nor think any
thing of itself, but let it fix the boundary of its wisdom where
Christ has made an end of speaking. In this manner it will
distrust all the inventions of its own reason; but in those things
in which it is supported by the word of God, it will not waver
with any distrust or hesitation, but will rest upon it with
strong certainty and unshaken constancy. Thus confiding in
the amplitude of the promises it has received, it will have an
excellent support for its faith, so that it cannot doubt that the
Holy Spirit, the best guide in the right way, is always present
with it; but, at the same time, it will remember what advantage
the Lord intends should be received from his Spirit. “The
Spirit,” says he, “whom I will send from the Father, will guide
you into all truth.” But how will this be done? Christ says,
“He shall bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I
have said unto you.”[941] He announces, therefore, that nothing
more is to be expected from his Spirit, than that he will
enlighten our minds to discover the truth of his doctrine.
Wherefore it is very judiciously observed by Chrysostom, that
“many boast of the Holy Spirit; but in those who speak from
themselves this is a false pretence. As Christ testified that he
spake not of himself, because he spake from the law and the
prophets, so, if, under the name of the Spirit, any thing be
obtruded that is not contained in the gospel, let us not believe
it. For as Christ is the accomplishment of the law and the
prophets, so is the Spirit, of the gospel.” These are the words
of Chrysostom. Now, it is easy to infer how great is the error
of our adversaries, who boast of the Holy Spirit for no other
purpose than to recommend, under his name, doctrines strange
and inconsistent with the word of God, whereas it is his determination
to be connected with the word by an indissoluble
bond; and this was declared by Christ when he promised him
to his Church. And so he is, in point of fact. The sobriety
which the Lord has once prescribed to his Church, he will
have to be perpetually observed; and he has forbidden the
Church to add any thing to his word, or to diminish any thing
from it. This is the inviolable decree of God and of the Holy
Spirit, which our adversaries endeavour to abrogate, when they
pretend that the Church is governed by the Spirit without
the word.
XIV. Here, again, they cavil, that it was necessary for the
Church to add some things to the writings of the apostles, or at
least for the apostles themselves afterwards to supply in their
discourses what they had not so explicitly delivered in their
writings, because Christ declared to them, “I have yet many
352things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now;”[942]
and that these are the ordinances which have been received by
usage and custom without the Scripture. But what effrontery
is here betrayed! I confess that the disciples were ignorant,
and not very docile, when the Lord made this declaration to
them; but they were not so stupid, when they committed their
doctrine to writing, as to render it necessary for them afterwards
to supply in their discourses what they had from ignorance
omitted in their writings. But if, when they published
their writings, they had already been led by the Spirit into all
truth, what hindered them from comprising and leaving on
record in those writings a perfect system of evangelical doctrine?
Let us grant our opponents, however, what they
ask: only let them enumerate those things which required to
be revealed, and are not contained in the apostolical writings.
If they dare to attempt this, I will reply in the words of Augustine,
“Where the Lord has been silent, which of us can
say, These things or those are intended; and if he dare to say
so, how will he prove it?” But why do I contend a point
that is unnecessary? For even children know that the apostolic
writings, which these men represent as incomplete and
essentially deficient, contain the fruit of that revelation which
the Lord then promised them.
XV. What, say they, did not Christ place the doctrines and
decrees of the Church beyond all controversy, when he commanded
him who should dare to contradict it, to be regarded
“as a heathen man and a publican?”[943] In the first place,
Christ in that text makes no mention of doctrine, but only
asserts the authority of the Church in pronouncing censures for
the correction of vices, in order that its judgment may not be
opposed by any who are admonished or reproved. But leaving
this remark, it is astonishing, that they have no more modesty
than to presume to boast of that passage. For what will they
extort from it, but that it is unlawful to despise the consent of
the Church, which never consents to any thing except the
truth of the word of God? The Church is to be heard, they
say. Who denies it? For it pronounces nothing but from the
word of the Lord. If they require any thing further, let them
know that these words of Christ afford them no support. Nor
ought it to be esteemed too contentious in me to insist so strenuously
on this point—That it is not lawful for the Church to invent
any new doctrine, or to teach and deliver, as of Divine authority,
any thing more than the Lord has revealed in his word.
All persons of sound judgment perceive how exceedingly dangerous
it would be if so much power were once granted to any
353man. For they see how wide a door is opened to the scoffs
and cavils of the impious, if we assert that the decisions of
men are to be received by Christians as articles of faith. It is
also to be remarked, that Christ spoke according to the established
order of his own time, and gave this name to the Sanhedrim,
that his disciples might learn afterwards to reverence
the solemn assemblies of the Church. And thus, on the principle
of our adversaries, every city and village would have an
equal liberty to frame new articles of faith.
XVI. The examples which they allege are nothing to the
purpose. They say that the baptism of infants arose, not so
much from any express command of Scripture, as from the
decree of the Church. It would be a most miserable asylum,
if, in defence of infant baptism, we were compelled to have
recourse to the mere authority of the Church; but it will be
shown in another place, that the fact is very different. So
when they object, that the Scriptures nowhere affirm what was
pronounced in the Council of Nice, that the Son is of the same
substance with the Father, they do great injury to the fathers
of that council, as if they had presumptuously condemned
Arius for having refused to subscribe to their language, while
he professed all the doctrine which is contained in the writings
of the prophets and apostles. The word consubstantial,
(ὁμοουσιος,) I confess, is not to be found in the Scripture; but
while, on the one hand, it is so often affirmed that there is but
one God, and, on the other, Christ is so frequently called the
true and eternal God, one with the Father, what have the Nicene
fathers done, but simply expressed the natural sense of
the Scripture, in declaring the Father and the Son to be of one
and the same substance? And Theodoret the historian states,
that Constantine the emperor opened that council with the following
preliminary address: “In disputes on Divine subjects,
we are to adhere to the doctrine of the Holy Spirit; the books
of the evangelists and apostles, with the oracles of the prophets,
fully reveal to us the will of God. Wherefore, laying
aside all discord, let us take the decision of all questions in
debate from the words of the Spirit.” There was no one at
that time who opposed these holy admonitions. No one objected,
that the Church might add something of its own, that
the Spirit had not revealed every thing to the apostles, or, at least,
that they had not transmitted the whole to posterity in writing,
or any thing of the like nature. If what our adversaries contend
for be true, in the first place, Constantine acted unjustly
in depriving the Church of its power; and in the next place,
when none of the bishops rose to vindicate that power, their
silence was not to be excused from treachery, for on that occasion
354they must have betrayed the rights of the Church. But
from the statement of Theodoret, that they readily received
what was said by the emperor, it is evident that this novel dogma
of our adversaries was at that time altogether unknown.
Though I should concede to our adversaries all the claims
which they set up on behalf of the Church, yet this would
effect but little towards the attainment of their object. For
whatever is said respecting the Church, they immediately
transfer to the councils, which they consider as representing
the Church; and it may further be affirmed, that their violent
contentions for the power of the Church, are with no other view
than to ascribe all that they can extort, to the Roman pontiff
and his satellites. Before I enter on the discussion of this question,
it is necessary for me to premise two brief observations.
First, if in this chapter I am rather severe on our opponents, it
is not that I would show the ancient councils less honour than
they deserve. I venerate them from my heart, and wish them
to receive from all men the honour to which they are entitled;
but here some limits must be observed, that we may derogate
nothing from Christ. Now, it is the prerogative of Christ to
preside over all councils, and to have no mortal man associated
with him in that dignity. But I maintain, that he really presides
only where he governs the whole assembly by his word
and Spirit. Secondly, when I attribute to the councils less
than our adversaries require, I am not induced to do this from
any fear that the councils would favour their cause and oppose
ours. For as we are sufficiently armed by the word of the
Lord, and need not seek any further assistance for the complete
establishment of our doctrine, and the total subversion of Popery,
so, on the other hand, if it were necessary, the ancient
councils would furnish us in a great measure with sufficient
arguments for both these objects.
II. Let us now come to the subject itself. If it be inquired
what is the authority of councils according to the Scriptures,
there is no promise more ample or explicit than this declaration
of Christ: “Where two or three are gathered together in my
355name, there am I in the midst of them.”[944] But this belongs
no less to every particular congregation than to a general council.
The main stress of the question, however, does not lie
in this, but in the annexed condition,—that Christ will be in the
midst of a council, then, and then only, when it is assembled in
his name. Wherefore, though our adversaries mention councils
of bishops a thousand times, they will gain but little ground;
nor will they prevail upon us to believe what they pretend,—that
such councils are directed by the Holy Spirit,—till it shall
have been proved, that they are assembled in the name of
Christ. For it is equally as possible for impious and unfaithful
bishops to conspire against Christ, as for pious and upright
bishops to assemble together in his name. Of this we have
ample proof in numerous decrees which have been issued by
such councils; as will be seen in the course of this discussion.
At present I only reply in one word, that the promise of Christ
is exclusively restricted to those who “are gathered together
in his name.” Let us, therefore, define wherein this consists.
I deny that they are assembled in the name of Christ, who,
rejecting the command of God, which prohibits any diminution
of his word, or the smallest addition to it,[945] determine every
thing according to their own pleasure; who, not content with
the oracles of the Scripture, which constitute the only rule of
perfect wisdom, invent something new out of their own heads.
Since Christ has not promised to be present in all councils, but
has added a particular mark to discriminate true and legitimate
councils from others, it certainly behoves us by no means to
neglect this distinction. This was the covenant which God
anciently made with the Levitical priests, that they should teach
their people from his mouth;[946] he always required the same
of the prophets; and we see that a similar law was imposed
upon the apostles. Those who violate this covenant, God
neither dignifies with the honour of the priesthood, nor invests
with any authority. Let our adversaries solve this difficulty,
if they wish me to submit my faith to the decrees of men, independently
of the word of God.
III. For their supposition, that no truth remains in the
Church, unless it be found among the pastors, and that the
Church itself stands, no longer than it appears in general councils,
is very far from having been always correct, if the prophets
have left us any authentic records of their times. In the
days of Isaiah, there was a Church at Jerusalem, which God
had not yet forsaken: nevertheless he speaks of the priests in
the following manner: “His watchmen are blind; they are
all ignorant; they are all dumb dogs, they cannot bark; sleeping,
356lying down, loving to slumber: they are shepherds that
cannot understand: they all look to their own way, every one for
his gain, from his quarter.”[947]—Hosea speaks in a similar
manner: “The watchman of Ephraim was with my God; but
the prophet is a snare of a fowler in all his ways, and hatred
in the house of his God.”[948] By thus ironically connecting
them with God, he shows that their priesthood was a vain pretence.
The Church continued also to the time of Jeremiah.
Let us hear what he says of the pastors. “From the prophet
even unto the priest, every one dealeth falsely.”[949] Again:
“the prophets prophesy lies in my name; I sent them not,
neither have I commanded them.”[950] And to avoid too much
prolixity in reciting his words, I would recommend my readers
to peruse the whole of the twenty-third and fortieth chapters.
Nor were the same persons treated with less severity by Ezekiel:
“There is a conspiracy of her prophets in the midst thereof,
like a roaring lion ravening the prey; they have devoured
souls; they have taken the treasure and precious things; they
have made her many widows in the midst thereof. Her priests
have violated my law, and have profaned mine holy things;
they have put no difference between the holy and profane.
Her prophets have daubed them with untempered mortar, seeing
vanity, and divining lies unto them, saying, Thus saith the
Lord God, when the Lord hath not spoken.”[951] Similar complaints
abound in all the prophets, so that there is nothing of
more frequent recurrence.
IV. But it will be said, though such may have been the
case among the Jews, our age is exempt from so great a calamity.
I sincerely wish that it were so; but the Holy Spirit
has denounced that the event would be very different. The
language of Peter is clear: “There were false prophets also
among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among
you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies.”[952] Observe
how he declares that danger will arise, not from the common
people, but from those who will assume to themselves the
name of pastors and teachers. Besides, how often is it predicted
by Christ and his apostles, that the greatest dangers
would be brought upon the Church by its pastors![953] Paul
expressly denounces that Antichrist will “sit in the temple of
God;”[954] by which he signifies, that the dreadful calamity
of which he speaks, will arise from the very persons who
will sit as pastors in the Church. And in another place, he
shows that the commencement of the mischief was then near
at hand. For addressing the bishops of the Church of Ephesus,
357he says, “I know this, that after my departing shall grievous
wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock; also of
your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to
draw away disciples after them.”[955] If the pastors could so
degenerate in a very short space of time, what enormous corruption
might be introduced among them in a long series of
years! And not to occupy much room with an enumeration,
we are taught by the examples of almost all ages, that neither
is the truth always maintained in the bosom of the pastors,
nor the safety of the Church dependent on their stability.
They ought, indeed, to be the guardians and defenders of the
peace and safety of the Church, for the preservation of which
they are appointed; but it is one thing to perform a duty which
we owe, and another, to owe a duty which we do not perform.
V. Let no person conclude from what I have said, that I
am inclined on all occasions, and without any discrimination,
to weaken the authority of pastors, and bring it into contempt.
I only mean to suggest the necessity of discriminating between
some pastors and others, that we may not immediately consider
persons as pastors because they bear that title. But the pope
and all his bishops, for no other reason but because they are
called pastors, casting off all obedience to the word of God,
disturb and confound every thing at their own pleasure; while
they labour to persuade us that it is impossible for them to be
destitute of the light of truth, that the Spirit of God perpetually
resides in them, and that with them the Church lives and dies.
As though the Lord had now no judgments, to inflict upon the
world, in the present day, the same kind of punishment, with
which he once visited the ingratitude of his ancient people;[956]
namely, to smite the pastors with astonishment, madness, and
blindness. And such is their extreme stupidity, they are not
aware that they are acting the same part which was acted by
those who resisted the word of the Lord in ancient times. For
thus the enemies of Jeremiah fortified themselves in opposition
to the truth: “Come, and let us devise devices against Jeremiah;
for the law shall not perish from the priest, nor counsel
from the wise, nor the word from the prophet.”[957]
VI. Hence it is easy to reply to another plea in behalf of general
councils. That a true Church existed among the Jews in
the time of the prophets, cannot be denied. But if a general
council of the priests had been convened, what appearance of a
Church would such a council have displayed? We hear what
God denounces, not against two or three of them, but against the
whole body: “The priests shall be astonished, and the prophets
358shall wonder.”[958] Again: “The law shall perish from the
priest, and counsel from the ancients.”[959] Again: “Night shall
be unto you, that ye shall not have a vision; and it shall be dark
unto you, that ye shall not divine; and the sun shall go down over
the prophets, and the day shall be dark over them.”[960] Now, if
these priests and prophets had all been collected together, what
spirit would have presided in their assembly? This is remarkably
exemplified in the council convoked by Ahab. Four
hundred prophets were present. But because they were assembled
with no other intention than to flatter that impious
monarch, Satan was sent by the Lord to be a lying spirit in all
their mouths.[961] There the truth was rejected with one
consent; Micaiah was condemned as a heretic, beaten, and
cast into prison. Jeremiah received the same treatment, and
other prophets experienced similar injustice.
VII. But one example, which is more memorable than the
rest, may suffice as a specimen of all. In the council which the
chief priests and Pharisees convened at Jerusalem against Christ,
what was there wanting in point of external form? For if there
had then been no Church at Jerusalem, Christ would never have
united in their sacrifices and other ceremonies. A solemn summons
was issued; the high priest presided; all the priests attended;
yet there Christ was condemned, and his doctrine rejected.
This act proves that the Church was not contained in that
council. But, it will be said, there is no danger of such a circumstance
happening to us. Who has assured us of this? For to
be too confident in a matter of such great importance, is culpable
stupidity. But while the Spirit has expressly predicted, by the
mouth of Paul, that there shall come an apostasy, which cannot
take place without the pastors being the first to revolt from God,[962]
why do we wilfully shut our eyes to our own ruin? Wherefore
it is by no means to be conceded, that the Church consists
in the assembly of the pastors, respecting whom God has nowhere
promised that they should always be good, but, on the contrary,
has denounced that they would sometimes be wicked. Now,
when he warns us of a danger, his design is to make us more
cautious.
VIII. What, then, it will be said, shall the decisions of councils
have no authority? Yes, certainly; for I am not contending
that all councils ought to be condemned, or that all their acts
ought to be rescinded and cancelled at once. Still I shall be
told, that I degrade their authority, so as to leave it to the option
of every individual to receive or reject whatever a council shall
have determined. By no means; but whenever a decree of any
359council is brought forward, I would wish, first, that a diligent
inquiry should be made, at what time, for what cause, and with
what design it was held, and what kind of persons were present;
secondly, that the subject discussed in it should be examined by
the standard of the Scripture; and this in such a manner that
the determination should have its weight, and be considered as
a precedent or case formerly decided, but that it should not preclude
the examination which I have mentioned. I sincerely
wish that every person would observe the method recommended
by Augustine in his third book against Maximinus. For, with
a view to silence the contentions of that heretic respecting the
decrees of councils, he says, “I ought not to object to you the
Council of Nice, nor ought you to object to me the Council of
Ariminum, to preclude each other’s judgment by a previous decision.
I am not bound by the authority of the latter, nor you
by that of the former. Let cause contend with cause, and argument
with argument, on the ground of scriptural authorities,
which exclusively belong to neither party, but are common to
both.” The consequence of such a mode of proceeding would
be, that councils would retain all the majesty which is due
to them, while at the same time the Scripture would hold the
preëminence, so that every thing would be subject to its standard.
Upon this principle, those ancient councils, such as the
Council of Nice, of Constantinople, the first of Ephesus, that of
Chalcedon, and others like them, which were held for the condemnation
of errors, we cheerfully receive and reverence as
sacred, as far as respects the articles of faith which they have
defended; for they contain nothing but the pure and natural
interpretation of the Scripture, which the holy fathers, with
spiritual prudence, applied to the discomfiture of the enemies
of religion who arose in those days. In some of the succeeding
councils, likewise, we discover a true zeal for piety, and evident
proofs of sense, learning, and prudence. But as the progress of the
world is generally from worse to worse, it is easy to see, from the
more recent councils, how much the Church has gradually degenerated
from the purity of that golden age. Even in these
more corrupt ages, I doubt not, the councils have been partly composed
of some bishops of a better character; but the same observation
may be applied to their acts, which was formerly made
in a way of complaint against the decrees of the Roman senate,
by the senators themselves. Where opinions prevail according
to their number, and not according to the weight of argument by
which they are supported, the better part of the assembly must
of necessity be frequently overcome by the majority. And
councils have certainly issued many impious decrees. It is
unnecessary here to produce particular examples, as well because
this would carry us to too great a length, as because it has
360already been done by others with a diligence which scarcely
admits of any addition.
IX. Now, what need is there to enumerate the repugnances
between councils and councils, and how decrees passed by one
have been rescinded by another? Here it must not be alleged,
that where there is such variance between two councils, one
or the other is not legitimate. For how shall we determine
this? The only way I know, is to ascertain from the
Scriptures that its decrees are not orthodox; for there is no
other certain rule of decision. It is now about nine hundred
years ago, that the Council of Constantinople, assembled under
the emperor Leo, decreed that all images placed in churches
should be thrown down and broken in pieces. Soon after, the
Council of Nice, which the empress Irene convened in opposition
to the former, decreed that they should be restored.
Which of these two shall we acknowledge as a legitimate
council? This character has generally been attributed to the
latter, which gave images a place in the Churches. But Augustine
declares that this cannot be done without imminent
danger of idolatry. Epiphanius, a more ancient writer, expresses
himself in terms of much greater severity; he says that
it is abominable wickedness for images to be seen in the temples
of Christians. Would the fathers who speak in this manner
approve of that council, if they were now living? But if
the accounts of historians be true, and credit be given to the
acts themselves, that council not only admitted of images, but
determined that they were to be worshipped. Now, it is evident
that such a decree must have originated from Satan.
What shall we say to their perversions and mutilations of the
Scripture, which demonstrate that they held it all in contempt,
as I have already proved? We shall never be able to discriminate
between the numerous councils, which dissent from and
contradict each other, unless we examine them all by the word
of God, which is the universal standard for men and angels.
On this ground, we reject the second Council of Ephesus, and
receive the Council of Chalcedon, because the latter council
condemned the impiety of Eutyches, which the former had
sanctioned. This judgment of the Council of Chalcedon was
formed from the Scriptures by holy men, whom we imitate in
forming our judgment, as the word of God which enlightened
them continues to give light to us. Now, let the Romanists
go and boast, as they are accustomed to do, that the Holy
Spirit is inseparably attached to their councils.
X. Even in the earliest and purest councils, however, there is
something to complain of—either that the bishops who composed
them, though men of learning and prudence, being perplexed
with the subjects immediately before them, did not extend their
361views to many other things; or that while they were occupied
with more weighty and serious concerns, things of inferior
moment escaped their notice; or merely that, being men, they
were liable to ignorance and error; or that they were sometimes
hurried into precipitancy by the violence of their passions.
Of the truth of the last observation, which seems the severest
of all, there is a remarkable example in the Council of Nice;
the dignity of which has been universally and justly held in
the highest veneration. For though the principal article of our
faith was endangered, and they had to contend with Arius, the
enemy of it, who was there in readiness for the contest,—though
it was of the greatest importance that harmony should be
maintained among those who came with a design to confute
the error of Arius,—notwithstanding that, careless of such great
dangers, forgetful of gravity, modesty, and every thing like
good manners, dropping the controversy between them, as if
they had assembled with an express view to the gratification
of Arius, they began to counteract themselves with intestine
dissensions, and to direct against each other the pen which
ought to have been employed against Arius. The foulest accusations
were heard, defamatory libels were circulated, and
there would have been no end of the contentions till they had
murdered one another, if it had not been for the interference
of the emperor Constantine, who protested that a scrutiny into
their lives was a thing beyond his cognizance, and repressed
this intemperate conduct with praise rather than with censure.
In how many instances is it probable that errors were committed
by other succeeding councils? Nor does this require any long
proof; for whoever peruses their acts, will discover many infirmities,
not to mention any thing worse.
XI. And Leo, the Roman pontiff, hesitates not to bring a
charge of ambition and inconsiderate temerity against the
Council of Chalcedon, which he at the same time acknowledges
to have been orthodox in points of doctrine. He does not
deny it to have been a legitimate council, but he unequivocally
asserts that it was possible for it to err. It may be thought,
perhaps, that I betray a want of judgment in taking pains to
point out such errors; since our adversaries confess that councils
might err in things not essential to salvation. This labour,
however, is not unnecessary. For though they find themselves
obliged to confess this in words, yet when they obtrude
upon us the decision of every council on every subject, without
any discrimination, as an oracle of the Holy Spirit, they require
of us, in fact, more than they had first assumed. What is
the language of such conduct, but that councils cannot err, or
that, if they do err, it is unlawful for us to discover the truth, or
to refuse assent to errors? And I intend to draw no other
362conclusion from these facts, than that the Holy Spirit governed
pious and Christian councils in such a manner, as at the same
time to permit them to betray something of human infirmity,
that we might not place too much confidence in men. This
sentiment is far more favourable than that of Gregory of Nazianzum,
“that he never saw a good end of any council.” For
he who affirms that all without exception terminated ill, leaves
them but little authority. It is unnecessary here to take distinct
notice of provincial councils, since it is easy to judge from
the general councils, what authority they ought to possess in
framing articles of faith, and receiving whatever kind of doctrine
they pleased.
XII. But our Romanists, when they find all the supports
of reason fail them in the defence of their cause, have recourse
to that last and wretched subterfuge—That although the persons
themselves betray the greatest stupidity in their understandings
and pleas, and act from the most iniquitous motives
and designs, still the word of God remains, which commands
us to obey our governors.[963] But what if I deny that such
persons are our governors? For they ought not to arrogate to
themselves more than belonged to Joshua, who was a prophet
of the Lord and an excellent pastor. Now, let us hear with
what language he was inaugurated into his office by the Lord:
“This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth; but
thou shalt meditate therein day and night: turn not from it to
the right hand or to the left, that thou mayest prosper whithersoever
thou goest.”[964] We shall consider them as our spiritual
governors, therefore, who deviate not from the word of God,
either to the right hand or to the left. If the doctrine of all pastors
ought to be received without any hesitation, why have we
such frequent and earnest admonitions from the mouth of the Lord
himself, not to listen to the speeches of false prophets? “Hearken
not,” says he by Jeremiah, “unto the words of the prophets
that prophesy unto you; they make you vain; they speak a
vision of their own hearts, and not out of the mouth of the
Lord.”[965] Again: “Beware of false prophets, which come
to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening
wolves.”[966] The exhortation given us by John would also
have been useless: “Try the spirits, whether they are of
God;”[967] though from this examination the very angels are
not exempted, much less Satan with all his falsehoods. How
are we to understand this caution of our Lord? “If the blind
lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.”[968] Does it not
sufficiently declare, that it is of the highest importance what
363kind of pastors are heard, and that they are not all entitled to
the same attention? Wherefore there is no reason why they
should overawe us with their titles, to make us partakers of
their blindness, while we see, on the contrary, that the Lord has
taken peculiar care to deter us from suffering ourselves to be
seduced by the error of other men, under whatever mask or
name it may be concealed. For if the answer of Christ be
true, all blind guides, whether they are denominated priests,
prelates, or pontiffs, can do nothing but precipitate their followers
into the same ruin with themselves. Impressed, therefore,
by these warnings, both of precepts and of examples, no
names of pastors, bishops, or councils, which are as capable of
being falsely claimed as rightly assumed, ought ever to prevent
us from examining all the spirits by the rule of the Divine
word, in order to “try whether they are of God.”
XIII. Having proved that the Church has received no power
to frame any new doctrine, let us now speak of the power
which our opponents attribute to it in the interpretation of the
Scripture. We have not the least objection to admit, that if
a controversy arise respecting any doctrine, there is no better
or more certain remedy than to assemble a council of true
bishops, in which the controverted doctrine may be discussed.
For such a decision, formed by the common consent of the
pastors of the Churches, after an invocation of the Spirit of
Christ, will have far greater weight, than if every one of them
separately were to maintain it in preaching to his people, or if
it were the result of a private conference between a few individuals.
Besides, when bishops are collected in one assembly,
they deliberate together with greater advantage on what they
ought to teach, and the manner in which their instructions
should be conveyed, so as to guard against offence arising from
diversity. In the third place, Paul prescribes this method of determining
respecting doctrines. For while he attributes to every
distinct Church a power “to judge,”[969] he shows what ought
to be the order of proceeding in more important cases; namely,
that the Churches should undertake the common cognizance of
them. And so the dictate of piety itself teaches us, that if any
one disturb the Church with a new doctrine, and the matter be
carried so far as to cause danger of a more grievous dissension,
the Churches should first assemble, should examine the question
proposed to them, and after a sufficient discussion of it, should
announce a decision taken from the Scriptures, which would
put an end to all doubt among the people, and shut the mouths
of refractory and ambitious persons, so as to check their further
presumption. Thus, when Arius arose, the Council of Nice
was assembled, and by its authority defeated the pernicious
364attempts of that impious man, restored peace to the Churches
which he had disturbed, and asserted the eternal deity of Christ
in opposition to his sacrilegious dogma. Some time after, when
Eunomius and Macedonius raised new contentions, their frenzy
was opposed with a similar remedy by the Council of Constantinople.
The impiety of Nestorius was condemned in the first
Council of Ephesus. In short, this has been the ordinary method
of the Church from the beginning, for the preservation of unity,
whenever Satan has begun to make any attempt against it.
But let it be remembered, that neither every age, nor every
place, can produce an Athanasius, a Basil, a Cyril, and other such
champions of the true doctrine, as the Lord raised up at those
periods. Let it also be recollected what happened at the
second Council of Ephesus, in which the heresy of Eutyches
prevailed. Flavianus, a bishop of irreproachable memory, was
banished, together with other pious men, and many similar
enormities were committed, because it was Dioscorus, a factious
and ill-disposed man, and not the Spirit of the Lord, that presided
in that council. But that council, it will be said, was not the
Church. I admit it: for I am firmly persuaded of this, that the
truth is not extinct in the Church, though it may be oppressed by
one council, but that it is wonderfully preserved by the Lord, to
arise and triumph again in his own time. But I deny it to be
an invariable rule, that every interpretation which may have
been approved by a council is the true and certain sense of
the Scripture.
XIV. But the Romanists have a further design in maintaining
that councils possess the power of interpreting the Scripture,
and that without appeal. For it is a false pretence, when every
thing that has been determined in councils is called an interpretation
of the Scripture. Of purgatory, the intercession of
saints, auricular confession, and similar fooleries, the Scriptures
contain not a single syllable. But, because all these things
have been sanctioned by the authority of councils, or, to speak
more correctly, have been admitted into the general belief and
practice, therefore every one of them is to be taken for an interpretation
of Scripture. And not only so; but if a council
determine in direct opposition to the Scripture, it will still be
called an interpretation of it. Christ commands all to drink of
the cup which he presents to them in the sacred supper.[970]
The Council of Constance prohibited it to be given to the
laity, and determined that none but the priest should drink of
it. Yet this, which is so diametrically repugnant to the institution
of Christ, they wish us to receive as an interpretation of it.
Paul calls “forbidding to marry” a “doctrine of devils;”[971]
365and the Holy Spirit, in another place, pronounces that “marriage
is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled.”[972] The prohibition,
which they have since denounced, of the marriage of
priests, they wish us to consider as the true and natural interpretation
of the Scriptures, though nothing can be imagined
more repugnant to it. If any one dare to open his mouth to
the contrary, he is condemned as a heretic, because the determination
of the Church is without appeal, and the truth of its
interpretation cannot be doubted without impiety. What further
requires to be urged against such consummate effrontery? The
mere exhibition of it is a sufficient refutation. Their pretensions
to confirm the Scripture by the authority of the Church, I
purposely pass over. To subject the oracles of God to the
authority of men, so as to make their validity dependent on
human approbation, is a blasphemy unworthy of being mentioned;
beside which, I have touched on this subject already.
I will only ask them one question: If the authority of the Scripture
be founded on the approbation of the Church, what decree of
any council can they allege to this point? I believe, none at all.
Why, then, did Arius suffer himself to be vanquished at Nice by
testimonies adduced from the Gospel of John? According to
the argument of our opponents, he was at liberty to reject them,
as not having yet received the approbation of any general council.
They allege an ancient catalogue, which is called the Canon
of Scripture, and which they say proceeded from the decision
of the Church. I ask them again, in what council that canon
was composed. To this they can make no reply. Yet I would
wish to be further informed, what kind of a canon they suppose
it to be. For I see that the ancient writers were not fully
agreed respecting it. And if any weight be attached to the
testimony of Jerome, the two books of the Maccabees, the history
of Tobit, Ecclesiasticus, and other books, will be considered as
apocryphal; to which our opponents will by no means consent.
We now proceed to the second branch of the power of the
Church, which the Romanists represent as consisting in legislation—a
366source from which have issued innumerable human
traditions, the most pestilent and fatal to wretched souls. For
they have made no more scruple than the scribes and Pharisees
to “lay on other men’s shoulders burdens which they themselves
would not touch with one of their fingers.”[973] I have shown
in another place the extreme cruelty of their injunctions concerning
auricular confession. None of their other laws discover
such enormous violence; but those which appear the most tolerable
of them all, are tyrannically oppressive to the conscience.
I forbear to remark how they adulterate the worship of God,
and despoil God himself, who is the sole Legislator, of the
right which belongs to him. This power is now to be examined—whether
the Church has authority to make laws which
shall bind the consciences of men. This question has nothing
to do with political order; the only objects of our present
attention are, that God may be rightly worshipped according
to the rule he has prescribed, and that our spiritual liberty
which relates to God may be preserved entire. Whatever
edicts have been issued by men respecting the worship of God,
independently of his word, it has been customary to call
human traditions. Against such laws we contend, and not
against the holy and useful constitutions of the Church, which
contribute to the preservation of discipline, or integrity, or peace.
The object for which we contend, is, to restrain that overgrown
and barbarous empire, which is usurped over men’s souls by
those who wish to be accounted the pastors of the Church, but
who in reality are its most savage butchers. For they say
that the laws which they make are spiritual, pertaining to the
soul, and they affirm them to be necessary to eternal life. Thus,
as I have lately hinted, the kingdom of Christ is invaded;
thus the liberty given by him to the consciences of believers
is altogether subverted and destroyed. I forbear to remark at
present with what great impiety they enforce the observance
of their laws, while they teach men to seek the pardon of their
sins and righteousness and salvation from it, and while they
make the whole of religion and piety to consist in it. I only
contend for this one point, that no necessity ought to be imposed
upon consciences in things in which they have been set
at liberty by Christ; and without this liberty, as I have before
observed, they can have no peace with God. They must
acknowledge Christ their Deliverer as their only King, and
must be governed by one law of liberty, even the sacred word
of the gospel, if they wish to retain the grace which they have
once obtained in Christ; they must submit to no slavery; they
must be fettered by no bonds.
367II. These sapient legislators, indeed, pretend that their constitutions
are laws of liberty, an easy yoke, a light burden.
But who does not see that these are gross falsehoods? The
hardship of their laws is not at all felt by themselves, who
have rejected the fear of God, and securely and boldly disregard
all laws, human and divine. But persons who are impressed
with any concern for their salvation, are far from considering
themselves at liberty as long as they are entangled in
these snares. We see what great caution Paul used in this
respect, to avoid “casting a snare upon” men in a single instance;[974]
and that not without cause; for he saw what a
deep wound would be made in their consciences, by the imposition
of any necessity upon them in those things in which
the Lord had left them at liberty. On the contrary, it is
scarcely possible to enumerate the constitutions, which these
men have most rigorously enforced with the denunciation of
eternal death, and which they require to be most minutely
observed as necessary to salvation. Among these, there are
many exceedingly difficult to be fulfilled; but when they are
all collected together in one body, so immense is the accumulation,
the observance of the whole is utterly impracticable.
How, then, can it be possible for those who are loaded with
such a vast weight of difficulty, not to be perplexed and tortured
with extreme anxiety and terror? My design at present,
then, is, to oppose constitutions of this kind, which tend to bind
souls internally before God, and to fill them with scruples, as
if they enjoined things necessary to salvation.
III. The generality of men, therefore, are embarrassed with
this question, for want of distinguishing with sufficient exactness
between the outward judgment of men and the court of
conscience. The difficulty is increased by the injunction of
Paul, that the magistrate is to be obeyed, “not only for wrath,
but also for conscience’ sake;”[975] whence it follows, that
consciences are bound by political laws. If this were the
case, all that we said in the last chapter, and are about to
say in this, on the subject of spiritual government, would
fall to the ground. To solve this difficulty, it is first of all
necessary to understand what is conscience. The definition
may be derived from the etymology of the word. Science, or
knowledge, is the apprehension which men have of things in
their mind and understanding. So, when they have an apprehension
of the judgment of God, as a witness that suffers them
not to conceal their sins, but forces them as criminals before
the tribunal of the judge, this apprehension is called conscience.
For it is something between God and man, which permits not
368a man to suppress what he knows within himself, but pursues
him till it brings him to a sense of his guilt. This is what
Paul means, when he speaks of men’s “conscience also bearing
witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing, or
else excusing, one another”[976] before God. A simple knowledge
might remain in man, as it were, in a state of concealment.
Therefore this sentiment, which places men before the
tribunal of God, is like a keeper appointed over man to watch
and observe all his secrets, that nothing may remain buried in
darkness. Hence that old proverb, that conscience is equal to
a thousand witnesses. For the same reason, Peter speaks of
“the answer of a good conscience towards God,”[977] to denote
our tranquillity of mind, when, persuaded of the grace of Christ,
we present ourselves before God without fear. And the author
of the Epistle to the Hebrews speaks of persons “having no
more conscience of sins,”[978] to signify their being liberated,
or absolved, so as to feel no more remorse or compunction
for sin.
IV. Therefore, as works have respect to man, so the conscience
is referred to God. A good conscience is no other
than an internal purity of heart. In this sense Paul says that
“the end of the commandment is charity, out of a pure heart,
and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned.”[979] In a
subsequent part of the same chapter, he shows how widely it
differs from simple knowledge, when he says, that “some
having put away a good conscience, concerning faith have
made shipwreck.”[980] For in these words he implies that it
is a lively zeal for the worship of God, and a sincere desire
and endeavour to live a pious and holy life. Sometimes, indeed,
it is likewise extended to men, as when Luke states Paul
to have made this declaration—“I exercise myself, to have
always a conscience void of offence toward God and toward
men.”[981] The apostle expressed himself in this manner, because
the benefits proceeding from a good conscience do reach
even to man. But strictly speaking, the conscience has respect
to God alone, as I have already observed. Hence it is, that a
law is said to bind the conscience, which simply binds a man
without any observation or consideration of other men. For
example, God not only commands the heart to be preserved
chaste and pure from every libidinous desire, but prohibits all
obscenity of language and external lasciviousness. My conscience
is bound to observe this law, even though not another
man existed in the world. The person, therefore, who commits
any breach of chastity, not only sins by setting a bad example
369to his brethren, but brings his conscience into a state of
guilt before God. The case of things, in themselves indifferent,
stands not on the same ground; for we ought to abstain
from whatever is likely to give offence, but with a free conscience.
Thus Paul speaks of meat consecrated to idols: “If
any man say unto you, This is offered in sacrifice to idols, eat
not for his sake, and for conscience’ sake. Conscience, I say,
not thine own, but of the other.”[982] A faithful man, who,
after previous admonition, should eat such meat, would be guilty
of sin. But though such abstinence is enjoined on him by God
as necessary on account of his brother, he still retains his liberty
of conscience. We see how this law, while it binds the external
act, leaves the conscience free.
V. Let us now return to human laws. If they are designed
to introduce any scruple into our minds, as though the observance
of them were essentially necessary, we assert, that they
are unreasonable impositions on the conscience. For our consciences
have to do, not with men, but with God alone. And
this is the meaning of the well known distinction, maintained
in the schools, between a human tribunal and the court of conscience.
When the whole world was enveloped in the thickest
shades of ignorance, this little spark of light still remained
unextinguished, so that they acknowledged the conscience of
man to be superior to all human judgments. It is true that
what they confessed in one word, they afterwards overturned
in fact; yet it was the will of God that even at that time there
should remain some testimony in favour of Christian liberty,
to rescue the conscience from the tyranny of men. But we
have not yet solved the difficulty which arises from the language
of Paul. For if princes are to be obeyed, “not only for
wrath, but also for conscience’ sake,”[983] it seems to follow,
that the laws of princes have dominion over the conscience.
If this be true, the same must be affirmed of the laws of the
Church. I reply, In the first place, it is necessary to distinguish
between the genus and the species. For the conscience
is not affected by every particular law; yet we are
bound by the general command of God, which establishes the
authority of magistrates. And this is the hinge upon which
Paul’s argument turns, that magistrates are to be honoured because
they are “ordained of God.”[984] At the same time he
is far from insinuating that the laws enacted by them have any
thing to do with the internal government of the soul; for he
every where extols the service of God and the spiritual rule of a
holy life, above all the statutes and decrees of men. A second
consideration worthy of notice, which is a consequence of the
370first, is, that human laws,—I mean such as are good and just,
whether enacted by magistrates or by the Church,—though they
are necessary to be observed, are not on this account binding
on the conscience; because all the necessity of observing
them has reference to the general object of laws, but does not
consist in the particular things which are commanded. There
is an immense distance between laws of this description, and
those which prescribe any new form for the worship of God,
and impose a necessity in things that were left free and indifferent.
VI. Such are the Ecclesiastical Constitutions, as they are
now called, in the Papacy, which are obtruded as necessary to
the true worship of God; and as they are innumerable, they
are so many bonds to entrap and insnare souls. Though we
have touched on them a little in the exposition of the law, yet
as this is a more suitable place to discuss them at large, I shall
now endeavour to collect a summary of the whole, in the best
order I can. And as we have already said what appeared sufficient
respecting the tyrannical power, which the false bishops
arrogate to themselves, of teaching whatever doctrines they
please, I shall at present pass over all that subject, and confine
myself to a discussion of the power which they say they have,
to make laws. Our false bishops, therefore, burden men’s consciences
with new laws under this pretext—that the Lord has
constituted them spiritual legislators, by committing to them the
government of the Church. Wherefore they contend, that all the
commands and ordinances ought of necessity to be observed by
all Christian people, and that whoever violates them is guilty
of double disobedience, because he is a rebel both against God
and the Church. Certainly, if they were true bishops, I would
allow them some authority of this kind; not all that they
demand, but all that is requisite to the maintenance of good
order in the Church. But as they bear no resemblance of the
character to which they pretend, the least they can possibly
assume is more than their right. Yet as this has been already
proved, let us admit the supposition at present, that whatever
power true bishops are entitled to, belongs to them. Still I
deny that they are therefore appointed as legislators over believers,
with power to prescribe a rule of life according to their
own pleasure, or to constrain the people committed to them to
submit to their decrees. By this observation I mean, that they
have no authority to enjoin upon the observance of the Church
any thing that they may have invented themselves, independently
of the word of God. As this power was unknown to the
apostles, and was so frequently interdicted to the ministers of
the Church by the mouth of the Lord, I wonder how they have
dared to usurp it, and still dare to maintain it contrary to the
371example of the apostles, and in defiance of the express prohibition
of God.
VII. Every thing pertaining to the perfect rule of a holy
life, the Lord has comprehended in his law, so that there remains
nothing for men to add to that summary. And he has
done this, first, that, since all rectitude of life consists in the
conformity of all our actions to his will, as their standard, we
might consider him as the sole Master and Director of our
conduct; and secondly, to show that he requires of us nothing
more than obedience. For this reason, James says, “He that
judgeth his brother, judgeth the law; but if thou judge the
law, thou art not a doer of the law, but a judge. There is
one lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy.”[985] We
hear that God asserts this as his peculiar and exclusive prerogative;
to govern us by the empire and laws of his word. And the
same sentiment had before been expressed by Isaiah, though in
terms not quite so explicit: “The Lord is our Judge, the Lord is
our Lawgiver, the Lord is our King, he will save us.”[986] Both
passages imply, that he who has authority over the soul, is the
Arbiter of life and death; and James even clearly expresses it.
No man can assume this to himself. It follows therefore, that
God ought to be acknowledged as the only King of souls, who
alone has power to save and to destroy, or, in the language of
Isaiah, as the King, Judge, Legislator, and Saviour. Wherefore
Peter, when he admonishes pastors of their duty, exhorts them
“to feed the flock, not as being lords over God’s heritage,”[987]
or the company of believers. If we duly consider this point,
that it is not lawful to transfer to man that which God appropriates
solely to himself, we shall understand that this cuts off
all the power which is claimed by those who wish to exalt themselves
to command any thing in the Church, unsanctioned by
the word of God.
VIII. Now, as the whole argument rests here, that, if God
is the sole legislator, it is not lawful for men to assume this
honour to themselves,—we ought also to bear in mind the
two reasons which we have stated, why God asserts this exclusively
to himself. The first is, that his will may be received
as the perfect rule of all righteousness and holiness, and
so that an acquaintance with it may be all the knowledge
necessary to a good life. The second is, that with respect to
the mode of worshipping him aright, he may exercise the sole
empire over our souls, to whom we are under the strongest
obligation to obey his authority and await his commands.
When these two reasons are kept in view, it will be easy to
judge what constitutions of men are contrary to the word of
372God. Now, of this description are all those which are pretended
to belong to the true worship of God, and to be obligatory
on men’s consciences as necessary to be observed. Let
us remember, therefore, that all human laws are to be weighed
in this balance, if we would have a certain and infallible test.
The first of these reasons is urged by Paul in his Epistle to the
Colossians, in opposition to the false apostles, who endeavoured
to oppress the Churches with fresh burdens. In a similar argument,
in the Epistle to the Galatians, he insists more on
the second reason. In the Epistle to the Colossians, he contends
that the doctrine of the true worship of God is not to be
sought from men, because the Lord has faithfully and fully
instructed us how we ought to worship him. To prove this,
in the first chapter he states that all the wisdom by which the
man of God is made perfect in Christ is contained in the gospel.
In the beginning of the second chapter, he declares that
“in Christ are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge;”
from which he concludes that believers should “beware lest any
man spoil them through philosophy and vain deceit, after the
tradition of men.” At the end of the chapter, he still more
confidently condemns all “will worship;”[988] this includes all
those fictitious services which men either invent for themselves
or receive from others, together with all the precepts by which
they presume to regulate the worship of God. Thus we have
ascertained the impiety of all those constitutions, in the observance
of which the worship of God is pretended to consist. The
passages in the Epistle to the Galatians, in which he argues
that snares ought not to be imposed on consciences, which are
subject to the government of God alone, are too plain to be
mistaken; especially in the fifth chapter.[989] It will therefore
be sufficient to have mentioned them.
IX. But as the whole of this subject will be better elucidated
by examples, before I proceed any further, it will be
useful to apply this doctrine to our own times. We affirm that
the Ecclesiastical Constitutions, with which the pope and his
satellites oppress the Church, are pernicious and impious; our
adversaries assert them to be holy and useful. Now, they are
of two classes: some regard rites and ceremonies, others have
more relation to discipline. Is there just cause, then, to induce
us to reject both? There certainly is juster cause than we would
desire. In the first place, do not the authors of them explicitly
declare that the very essence of the worship of God consists in
them? To what end do they refer their ceremonies, but that
God may be worshipped through them? And this arises not from
the mere error of the uninformed multitude, but from the approbation
373of those who sustain the office of teachers. I am not yet
referring to the gross abominations by which they have attempted
to overturn all piety; but they would never pretend a
failure in any one of the most insignificant traditions to be such
an atrocious crime, unless they made the worship of God subject
to their inventions. Wherein are we guilty of any offence,
then, if we cannot bear in our day what was declared to be
intolerable by Paul: namely, that the legitimate mode of
worshipping God should be regulated by the will of men;
especially when they enjoin a worship “after the rudiments
of the world,” which Paul asserts to be “not after Christ.”[990]
It is well known also, with what rigorous necessity they bind
men’s consciences to observe every thing that they command.
In our opposition to this, we unite in a common cause with
Paul, who would by no means allow the consciences of believers
to be subjected to the bondage of men.[991]
X. Moreover, this worst of consequences ensues; that when
men have begun to place religion in such vain figments, that
perversion is immediately followed by another execrable corruption,
with which Christ reproached the Pharisees. “Ye
have made the commandment of God of none effect by your
tradition.”[992] I will not combat our modern legislators with
my own words; I will grant them the victory, if they can
vindicate themselves from this accusation of Christ. But how
can they vindicate themselves, while they esteem it infinitely
more criminal, to have omitted auricular confession at a stated
time of the year, than to have lived a most iniquitous life for a
whole year together; to have infected the tongue with the
least taste of animal food on a Friday, than to have polluted
the whole body by committing fornication every day; to have
put a hand to any honest labour on a day consecrated to any
pretended saint, than to have continually employed all the
members in the most flagitious actions; for a priest to be connected
in one lawful marriage, than to be defiled with a thousand
adulteries; to have failed of performing one vow of pilgrimage,
than to violate every other promise; not to have
lavished any thing on the enormous, superfluous, and useless
magnificence of Churches, than to have failed of relieving the
most pressing necessities of the poor; to have passed by an
idol without some token of honour, than to have insulted all
the men in the world; not to have muttered over, at certain
seasons, a multitude of words without any meaning, than to
have never offered a genuine prayer from the heart? What is
it for men to make the commandment of God of none effect
by their traditions, if this be not? When coldly and carelessly
374recommending the observance of the commandments of God,
they insist on an exact obedience to their own, with as much
zeal and anxiety as if the whole essence of piety consisted in
them; when avenging the violation of the Divine law with
slight penalties of satisfactions, they punish the smallest transgression
of one of their decrees with nothing less than imprisonment,
banishment, fire, or sword; when less severe and
inexorable against the despisers of God, they persecute the
despisers of themselves with implacable hatred even to death;
and when they instruct all those whom they hold in the chains
of ignorance in such a manner, that they would feel less concern
at seeing the subversion of the whole law of God, than
the violation of the smallest tittle of the commands of the
Church? In the first place, here is a grievous error, that on
account of things of no importance in themselves, and left free
by God, one man despises, condemns, and rejects another.
Now, as if this were not bad enough, “the beggarly elements
of the world,”[993] as Paul calls them, are esteemed of more
force than the celestial oracles of God. He who is absolved
in adultery, is condemned in meat; he who is allowed a harlot,
is interdicted from a wife. This is the fruit of that prevaricating
obedience, which recedes from God in proportion as it
inclines to men.
XI. There are also two other faults, far from small ones,
which we charge on these Constitutions. The first is, that
they prescribe for the most part useless, and sometimes even
foolish observances. The second is, that pious consciences
are oppressed with the immense number of them, and being
carried back to a species of Judaism, are so occupied with
shadows as to be prevented from coming to Christ. When I
call these observances useless and foolish, I know this will not
be admitted by the wisdom of the flesh, which is so pleased
with them, as to consider the Church altogether deformed
where they are abolished. But these are the things which
Paul describes as “having a show of wisdom in will-worship,
and humility, and neglecting of the body; not in any honour
to the satisfying of the flesh.”[994] This is certainly a most
salutary admonition, which ought never to be forgotten by us.
Human traditions, he says, deceive under a show of wisdom.
Is it inquired whence they have this appearance? I reply,
that being contrived by man, the human mind recognizes them
as its own, and recognizing them, embraces them with greater
pleasure than it would any thing of the greatest excellence, but
less agreeable to its vanity. A further recommendation of them
is, that as they keep the minds of men depressed to the ground
375under their yoke, they appear well adapted to promote humility.
Lastly, they are regarded as the expedients of prudence, from
their supposed tendency to restrain corporeal indulgence, and
to subdue sensuality by the rigour of abstinence. But what
does Paul say to these things? Does he strip off such disguises,
that the simple may not be deluded by false pretences? Satisfied
that he had said enough to refute them, when he had
called them “the commandments and doctrines of men,”[995]
he passes over all these things as undeserving of any particular
refutation. And knowing that all services of human invention
are condemned in the Church, and ought to excite the suspicion
of believers in proportion to the pleasure they afford to the
minds of men; knowing that false appearance of external
humility to be at such an immense distance from true humility,
that it might be easily distinguished from it; knowing that
discipline to be entitled to no other consideration than as a mere
exercise of the body,—he intended these very things, by which
the traditions of men are recommended to the ignorant, to serve
as their refutation with believers.
XII. So, at the present day, not only the unlearned vulgar,
but those who are most inflated with worldly wisdom, are
universally and wonderfully captivated with the pomp of ceremonies.
Hypocrites and silly women think it impossible to
imagine any thing more beautiful or excellent. But those who
examine more minutely, and judge with more accuracy, according
to the rule of piety, respecting the real value of those
numerous ceremonies, perceive, in the first place, that they are
frivolous, because they have no utility; and in the next place,
that they are delusive, because they deceive the eyes of the
spectators with empty pomp. I speak of those ceremonies under
which, the Roman doctors contend, are concealed great mysteries,
but which, on examination, we find to be mere mockeries.
And it is not to be wondered at, that the authors and advocates
of them have fallen into such folly as to delude both themselves
and others with contemptible absurdities; because they have
taken their model in some things from the reveries of the
heathen, and in others, without any judgment, have imitated
the ancient rites of the Mosaic law, which were no more applicable
to us than the sacrifices of animals and other similar
ceremonies. Indeed, if there were no argument besides, yet no
man in his senses would expect any thing good from such a
heterogeneous compound. And the fact itself plainly demonstrates,
that numerous ceremonies have no other use than to
stupefy the people, instead of instructing them. So hypocrites
attach great importance to those novel canons, which overturn
376discipline rather than preserve it; for on a more accurate
investigation, they will be found a mere shadow of discipline,
without any reality.
XIII. Now, to proceed to the other fault which I have
mentioned, who does not see that traditions, by the continual
accumulation of one upon another, have grown to such an
immense number, that they are altogether intolerable to the
Christian Church? Hence it is, that the ceremonies discover
a kind of Judaism, and other observances inflict grievous tortures
on pious souls. Augustine complained that, in his time, the
commands of God were neglected, and every thing was so full
of presumption, that a person was more severely censured for
having touched the ground with his bare feet within eight
days of his baptism, than for having drowned his senses in
intoxication. He complained that the Church, which the
mercy of God intended to place in a state of liberty, was so
grievously oppressed, that the condition of the Jews was more
tolerable. If that holy man had lived in our day, with what
lamentations would he have deplored the present state of
bondage? For the number of ordinances is ten times greater,
and every tittle is enforced with a hundred times more rigour,
than in his time. Such is the general consequence, when these
corrupt legislators have seized the dominion, they make no
end of commands and prohibitions, till they arrive at such an
extreme that obedience is scarcely if at all practicable. This
is finely expressed by Paul, when he says, “If ye be dead from
the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world,
are ye subject to ordinances? Eat not, taste not, handle not.”[996]
The word ἁψη, signifying both to eat and to handle, requires
here to be understood in the former sense, to avoid an unnecessary
repetition. Here, then, he most beautifully describes the
progress of the false apostles. They begin with superstition,
forbidding to eat not only a large quantity, but even a little;
when they have carried this point, they next forbid to taste;
and after this is submitted to them, they pronounce it unlawful
even to touch with a finger.
XIV. In the present age, we justly censure this tyranny in
human constitutions, which astonishingly torments miserable
consciences with innumerable edicts, and the extreme rigour
with which they are enforced. The canons relating to discipline
have been already considered. What shall I say of the
ceremonies, which have half buried Christ, and caused us to return
to Jewish figures? “Christ our Lord,” says Augustine, “has
connected together the society of the new people with sacraments,
very few in number, most excellent in signification,
377and very easy to observe.” The immense distance of this
simplicity from the multitude and variety of rites in which we
see the Church now involved, can hardly be stated in terms
sufficiently strong. I know with what artifice some ingenious
men apologize for this corruption. They say, that there are
great numbers among us as ignorant as there were among the
Israelites; that for their sakes such discipline was instituted,
which those who are stronger, though they do not find it
necessary, ought not to neglect, when they perceive it to be
useful to their weak brethren. I reply, that we are not ignorant
of what is due from every Christian to the infirmity of his
brethren; but, on the other hand, we reply, that this is not the
way to benefit the weak, by oppressing them with heavy loads
of ceremonies. It was not without cause that the Lord has
made this difference between his ancient people and us; that
he chose to instruct them, like children, with emblems and
figures, but has been pleased to teach us in a more simple
manner, without such a large external apparatus. As “a child,”
says Paul, “is under tutors and governors until the time appointed
of the father,”[997] so the Jews were under the instruction and
government of the law. But we resemble adults, who, having
left a state of tuition and guardianship, have no need of puerile
discipline. Surely the Lord foresaw what sort of common people
there would be in his Church, and in what manner they would
require to be governed. Yet he made the difference we have
mentioned between us and the Jews. It is a foolish way, therefore,
to pretend to benefit the ignorant by reviving Judaism,
which has been abrogated by Christ. This diversity, between
the people under the old dispensation and the new, was signified
by Christ, when he said to the woman of Samaria, “The hour
cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship
the Father in spirit and in truth.”[998] This, indeed, had always
been the case; but the new worshippers differ from the ancient
in this respect, that under Moses the spiritual adoration of God
was concealed, and in some degree embarrassed with many
ceremonies, which being now abolished, he is worshipped with
greater simplicity. Wherefore those who confound this difference,
subvert the order instituted and established by Christ.
Shall no ceremonies, then, it will be asked, be given to the
ignorant, to assist their weakness? I say no such thing; for
I think some assistance of this kind very useful to them.
I only contend that such means should be employed as would
tend to make known Christ, not to conceal him. God has,
therefore, given us few ceremonies, and those by no means
laborious, to exhibit Christ to us as present; the Jews had a
378greater number, to represent him as absent. He was then absent,
I say, not as to his power, but with respect to the manner of
representing him. Therefore, to observe proper bounds, it is
necessary to retain that paucity in number, that facility in
observance, that dignity in signification, which consists in simplicity.
That this has not been done, it is scarcely necessary
to mention. The fact is visible to all.
XV. Here I forbear to remark the pernicious opinions with
which the minds of men are impressed, that these ceremonies
of human invention are sacrifices by which God is justly appeased,
by which sins are expiated, by which righteousness
and salvation are procured. It will be denied that things
intrinsically good are corrupted by such adventitious errors,
since equal guilt of this kind may be incurred in the performance
of works commanded by God. But it is more intolerable to
attribute so much honour to works presumptuously devised
by the will of men, as to believe them to be meritorious of
eternal life. For works commanded by God obtain a reward,
because the Legislator himself accepts them as acts of obedience.
They derive their value, therefore, not from their own dignity
or intrinsic merit, but from God’s estimation of our obedience
to him. I speak here of that perfection of works which God
commands, but which men never attain. For the works of
the law which we perform, are only accepted through the
gratuitous goodness of God, our obedience in them being weak
and imperfect. But as we are not here discussing the value of
works independent of Christ, let us drop this question. With
regard to the present argument, I again repeat, that whatever
value is attributed to works, they derive from the consideration
of the obedience, which is alone regarded by God, as he declares
by the prophet: “I commanded not concerning burnt-offerings
or sacrifices, but this thing I commanded, saying, Obey my
voice.”[999] Of works of human device, he speaks in another
place. “Wherefore do ye spend money for that which is not
bread?”[1000] Again: “In vain do they worship me by the
precepts of men.”[1001] Our adversaries, therefore, can never
excuse themselves for suffering the unhappy people to seek in
those external fooleries a righteousness to present before God,
and to support them at the heavenly tribunal. Besides, is it not
a fault deserving of severe reprehension, that they exhibit ceremonies
not understood, like the scenery of a stage or a magical
incantation? For it is certain that all ceremonies are corrupt
and pernicious, unless they direct men to Christ. Now, the
ceremonies practised in the Papacy have no connection with
doctrine: they confine men to mere signs, destitute of all
signification. Lastly, so ingenious is cupidity, it is evident
379that many of them have been invented by avaricious priests,
merely as contrivances for the extortion of money. But whatever
be their origin, they are all so prostituted to the acquisition
of gain, that it is necessary to abolish the principal part of them,
if we wish to prevent a profane and sacrilegious traffic from
being carried on in the Church.
XVI. Though I may be considered as not delivering a doctrine
of perpetual application respecting human constitutions, because
the preceding observations have been wholly directed to the
present age, yet nothing has been advanced which would not
be useful in all ages. For wherever this superstition intrudes,
that men are determined to worship God with their own inventions,
all the laws made for this purpose presently degenerate into
such gross abuses as we have described. It is a curse which God
denounces, not against any particular age, but against all ages,
that he will strike with blindness and stupidity all those who worship
him with the doctrines of men.[1002] The invariable effect of
this blindness is, that no absurdity is too great to be embraced
by persons who, in contempt of so many warnings from God,
wilfully entangle themselves in such fatal snares. But if, irrespective
of peculiar circumstances, any one wish to have a simple
statement, what are the human traditions of all ages, which
ought to be rejected and reprobated by the Church and all pious
persons, the direction we have already given is clear and certain—that
they are all laws made by men without the word of God,
for the purpose, either of prescribing any method for the worship
of God, or of laying the conscience under a religious obligation,
as if they enjoined things necessary to salvation. If either or
both of these be accompanied with other faults, such as, that
the ceremonies, by their multitude, obscure the simplicity of the
gospel; that they tend to no edification, but are useless and
ridiculous occupations rather than real exercises of piety; that
they are employed for the sordid purposes of dishonest gain;
that they are too difficult to be observed; that they are polluted
with impious superstitions;—these things will further assist
us in discovering the vast evil which they contain.
XVII. I hear the answer which they make—that their traditions
are not from themselves, but from God; for that the
Church is directed by the Holy Spirit, so that it cannot err;
and that they are in possession of his authority. When this
point is gained, it immediately follows, that their traditions are
the revelations of the Holy Spirit, which cannot be despised
without impiety and contempt of God. That they may not
appear to attempt any thing without high authorities, they wish
it to be believed that the greatest part of their observances have
380descended from the apostles; and they contend that one example
sufficiently shows what was the conduct of the apostles in
other cases; when, being assembled together in a council, they
determined and announced to all Gentiles, that they should
“abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from
things strangled.”[1003] We have already exposed the falsehood
of their pretensions in arrogating to themselves the title of the
Church. With regard to the present argument, if, stripping off
all false disguises, we confine our attention to what ought to
be our chief concern, and involves our highest interests, namely,
what kind of a Church Christ requires, in order that we may
conform ourselves to its standard,—it will be sufficiently evident
to us, that the name of the Church does not belong to
those who overleap all the limits of the word of God, and exercise
an unbounded license of enacting new laws. For does
not that law, which was once given to the Church, remain forever
in force? “What thing soever I command you, observe
to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.”[1004]
And again: “Add not thou unto his words, lest he reprove
thee, and thou be found a liar.”[1005] Since they cannot deny
these things to have been spoken to the Church, do they not
declare the rebellion of the Church, when they pretend that,
notwithstanding such prohibitions, it has dared to mingle additions
of its own with the doctrine of God? Far be it from
us, however, to countenance their falsehoods, by which they
do so great an injury to the Church; let us know that the assumption
of the name of the Church is a false pretence in all
who are so carried away by the violence of human presumption,
as to disregard all the restraints of the word of God, and to introduce
a torrent of their own inventions. There is nothing
involved, nothing intricate, nothing ambiguous in these words,
by which the whole Church is forbidden to add any thing to
the word, or to diminish any thing from it, in any question relating
to the worship of God and his salutary precepts. But it
will be alleged, that this was spoken exclusively of the law,
which has been succeeded by the prophecies and the whole
dispensation of the gospel. This I certainly admit, and at the
same time assert, that these were accomplishments of the law,
rather than additions to it, or retrenchments of it. But if the
Lord suffered no enlargement or diminution of the ministry of
Moses, notwithstanding it was enveloped in such great obscurity,
till he dispensed a clearer doctrine by his servants the
prophets, and finally by his beloved Son,—why do not we consider
ourselves far more severely prohibited from making any
addition to the law, the prophets, the psalms, and the gospel?
381No change has taken place in the Lord, who long ago declared
that nothing was so highly offensive to him, as to attempt to
worship him with the inventions of men. Hence those striking
declarations in the prophets, which ought to be continually
sounding in our ears: “I spake not unto your fathers,
nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of
the land of Egypt, concerning burnt-offerings or sacrifices; but
this thing commanded I them, saying, Obey my voice, and I
will be your God, and ye shall be my people: and walk ye
in all the ways that I have commanded you.”[1006] Again:
“I earnestly protested unto your fathers, saying, Obey my
voice.”[1007] There are many other similar passages, but the
most remarkable of all is the following: “Hath the Lord,”
says Samuel, “as great delight in burnt-offerings and sacrifices,
as in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey is better
than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams. For
rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as
iniquity and idolatry.”[1008] Therefore, whatever human inventions
relating to the worship of God, may be defended by the
authority of the Church, since it is impossible to vindicate
them from impiety, it is easy to infer that the imputation of
them to the Church has no foundation in truth.
XVIII. For this reason we freely censure that tyranny of
human traditions, which is imposed upon the world under the
name of the Church. Nor do we hold the Church in contempt,
as our adversaries, in order to render us obnoxious, falsely assert.
We allow it the praise of obedience, than which no
higher praise can be given. On the contrary, they are themselves
the most outrageous violators of the Church, which they
represent as guilty of rebellion against the Lord, when they
pretend that it has gone beyond what was permitted by the
word of God; to say nothing of the combination of impudence
and wickedness discovered in their incessant vociferations respecting
the authority of the Church, while they take no notice
of the command of the Lord, or of the obedience due from the
Church to that command. But if we desire, as we ought, to
agree with the Church, it will be best for us to observe and
remember what commands are given by the Lord, equally to
us and to the whole Church, that we may all obey him with
one consent. For there is no doubt that we shall fully agree
with the Church, if we show ourselves in all things obedient
to the Lord. Now, to attribute to the apostles the origin of the
traditions which have hitherto oppressed the Church, is a mere
imposture; for the whole tendency of the doctrine of the
apostles was, that men’s consciences should not be burdened
382with new observances, or the worship of God contaminated
with human inventions. Besides, if there be any credit
due to ancient histories and records, the apostles not only
never knew, but never even heard of that which is ascribed to
them. Nor let it be pretended, that the greatest part of their
Constitutions were received in use and commonly practised,
which were never committed to writing; namely, those things
which, during the life of Christ, they were not able to understand,
but which after his ascension, they learned from the
revelation of the Holy Spirit. The meaning of that passage
we have already examined. With respect to the present subject,
we may observe, they make themselves truly ridiculous
by maintaining that those great mysteries, which were so long
unknown to the apostles, consisted partly of Jewish or heathen
ceremonies, of which the former had long before been promulgated
among the Jews, and the latter among the heathen, and
partly of foolish gesticulations and unmeaning rites, which
stupid priests, who scarcely know how to walk or speak, perform
with the greatest exactness, and which even infants and
fools counterfeit so well, that it might be thought there were
no more suitable ministers of such solemnities. If there were
no histories, yet men of sound judgment would conclude from
the thing itself, that such a vast multitude of rites and observances
did not break into the Church all on a sudden, but that
they must have been introduced by degrees. For when those
holy bishops, who were the immediate successors of the apostles,
had made some appointments relating to order and discipline,
they were followed by a series of others, who had too
little consideration, and too much curiosity and cupidity, of
whom every one in succession vied with his predecessors, from
a foolish emulation to excel them in the invention of new
observances. And because there was danger that their inventions,
by which they desired to obtain the praises of posterity,
might in a short time be disused, they were the more rigid in
enforcing the observance of them. This foolish and perverse
imitation has been the source of most of those rites which the
Romanists urge upon us as apostolic. And this is also attested
by various histories.
XIX. To avoid too much prolixity in composing a catalogue
of them all, we shall content ourselves with one example. In
the administration of the Lord’s supper, the apostles used
great simplicity. Their immediate successors, to adorn the
dignity of the mystery, added some forms which were not to
be altogether condemned. Afterwards followed those foolish
imitators, who, by adding various fragments from time to time,
at length formed those vestments of the priests, those ornaments
of the altar, those gesticulations, and all that apparatus of useless
383things, which we see in the mass. But they object that
it was an ancient opinion, that whatever was done with the
common consent of the universal Church, had originated from
the apostles. In proof of this, they cite the testimony of Augustine.
I shall give them no other answer than in the words
of Augustine himself. “Those things which are observed
throughout the world,” says he, “we may understand to have
been ordained, either by the apostles themselves, or by general
councils, whose authority is very useful in the Church; as
that the sufferings, resurrection, and ascension of our Lord, and
the descent of the Holy Spirit, are celebrated by solemn anniversaries;
and if there be any thing else of a similar kind
observed by the universal Church wherever it has extended
itself.” When he enumerates so few examples, who does not
see that he intended to attribute to authors worthy of credit
and reverence the observances which were then in use, and
none but those simple, rare, and sober ones, which are useful
in preserving the order of the Church? But how distant is
this passage from the conclusion the Roman doctors would
extort from it, that there is not the most insignificant ceremony
among them which ought not to be considered as resting on
the authority of the apostles!
XX. Not to be too tedious, I will produce only one example.
If any one inquire whence they have their holy water, they
immediately answer, From the apostles. As if the histories
did not attribute this invention to a bishop of Rome, who, if
he had taken counsel of the apostles, would certainly never
have contaminated baptism by a strange and unseasonable
symbol. Though it does not appear to me probable that the
origin of that consecration was so ancient as those histories
state. For the observation of Augustine, that some Churches
in his time rejected the custom of washing the feet as a solemn
imitation of Christ, lest that ceremony might be supposed to
have any reference to baptism, implies that there was no other
kind of washing then practised which bore any resemblance to
baptism. Be this as it may, I shall never admit it to have
been a dictate of the spirit of the apostles, that baptism should
be recalled to the memory by a daily ablution, which would
be little else than a repetition of it. It is of no consequence
that Augustine elsewhere ascribes other things also to the
apostles; for as he has nothing but conjectures, no conclusion
ought to be drawn from them on such an important subject.
Lastly, though we should even grant, that those things which
he mentions had been transmitted from the time of the apostles,
yet there is a wide difference between instituting some pious
exercise which believers may use with a free conscience, or
if they find not profitable, may abstain from the use of it, and
384making laws to entangle their consciences with bondage. But
whoever was their author, since we see that they have fallen
into so great an abuse, nothing prevents our abolishing them
without any disrespect to him; because they were never instituted
in order to be perpetual and unalterable.
XXI. Nor does the cause of our adversaries derive much
advantage from their attempt to excuse their own tyranny, by
alleging the example of the apostles. The apostles, they say,
and elders of the primitive Church, passed a decree without
the command of Christ, enjoining all the Gentiles to “abstain
from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things
strangled.”[1009] If this was lawful for them, why may it not
be lawful for their successors, whenever circumstances require,
to imitate their conduct? I sincerely wish they would imitate
them in other things as well as in this. For I deny that the
apostles, on that occasion, instituted or decreed any thing new,
as it is easy to prove by a sufficient reason. For when Peter
had declared in that assembly, that to “put a yoke upon the
neck of the disciples” would be to “tempt God,”[1010] he would
have contradicted his own opinion, if he had afterwards consented
to the imposition of any yoke. Yet there was a yoke
imposed, if the apostles decreed, from their own authority,
that the Gentiles should be prohibited “from meats offered to
idols, and from blood, and from things strangled.” There still
remains some difficulty, that nevertheless they seem to prohibit
them. But this will be easily solved, if we more closely examine
the meaning of the decree itself; of which the first
point in order and principal in importance is, that the Gentiles
were to be left in possession of their liberty, and not to be disturbed
or troubled about the observance of the law. So far it
is completely in our favour. The exception which immediately
follows is not a new law made by the apostles, but the Divine
and eternal command for the preservation of charity inviolate;
nor does it diminish a tittle of that liberty: it only admonishes
the Gentiles how they ought to accommodate themselves to
their brethren, to avoid offending them by an abuse of their
liberty. The second point, therefore, is, that the Gentiles were
to use a harmless liberty, and without offence to their brethren.
If it be still objected, that they prescribe a certain direction, I
reply, that as far as was expedient for that period, they point
out and specify the things in which the Gentiles were liable to
give offence to their brethren, that they might refrain from
them; yet they add nothing new of their own to the eternal
law of God, by which offences against our brethren are prohibited.
385XXII. As if any faithful pastors, who preside over churches
not yet well regulated, were to recommend all their people not
to eat meat openly on Fridays, or to labour publicly on festivals,
or the like, till their weaker neighbours should be more
established. For though, setting aside superstition, these things
are in themselves indifferent, yet when they are attended with
offences to brethren, they cannot be performed without sin;
and the times are such that believers could not do these things
in the presence of their weak brethren, without most grievously
wounding their consciences. Who but a caviller would say
that in this instance they made a new law, whereas it would
evidently appear that their sole object was to guard against offences
which are most expressly forbidden by the Lord? No
more can it be said of the apostles, who had no other design in
removing the occasion of offences, than to urge the Divine law
respecting the avoidance of offence: as though they had said,
It is the command of the Lord that you hurt not your weak
brother; you cannot eat meats offered to idols, or blood, or
things strangled, without your weak brethren being offended;
therefore, we command you by the word of the Lord not to
eat with offence. And that such was the intention of the
apostles, Paul himself is an unexceptionable witness, who, certainly
in consistence with their sentence, writes in the following
manner: “As concerning the eating of those things that are
offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing.
Howbeit, there is not in every man that knowledge; for some
with conscience of the idol, eat it as a thing offered unto an idol;
and their conscience, being weak, is defiled. Take heed lest
by any means this liberty of yours become a stumbling-block
to them that are weak.”[1011] He who shall have duly considered
these things, will not afterwards be deceived by the fallacy of
those who attempt to justify their tyranny by the example of
the apostles, as if they had begun to infringe the liberty of
the Church by their decree. But that they may not be able
to avoid confirming this solution by their own confession, let
them tell me by what right they have dared to abrogate that decree.
They can only reply, Because there was no more danger
from those offences and dissensions which the apostles intended
to guard against, and they knew that a law was to be judged
of by the end for which it was made. As this law, therefore,
is admitted to have been made from a consideration of charity,
there is nothing prescribed in it any further than charity is
concerned. When they confess that the transgression of this
law is no other than a violation of charity, do they not thereby
acknowledge that it is not a novel addition to the law of God,
386but a genuine and simple application of it to the times and
manners for which it was designed?
XXIII. But it is contended, that though the ecclesiastical
laws should in a hundred instances be unjust and injurious to
us, yet they ought all to be obeyed without any exception; for
that the point here is not that we should consent to errors, but
that we, who are subjects, should fulfil even the severe commands
of our governors, which we are not at liberty to reject.
But here likewise the Lord most happily interposes with the
truth of his word, delivers us from such bondage, and establishes
us in the liberty which he has procured for us by his
sacred blood, the benefit of which he has repeatedly confirmed
by his word. For the question here is not, as they fallaciously
pretend, merely whether we shall endure some grievous oppression
in our bodies; but whether our consciences shall be
deprived of their liberty, that is, of the benefit of the blood of
Christ, and shall be tormented with a wretched bondage. Let
us, however, pass over this also, as if it were matter of little
importance. But do we think it a matter of little importance
to deprive the Lord of his kingdom, which he claims to himself,
in such a peremptory manner? And it is taken away from
him whenever he is worshipped with laws of human invention,
whereas he requires himself to be honored as the sole legislator
of his own worship. And that no one may suppose it to be
a thing of trivial importance, let us hear in what estimation it
is held by the Lord. “Forasmuch,” he says, “as this people
draw near me with their mouth, but their fear toward me is
taught by the precept of men; therefore, behold, I will proceed
to do a marvellous work among this people, even a marvellous
work and a wonder; for the wisdom of their wise men
shall perish, and the understanding of their prudent men shall be
hid.”[1012] Again: “In vain do they worship me, teaching for
doctrines the commandments of men.”[1013] When the children
of Israel polluted themselves by various idolatries, the cause of
all the evil is attributed to the impure mixture which they
made by devising new modes of worship in violation of the
commands of God. Therefore, the sacred history relates that
the strangers who had been transplanted by the king of Assyria
from Babylon to inhabit Samaria, were torn in pieces and devoured
by wild beasts, “because they knew not the statutes
or ordinances of the God of the land.” Though they had
committed no fault in the ceremonies, yet vain pomp would
not have been approved by God; but he did not fail to punish
the violation of his worship, when men introduced new inventions
inconsistent with his word. Hence it is afterwards
387stated, that being terrified with that punishment, they adopted
rites prescribed in the law; yet because they did not yet worship
the true God aright, it is twice repeated that “they
feared the Lord,” and, at the same time, that “they feared not
the Lord.”[1014] Whence we conclude, that part of the reverence
which is paid to him consists in our worshipping him in
a simple adherence to his commands, without the admixture
of any inventions of our own. Hence the frequent commendations
of pious kings, that they “walked in all his commandments,
and turned not aside to the right hand or to the left.”[1015]
I go still further: though in some services of human invention
there appears no manifest impiety, yet as soon as ever men
have departed from the command of God, it is severely condemned
by the Holy Spirit. The altar of Ahaz, the model of
which was brought from Damascus, might seem to be an
addition to the ornaments of the temple, because his design
was to offer sacrifices upon it to God alone, with a view to perform
these services in a more splendid manner than upon the
ancient and original altar; yet we see how the Holy Spirit
detests such audacity, for no other reason than because all the
inventions of men in the worship of God are impure corruptions.[1016]
And the more clearly the will of God is revealed to
us, the more inexcusable is our presumption in making any
such attempt. Wherefore the guilt of Manasseh is justly
aggravated by the circumstance of his having “built” new
“altars in the house of the Lord, of which the Lord said, In
Jerusalem will I put my name;”[1017] because such conduct
was like an avowed rejection of the authority of God.
XXIV. Many persons wonder why the Lord so severely
threatens that he would “do a marvellous work among the
people,” whose “fear toward him” was “taught by the
precepts of men,” and pronounces that he is “worshipped in
vain” by “the commandments of men.” But if such persons
would consider what it is to follow the word of God alone in
matters of religion, that is, of heavenly wisdom, they would
immediately perceive it to be for no trivial reason that the Lord
abominates such corrupt services, which are rendered to him
according to the caprice of the human mind. For, though
persons who obey such laws for the worship of God, have a
certain appearance of humility in this their obedience, yet they
are very far from being humble before God, to whom they
prescribe the same laws which they observe themselves. This
is the reason why Paul requires us to be so particularly cautious
against being deceived by the traditions of men, and will-worship,
388that is, voluntary worship, invented by men, without
the word of God.[1018] And so indeed it is, that our own wisdom,
and that of all other men, must become folly in our esteem,
that we may allow God alone to be truly wise. This is very
far from being the case with those who study to render themselves
acceptable to him by petty observances of human contrivance,
and obtrude upon him, in opposition to his commands,
a hypocritical obedience, which in reality is rendered to men.
This was the conduct of men in former ages; the same has happened
within our own remembrance, and still happens in those
places where the authority of the creature is more regarded than
that of the Creator; where religion, if religion it deserves to be
called, is polluted with more numerous and senseless superstitions
than ever disgraced the worship of paganism. For what
could proceed from the minds of men but things carnal, foolish,
and truly expressive of their authors?
XXV. When the advocates of superstition allege, that
Samuel sacrificed in Ramah, that there this was done without
the direction of the law, yet it was acceptable to God,[1019] the
answer is easy—that this was not the erection of a second
altar, in opposition to one already erected, and appointed by the
Divine command to supersede every other; but as there had yet
been no fixed place assigned for the ark of the covenant, he appointed
the town which he inhabited for the oblation of sacrifices,
as the most convenient place. It certainly was not the intention
of the holy prophet to make any innovation in religious worship,
in which God had so strictly forbidden any thing to be added or
diminished. The example of Manoah I consider as an extraordinary
and singular case. Though a private man, he offered a
sacrifice to God, yet not without the Divine approbation; because
he did it not from the hasty impulse of his own mind, but
in consequence of the secret inspiration of Heaven.[1020] But of
the Lord’s utter abomination of all the contrivances of mortals in
his worship, we have a memorable example in another person,
not inferior to Manoah—I mean Gideon, whose ephod produced
fatal consequences, not only to himself and his family, but to
all the people.[1021] In short, every additional invention by
which men pretend to serve God is nothing but a pollution of
true holiness.
XXVI. Why, then, it is inquired, was it the will of Christ
that men should submit to those intolerable burdens which were
imposed upon them by the scribes and Pharisees?[1022] I ask,
on the other hand, Why did Christ, in another place, direct men
to “beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees?”[1023]
389by leaven, according to the interpretation given us
by the evangelist, intending every doctrine of their own that
they mixed with the pure word of God. What can we wish
for plainer, than when he commands us to avoid and beware
of all their doctrine? Hence it is very evident to us, that in
the other passage our Lord did not intend that the consciences
of his disciples should be harassed with the traditions of the
Pharisees; and the words themselves, if they are not perverted,
convey no such meaning. For, being about to deliver a severe
invective against the conduct of the Pharisees, our Lord only
prefaced it by instructing his hearers, that though they would
see nothing in their lives worthy of imitation, yet they should
continue to practise those things which were taught by them in
their discourses, when they were sitting in the chair of Moses,
that is to say, when they were expounding the law. His only
design, therefore, was to guard the people against being induced
to despise the doctrine by the bad examples of those who taught
it. But, as some persons are never affected by arguments, but
always require authority, I will subjoin the words of Augustine,
who gives exactly the same interpretation: “The Lord’s fold
has pastors, some faithful, some hirelings. Those who are
faithful are true shepherds; yet hear how the hirelings also are
necessary. For many in the Church, pursuing worldly advantages,
preach Christ, and the voice of Christ is heard through
them; and the sheep follow not the hireling, but the Shepherd
by means of the hireling. Hear how the hirelings are pointed
out by the Lord himself. He says, The scribes and Pharisees
sit in Moses’ chair; what they say, do; but what they do,
imitate not. Is not this equivalent to saying, Hear the voice
of the Shepherd through the hirelings; for, sitting in the chair
of Moses, they teach the law of God; therefore, God teaches
by them; but if they choose to teach any thing of their own,
neither attend to it, nor practise it?”
XXVII. But, as many ignorant persons, when they hear
that the consciences of men ought not to be bound by human
traditions, and that it is in vain to worship God by such services,
immediately conclude the same rule to be applicable to
all the laws which regulate the order of the Church, we must
also refute their error. It is easy, indeed, to be deceived in this
point, because it does not immediately appear, at the first glance,
what a difference there is between the one and the other; but
I will place the whole subject in such a clear light, in a few
words, that no one may be misled by the resemblance. In the
first place, let us consider that if, in every society of men, we
see the necessity of some polity in order to preserve the common
390peace, and to maintain concord; if in the transaction of
business there is always some order, which the interest of public
virtue, and even of humanity itself, forbids to be rejected;
the same ought particularly to be observed in Churches, which
are best supported by a well-ordered regulation of all their
affairs and which without concord are no Churches at all.
Wherefore, if we would make a proper provision for the safety
of the Church, we ought to pay the strictest attention to the
injunction of Paul, that “all things be done decently and in
order.”[1024] But as there is such great diversity in the manners
of men, so great a variety in their minds, and so much contrariety
in their judgments and inclinations, no polity will be
sufficiently steady unless it be established by certain laws; nor
can any order be preserved without some settled form. The
laws, therefore, which promote this end, we are so far from condemning,
that, we contend, their abolition would be followed
by a disruption of the bands of union, and the total disorganization
and dispersion of the Churches. For it is impossible to
attain what Paul requires, that “all things be done decently
and in order,” unless order and decorum be supported by additional
regulations. But in regard to such regulations, care
must always be taken, that they be not considered necessary
to salvation, and so imposing a religious obligation on the conscience,
or applied to the worship of God, and so represented
as essential to piety.
XXVIII. We have an excellent and most certain mark,
therefore, which distinguishes those impious constitutions, by
which it has been stated that true religion is obscured and
men’s consciences subverted, and the legitimate regulations of
the Church, which are always directed to one of these two
ends, or to both together; that, in the holy assembly of believers,
all things may be conducted with suitable decorum and
dignity, that the community may be kept in order by the
firm bonds of courtesy and moderation. For when it is once
understood that a law is made for the sake of public order, this
removes the superstition embraced by them who place the
worship of God in human inventions. Moreover, when it is
known that it only refers to matters of common practice, this
overturns all that false notion of obligation and necessity, which
filled men’s consciences with great terror, when traditions were
thought necessary to salvation. For here nothing is required
but the maintenance of charity among us by the common intercourse
of friendly offices. But it is proper to describe more
fully what is comprehended under the decorum and the order
which Paul recommends. The end of decorum is, partly, that
391while ceremonies are employed to conciliate veneration to sacred
things, we may be excited to piety by such aids; partly
that the modesty and gravity, which ought to be discovered in
all virtuous actions, may be most of all conspicuous in the
Church. In order, the first point is, that those who preside
should be acquainted with the rule and law of good government,
and that the people who are governed should be accustomed
to an obedience to God and to just discipline; the second
is, that when the Church is in a well regulated state, care should
be taken to preserve its peace and tranquillity.
XXIX. We shall not call that decorum, therefore, which is
merely a frivolous spectacle, yielding an unprofitable gratification;
such as we see exemplified in the theatrical apparatus
employed by the Papists in their services, where nothing is to
be seen but a useless appearance of elegance and splendour,
without any advantage. But we shall esteem that as decorum,
which shall be so adapted to inspire a reverence of holy mysteries
as to be calculated for an exercise of piety; or which at
least shall contribute an ornament corresponding to the act;
and that not without some beneficial tendency, but that believers
may be admonished with what modesty, fear, and reverence,
they ought to engage in sacred services. Now, that ceremonies
may be exercises of piety, it is necessary that they
should lead us directly to Christ. In like manner, we do not
place order in those nugatory pomps which have nothing but
a vain appearance of splendour, but in that well regulated
polity, which excludes all confusion, incivility, obstinacy,
clamours, and dissensions. Of the first kind, examples are
furnished by Paul; as that profane banquets should not be
connected with the sacred supper of the Lord; that women
should not appear in public without being veiled;[1025] and
many others in common use among us; such as, that we pray
with bended knees and with our heads uncovered; that we
administer the sacraments of the Lord, not in a slovenly manner,
but with due decorum; that we observe some decent
order in the burial of the dead; and other things of a similar
nature. Of the second sort are the hours appointed for public
prayers, sermons, and sacraments; quietness and silence under
sermons; the singing of hymns; the places appointed for
these services, and the days fixed for the celebration of the
Lord’s supper;[1026] the prohibition of Paul, that women should
not teach in the Church, and the like; but especially the
regulations for the preservation of discipline, as catechizing,
ecclesiastical censures, excommunication, fastings, and every
thing else that can be referred to the same class. Thus all the
392constitutions of the Church which we receive as holy and useful,
may be classed under two heads; some refer to rites and
ceremonies, others to discipline and peace.
XXX. But, because there is danger here, on the one hand,
that the false bishops may seize a pretext to excuse their impious
and tyrannical laws, and, on the other, that there may be
some persons who, from an excessive fear of falling into the
evils we have mentioned, will reject all ecclesiastical laws,
however holy and useful they may be,—it is necessary to protest,
that I approve of no human constitutions, except such as
are founded on the authority of God, and deduced from the
Scripture, so that they may be considered as altogether Divine.
Let us take, as an example, the kneeling practised during
solemn prayers. The question is, whether it be a human tradition,
which every one is at liberty to reject or neglect. I
answer that it is at once both human and Divine. It is of God,
as it forms a branch of that decorum which is recommended to
our attention and observance by the apostle; it is of men, as it
particularly designates that which had in general been rather
hinted than clearly expressed. From this single example, it is
easy to judge what opinion ought to be entertained of all the
rest. Because the Lord, in his holy oracles, has faithfully comprehended
and plainly declared to us the whole nature of true
righteousness, and all the parts of Divine worship, with whatever
is necessary to salvation,—in these things he is to be regarded
as our only Master. Because, in external discipline and
ceremonies, he has not been pleased to give us minute directions
what we ought to do in every particular case, foreseeing that
this would depend on the different circumstances of different
periods, and knowing that one form would not be adapted to
all ages,—here we must have recourse to the general rules which
he has given, that to them may be conformed all the regulations
which shall be necessary to the decorum and order of the
Church. Lastly, as he has delivered no express injunctions on
this subject, because these things are not necessary to salvation,
and ought to be applied to the edification of the Church,
with a variety suitable to the manners of each age and nation,
therefore, as the benefit of the Church shall require, it will be
right to change and abolish former regulations, and to institute
new ones. I grant, indeed, that we ought not to resort to innovation
rashly or frequently, or for trivial causes. But charity
will best decide what will injure or edify, and if we submit to
the dictates of charity, all will be well.
XXXI. Now, such regulations as have been made upon this
principle and for this end, it is the duty of Christian people to
observe, with a free conscience, indeed, and without any superstition,
yet with a pious and ready inclination; they must not
393treat them with contempt or carelessness, much less violate
them, in an open manner, through pride and obstinacy. It will
be asked, What kind of liberty of conscience can be retained
amidst so much attention and caution? I reply, It will very
well be supported, when we consider, that these are not fixed
and perpetual laws by which we are bound, but external aids for
human infirmity, which though we do not need, yet we all
use, because we are under obligations to each other to cherish
mutual charity between us. This may be observed in the
examples already mentioned. What! does religion consist in
a woman’s veil, so that it would be criminal for her to walk
out with her face uncovered? Is the solemn decree respecting
her silence such as cannot be violated without a capital
offence? Is there any mystery in kneeling, or in the interment
of a dead body, which cannot be omitted without sin? Certainly
not; for if a woman, in the assistance of a neighbour, finds a
necessity for such haste as allows her no time to cover her head,
she commits no offence in running to the place with her head
uncovered. And it is sometimes as proper for her to speak, as
at other times to be silent. And he who from disease is unable
to kneel, is quite at liberty to pray standing. Lastly, it is
better to bury a dead body in proper season, even without a
shroud, than, for want of persons to carry it to burial, to suffer
it to putrefy without interment. Nevertheless, in these things,
the customs and laws of the country we inhabit, the dictates of
modesty, and even humanity itself, will direct us what to do,
and what to avoid; and if an error be incurred through inadvertence
or forgetfulness, no crime is committed; but if through
contempt, such perverseness deserves to be reprobated. So it
is of little importance what days and hours are appointed, what
is the form of the places, what psalms are sung on the respective
days. But it is proper that there should be certain days and
stated hours, and a place capable of receiving all the people, if
any regard be paid to the preservation of peace. For what a
source of contentions would be produced by the confusion of
these things, if every man were permitted to change, at his
pleasure, what relates to the general order, for it would never
happen that the same thing would be agreeable to all, if things
were undetermined and left to the choice of every individual.
If any one object, and resolve to be wiser on this subject than
is necessary, let him examine by what reason he can justify
his obstinacy to the Lord. We ought, however, to be satisfied
with the declaration of Paul, “If any man seem to be contentious,
we have no such custom, nor the Churches of God.”[1027]
XXXII. Now, it is necessary to exert the greatest diligence
394to prevent the intrusion of any error which may corrupt or
obscure this pure use of ecclesiastical regulations. This end
will be secured, if all the forms, whatever they may be, carry
the appearance of manifest utility, if very few are admitted,
and principally if they are accompanied with the instructions
of a faithful pastor, to shut the door against all corrupt opinions.
The consequence of this knowledge is, that every person will retain
his liberty in all these things, and yet will voluntarily impose
some restraint upon his liberty, so far as the decorum we have
mentioned, or the dictates of charity, shall require. In the
next place, it will be necessary, that, without any superstition,
we should attend to the observance of these things ourselves,
and not too rigidly exact it from others; that we should not
esteem the worship of God to be improved by the multitude
of ceremonies; and that one Church should not despise another
on account of a variety of external discipline. Lastly,
establishing no perpetual law of this kind for ourselves, we
ought to refer the use and end of all such observances to
the edification of the Church, according to the exigence of
which we should be content not only with the change of some
particular observance, but with the abolition of any that have
hitherto been in use among us. For that the abrogation of
some ceremonies, not otherwise inconsistent with piety or
decorum, may become expedient from the circumstances of
particular periods, the present age exhibits an actual proof.
For such has been the blindness and ignorance of former times,
Churches have heretofore adhered to ceremonies with such
corrupt sentiments and such obstinate zeal, that it is scarcely
possible for them to be sufficiently purified from monstrous
superstitions without the abolition of many ceremonies, for the
original institution of which, perhaps, there was some cause,
and which are not in themselves remarkable for any impiety.
We come now to the third branch of the power of the
Church, and that which is the principal one in a well regulated
state, which we have said consists in jurisdiction. The whole
jurisdiction of the Church relates to the discipline of manners,
of which we are about to treat. For as no city or town can
395exist without a magistracy and civil polity, so the Church of
God, as I have already stated, but am now obliged to repeat, stands
in need of a certain spiritual polity; which, however, is entirely
distinct from civil polity, and is so far from obstructing or
weakening it, that, on the contrary, it highly conduces to its
assistance and advancement. This power of jurisdiction, therefore,
will, in short, be no other than an order instituted for the
preservation of the spiritual polity. For this end, there were from
the beginning judiciaries appointed in the Churches, to take
cognizance of manners, to pass censures on vices, and to preside
over the use of the keys in excommunication. This order Paul
designates in his First Epistle to the Corinthians, when he
mentions “governments;”[1028] and to the Romans, when he
says, “He that ruleth,” let him do it “with diligence.”[1029] He
is not speaking of magistrates or civil governors, for there were
at this time no Christian magistrates, but of those who were
associated with the pastor in the spiritual government of the
Church. In the First Epistle to Timothy, also, he mentions
two kinds of presbyters or elders, some “who labour in the
word and doctrine,” others who have nothing to do with
preaching the word, and yet “rule well.”[1030] By the latter
class, there can be no doubt that he intends those who were
appointed to the cognizance of manners, and to the whole
exercise of the keys. For this power, of which we now speak,
entirely depends on the keys, which Christ has conferred upon
the Church in the eighteenth chapter of Matthew, where he
commands that those who shall have despised private admonitions
shall be severely admonished in the name of the whole
Church; and that if they persist in their obstinacy, they are to
be excluded from the society of believers.[1031] Now, these admonitions
and corrections cannot take place without an examination
of the cause; hence the necessity of some judicature and order.
Wherefore, unless we would nullify the promise of the keys,
and entirely abolish excommunication, solemn admonitions, and
every thing of a similar kind, it is necessary to allow the Church
some jurisdiction. Let it be observed, that the passage to which
we have referred, relates not to the general authority of the
doctrine to be preached by the apostles, as in the sixteenth
chapter of Mathew and the twentieth chapter of John; but that
the power of the sanhedrim is for the future transferred to the
Church of Christ. Till that time, the Jews had their own
method of government, which, as far as regards the pure institution,
Jesus Christ established in his Church, and that with a
severe sanction. For this was absolutely necessary, because the
396judgment of an ignoble and despised Church might otherwise be
treated with contempt by presumptuous and proud men. And
that the readers may not be embarrassed by the circumstance
of Christ having used the same words to express different things,
it will be useful to solve this difficulty. There are two places
which speak of binding and loosing. One is in the sixteenth
chapter of Matthew, where Christ, after having promised Peter
that he would “give” him “the keys of the kingdom of
heaven,”[1032] immediately adds, “Whatsoever thou shalt bind
on earth, shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt
loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven.” In these words he
means precisely the same as he intends in other language
recorded by John, when, being about to send forth his disciples
to preach, after having “breathed on them,” he said, “Whose
soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose
soever sins ye retain, they are retained.”[1033] I shall offer an
interpretation of this passage, without any subtlety, violence,
or perversion, but natural, suitable, and obvious. This command
respecting the remission and retention of sins, and the promise
made to Peter respecting binding and loosing, ought to be
wholly referred to the ministry of the word, which when our
Lord committed to the apostles, he at the same time invested
them with the power of binding and loosing. For what is the
sum of the gospel, but that, being all slaves of sin and death,
we are loosed and delivered by the redemption which is in
Christ Jesus, and that those who never receive or acknowledge
Christ as their Deliverer and Redeemer, are condemned and
sentenced to eternal chains? When the Lord delivered this
embassy to his apostles, to be conveyed to all nations, in order
to evince it to be his, and to have proceeded from him, he
honoured it with this remarkable testimony, and that for
the particular confirmation both of the apostles themselves,
and of all those to whom it was to be announced. It was of
importance, that the apostles should have a strong and constant
assurance of their preaching; which they were not only to
undertake and execute amidst immense labours, cares, troubles,
and dangers, but were at length to seal with their blood. That
they might know this ministry not to be vain or ineffectual,
but full of power and energy, it was of importance for them, in
circumstances of such great anxiety, difficulty, and danger, to
be persuaded that they were employed in the work of God;
amidst all the hostility and opposition of the whole world, to
know that God was on their side; and though Christ, the
Author of their doctrine, was not present to their view on earth,
to be certain that he was in heaven to confirm the truth of the
397doctrine which he had delivered to them. On the other hand,
also, it was necessary that the most unequivocal testimony
should be given to their hearers, that the doctrine of the gospel
was not the word of the apostles, but of God himself; not a
voice issuing from the earth, but descended from heaven. For
these things, the remission of sins, the promise of eternal life,
and the message of salvation, cannot be in the power of man.
Therefore Christ has testified that, in the preaching of the gospel,
nothing belonged to the apostles, except the ministration of it;
that it was he himself who spoke and promised every thing by
the instrumentality of their mouths; and, consequently, that the
remission of sins which they preached was the true promise of
God, and that the condemnation which they denounced was
the certain judgment of God. Now, this testification has been
given to all ages, and remains unaltered, to certify and assure us
all, that the word of the gospel, by whomsoever it may happen
to be preached, is the very sentence of God himself, promulgated
from his heavenly tribunal, recorded in the book of life, ratified,
confirmed, and fixed in heaven. Thus we see, that the power
of the keys, in these passages, is no other than the preaching of
the gospel, and that, considered with regard to men, it is not so
much authoritative as ministerial; for, strictly speaking, Christ
has not given this power to men, but to his word, of which he
has appointed men to be the ministers.
II. The other passage, which we have mentioned, relative
to the power of binding and loosing, is in the eighteenth chapter
of Matthew, where Christ says, “If any brother neglect to hear
the Church, let him be unto thee as a heathen man and a
publican. Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on
earth, shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever ye shall loose
on earth, shall be loosed in heaven.”[1034] This passage is not
altogether similar to the first, but is to be understood in a
manner somewhat different; though I do not conceive the
difference to be so great, but that there is a considerable affinity
between them. In the first place, they are both alike in this
respect, that each contains a general declaration, the same power
of always binding and loosing,—that is, by the word of God,—the
same command, the same promise. But they differ in this,
that the former passage peculiarly relates to the preaching of the
gospel, which is performed by the ministers of the word;
the latter relates to the discipline, which is committed to the
Church. The Church binds him whom it excommunicates;
not that it consigns him to perpetual ruin and despair, but because
it condemns his life and manners, and already warns him
of his final condemnation, unless he repent. The Church
398looses him whom it receives into its communion; because it
makes him, as it were, a partaker of the unity which it has in
Christ Jesus. That no man, therefore, may contemn the judgment
of the Church, or consider it as of little consequence that
he is condemned by the voice of believers, the Lord testifies
that such judgment of believers is no other than the promulgation
of his sentence, and that what they do on earth shall be
ratified in heaven. For they have the word of God, by which
they condemn the perverse; they have the same word, by
which they receive penitents into favour; and they cannot err
or dissent from the judgment of God, because they judge only
by the Divine law, which is not an uncertain or earthly opinion,
but the holy will and heavenly oracle of God. From these two
passages, which I think I have familiarly and correctly, as well
as concisely, explained, these unreasonable men, without any
judgment, under the influence of misguided zeal, endeavour to
establish, sometimes auricular confession, sometimes excommunication,
sometimes jurisdiction, sometimes the right of legislation,
and sometimes indulgences. The former passage they
allege to support the primacy of the Roman see. They are so
expert in fitting their keys to any locks and doors they please,
that it should seem as if they had followed the business of
locksmiths all their lifetime.
III. The opinion entertained by some persons, that these
things were only temporary, while all civil magistrates were
strangers to the profession of Christianity, is a mistake for want
of considering the great distinction, and the nature of the difference,
between the ecclesiastical and civil power. For the Church
has no power of the sword to punish or to coerce, no authority to
compel, no prisons, fines, or other punishments, like those inflicted
by the civil magistrate. Besides, the object of this power is, not
that he who has transgressed may be punished against his will
but that he may profess his repentance by a voluntary submission
to chastisement. The difference therefore is very great;
because the Church does not assume to itself what belongs
to the magistrate, nor can the magistrate execute that which
is executed by the Church. This will be better understood by
an example. Is any man intoxicated? In a well regulated
city he will be punished by imprisonment. Has he committed
fornication? He will receive the same or a severer punishment.
With this, the laws, the magistrate, and the civil judgment,
will all be satisfied; though it may happen that he will give no
sign of repentance, but will rather murmur and repine against his
punishment. Will the Church stop here? Such persons cannot
be admitted to the sacred supper without doing an injury to
Christ and to his holy institution. And reason requires, that he
who has offended the Church with an evil example, should
399remove, by a solemn declaration of repentance, the offence which
he has excited. The argument adduced by those who espouse a
contrary opinion, is of no force. They say, that Christ assigned
this office to the Church, when there was no magistrate to execute
it. But it frequently happens that the magistrate is too negligent,
and sometimes that he even deserves to be chastised
himself; which was the case with the emperor Theodosius.
Besides, the same argument might be extended to the whole
ministry of the word. Now, then, according to them, pastors
must no longer censure notorious crimes; they must cease to
chide, to reprove, to rebuke; for there are Christian magistrates,
whose duty it is to correct such offences by the civil sword.
But as it is the duty of the magistrate, by punishment and
corporeal coercion, to purge the Church from offences, so it behoves
the minister of the word, on his part, to relieve the magistrate
by preventing the multiplication of offenders. Their
respective operations ought to be so connected as to be an assistance,
and not an obstruction to each other.
IV. And, indeed, whoever will closely examine the words of
Christ, will easily perceive that they describe the stated and
perpetual order, and not any temporary regulation, of the
Church. For it is unreasonable for us to bring an accusation
before a magistrate, against those who refuse to submit to our
admonitions; yet this would be necessary if the magistrate
succeeded to this office of the Church. What shall we say of
this promise, “Verily I say unto thee, whatsoever ye shall bind
on earth, shall be bound in heaven?” Was it only for one, or
for a few years? Besides, Christ here instituted nothing new,
but followed the custom always observed in the ancient Church
of his own nation; thereby signifying, that the spiritual jurisdiction,
which had been exercised from the beginning, was
indispensable to the Church. And this has been confirmed by
the consent of all ages. For when emperors and magistrates
began to assume the profession of Christianity, the spiritual
jurisdiction was not in consequence abolished, but only regulated
in such a manner as neither to derogate from the civil
power, nor to be confounded with it. And that justly; for a
pious magistrate will not wish to exempt himself from the
common subjection of the children of God, which in no small
degree consists in submitting to the Church, when it judges by
the word of God: so very far is it from being his duty to abolish
such a judicature. “For what is more honourable,” says Ambrose,
“than for the emperor to be called the son of the Church?
For a good emperor is within the Church, not above the Church.”
Wherefore those who, to exalt the magistrate, despoil the Church
of this power, not only pervert the language of Christ by a false
interpretation, but pass a most severe censure on all the holy
400bishops who have lived since the time of the apostles, for having
usurped to themselves, under a false pretext, the honour and
dignity which belonged to the magistrate.
V. But, on the other hand, it is also worth while to examine
what was the true and ancient use of the jurisdiction of the
Church, and what a great abuse of it has been introduced;
that we may know what ought to be abrogated, and what
ought to be restored from antiquity, if we would overturn the
reign of Antichrist, and reëstablish the true kingdom of Christ.
In the first place, the object to be secured is the prevention of
offences, or the abolition of any that may have arisen. In the
use of it, two things require to be considered; first, that this
spiritual power be entirely separated from the power of the
sword; secondly, that it be administered, not at the pleasure
of one man, but by a legitimate assembly. Both these things
were observed in the purer ages of the Church. For the holy
bishops never exercised their authority by fines, imprisonments,
or other civil punishments; but, as became them, employed
nothing but the word of the Lord. For the severest vengeance,
the ultimate punishment of the Church, is excommunication,
which is never resorted to without absolute necessity. Now,
excommunication requires no external force, but is content with
the power of the word of God. In short, the jurisdiction of the
primitive Church was no other than a practical exposition of the
description which Paul gives of the spiritual authority of pastors.
This power he represents as conferred for the purpose of “casting
down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself
against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every
thought to the obedience of Christ; and having in readiness to
revenge all disobedience.”[1035] As this is accomplished by the
preaching of the doctrine of Christ, so to preserve that doctrine
from falling into contempt, they who profess themselves of the
household of faith ought to be judged by what that doctrine
contains. That cannot be done, except the ministry be accompanied
with the power to take cognizance of those who are to
be privately admonished, or more severely censured, and also to
exclude from the communion of the Supper those who cannot
be admitted without a profanation of such a solemn sacrament.
Wherefore when he denies, in another place, that we have any
right “to judge them that are without,”[1036] he makes the children
of the church subject to the censures by which their faults
are chastised, and implies the existence at that time of judicatures
from which none of the believers were exempt.
VI. This power, as we have stated, was not in the hands of
one man, for him to act according to his own pleasure, but
401resided in the assembly of the elders, which was in the Church
what a senate is in a city. Cyprian, when he mentions by
whom it was exercised in his time, generally unites all the
clergy with the bishop; but in other passages he also shows, that
the clergy presided in such a manner, that the people were not
excluded from this cognizance. For he expresses himself in
these words: “From the commencement of my episcopate, I
have determined to do nothing without the counsel of the clergy
and the consent of the people.” But the common and usual
custom was for the jurisdiction of the Church to be exercised
by the council of the presbyters; of whom, as I have observed,
there were two classes; for some were ordained to the office of
teaching, others were only censors of manners. This institution
gradually degenerated from its original establishment; so
that, in the time of Ambrose, the judicial administration of the
Church was wholly in the hands of the clergy; of which he
complains in the following language: “The ancient synagogue,
and afterwards the Church, had elders, without whose advice
nothing was done. I know not by what negligence this practice
has been discontinued, except from the indolence of the doctors,
or rather from their pride, while they wish none but themselves,
to be seen.” We perceive how indignant was that holy man,
that there had been some declension from a better state of things,
though they still retained an order that was at least tolerable.
What would he say now, if he were to see the present deformed
ruins, which exhibit scarcely a vestige of the ancient edifice!
What a complaint would he make! First, in opposition to law
and justice, that which had been given to the Church, the
bishop usurped entirely to himself. This resembles the conduct
of a consul or president, expelling the senate, and seizing the
sole administration of a government. But as the bishop is
superior to other persons in honour, so the assembly or congregation
possesses more authority than one individual. It was a
gross outrage, therefore, for one man to transfer to himself all
the power of the community, and thereby to open a door to
licentious tyranny, to deprive the Church of its rights, and to
suppress and abolish an assembly appointed by the Spirit
of Christ.
VII. But as one evil always produces another, bishops, disdaining
this charge as unworthy of their attention, have delegated
it to others. Hence the creation of officials, to discharge
that duty. I say nothing, at present, of the characters of the
persons; I only assert, that they differ in no respect from civil
judges; yet they still call it a spiritual jurisdiction, where all
the contention is about secular affairs. Though there were no
other evil, what effrontery must they have, to call a court full
of litigation the judicature of the Church! But, it is alleged,
402it employs admonitions, and pronounces excommunication.
Is it thus that they trifle with God? Does a poor man owe a
sum of money? He is cited. If he appear, he is condemned;
after the condemnation, if he do not pay, he is admonished:
after the second admonition, they proceed to excommunication.
If he do not appear to the citation, he is admonished to be
forthcoming: if he delay, he is admonished a second time, and
soon after is excommunicated. I ask, What is there in this that
bears any resemblance to the institution of Christ, the ancient
usage, or the order of the Church? It is further alleged, that
this court also corrects vices. I reply, that acts of fornication,
lasciviousness, and drunkenness, and similar enormities, they
not only tolerate, but sanction and encourage, by a kind of tacit
approbation, and that not only in the people, but even in the
clergy themselves. Among multitudes of offenders, they only
summon a few, either to avoid too flagrant an appearance of
connivance, or for the purpose of extorting money. I say
nothing of the robbery, the rapine, the peculation, the sacrilege,
connected with this office. I say nothing of the characters of
most of the persons selected to discharge it. It is more than
sufficient for us, that while the Romanists boast of their spiritual
jurisdiction, it is easy to show that nothing is more contrary to
the order appointed by Christ, and that it has no more resemblance
to the ancient practice, than darkness has to light.
VIII. Though we have not said all that might be adduced
for this purpose, and what we have said has been condensed
within a small compass, yet I trust we have so refuted our
adversaries, as to leave no room for any one to doubt that the
spiritual power arrogated by the pope and all his hierarchy, is
a tyrannical usurpation, chargeable with impious opposition to
the word of God, and injustice to his people. Under the term
spiritual power, I include their audacity in fabricating new
doctrines, by which they have seduced the unhappy people
from the native purity of the word of God, the iniquitous
traditions by which they have insnared them, and the pretended
ecclesiastical jurisdiction which they exercise by their suffragans,
vicars, penitentiaries, and officials. For if we allow Christ any
kingdom among us, all this kind of domination must immediately
fall to the ground. The power of the sword, which they
also claim, as that is not exercised over consciences, but operates
on property, is irrelevant to our present subject; though in this
also it is worth while to remark, that they are always consistent
with themselves, and are at the greatest possible distance from
the character they would be thought to sustain, as pastors of
the Church. Here I am not censuring the particular vices of
individuals, but the general wickedness and common pest of
the whole order, which they would consider as degraded, if
403it were not distinguished by wealth and lofty titles. If we
consult the authority of Christ on this subject, there is no doubt
that he intended to exclude the ministers of his word from civil
dominion and secular sovereignty, when he said, “The kings
of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them; but it shall not
be so among you.”[1037] For by these words he signifies, not
only that the office of a pastor is distinct from the office of a
prince, but that they are so different, that they can never be
properly united in one man. For though Moses held both these
offices at once, it may be observed, first, that this was the result
of a special miracle; secondly, that it was only a temporary
arrangement, till things should be better regulated. But, as
soon as God prescribed a certain form of government, Moses
was left in possession of the civil administration, and was commanded
to resign the priesthood to his brother; and that for a
very sufficient reason; for it is beyond the ability of nature
for one man to be capable of sustaining the burden of both.
And this has been carefully observed in the Church in all ages.
For as long as any real appearance of a Church remained, not
one of the bishops ever thought of usurping the power of the
sword; so that it was a common proverb in the time of Ambrose,
“That emperors rather coveted the priesthood, than priests the
empire;” for as he afterwards observes, it was the firm and
universal opinion, “That palaces belonged to emperors, and
churches to priests.”
IX. But since a method has been contrived for bishops to
retain the title, honour, and emoluments of their office without
any burden or solicitude, that they might not be left entirely
without occupation, the power of the sword has been given to
them, or rather they have usurped it to themselves. With what
plea will they defend such impudence? Was it for bishops
to perplex themselves with judicial proceedings, to assume the
government of cities and provinces, and to undertake various
other occupations so incompatible with their office, which alone
would furnish them so much labour and employment, that even
if they were entirely and assiduously devoted to it, without the
least distraction of other avocations, they would scarcely be
able to discharge its functions? But they have the hardihood
to boast, that this causes the Church of Christ to flourish with a
glory suitable to its dignity, and at the same time that they
are not too much distracted from the duties of their vocation.
With respect to the first point, if it be a becoming ornament
of the sacred office, for those who sustain it to be elevated to a
degree of power formidable to the greatest monarchs, they have
reason to expostulate with Christ, by whom their honour has
been so grievously wounded. For in their opinion, at least,
404what could have been said more disgraceful than the following
language? “The kings of the Gentiles exercise dominion
over them; but it shall not be so among you.”[1038] Nor has he
prescribed a severer law to his servants than he first imposed
upon himself. “Man,” says he, “who made me a judge or a
divider over you?”[1039] We see he plainly refuses to act the
part of a judge, which he would not have done, had it been a
thing consistent with his office. Will not his servants allow
themselves to be reduced to that rank, to which their Lord
voluntarily submitted himself? With respect to the second
point, I wish they could as easily prove it by experience as
make the assertion. But since the apostles thought it not
right for them “to leave the word of God, and serve tables,”[1040]
this must confound those who are reluctant to admit, that it is
not in the power of the same man to be at the same time a good
bishop and a good prince. For if they, who by the extent of the
gifts with which they were endued, were enabled to sustain far
more numerous and weighty cares than any men who have lived
since their time, after all confessed themselves incapable of
attending to the word of God and the service of tables without
fainting under the burden, how should it be possible for these
men, who are by no means to be compared to the apostles, so
vastly to surpass them in industry? The very attempt has
betrayed the most consummate effrontery and presumptuous
confidence. Yet we see it has been done; with what success,
is obvious; the unavoidable consequence has been the desertion
of their own functions, and intrusion into those which belonged
to others.
X. It has, without doubt, been from small beginnings, that
they have gradually risen to such eminence. For it was not possible
for them to make so great an advance at one step. But
sometimes by fraudulent and secret artifices, they exalted themselves
in a clandestine manner, so that no one perceived the encroachment
till it had been effected: sometimes, when opportunity
offered, by terrifying and menacing princes, they extorted
from them some augmentation of their power; sometimes, when
they saw princes inclined to favour them, they abused their foolish
and inconsiderate pliability. In early times, if any controversy
arose, the believers, in order to avoid the necessity of litigation,
used to refer it to the decision of their bishop, of whose
integrity they were fully satisfied. The ancient bishops were
frequently embarrassed with such arbitrations, which exceedingly
displeased them, as Augustine somewhere declares; but
to save the parties from lawsuits, they reluctantly undertook this
troublesome business. From voluntary arbitrations, which were
405entirely different from the processes of civil courts, their successors
have erected an ordinary jurisdiction. In a subsequent period,
when cities and countries were oppressed with various distresses,
they had recourse to the patronage of their bishops, that
they might be protected by their influence; succeeding bishops,
by wonderful artifice, of protectors have made themselves lords.
Nor can it be denied, that the principal acquisitions they have
made, have been effected by faction and violence. The princes,
who voluntarily invested the bishops with jurisdiction, were
actuated to this by various motives. But though their indulgence
may have exhibited some appearance of piety, yet their
preposterous liberality was by no means adapted to promote the
benefit of the Church, the ancient and genuine discipline of
which they thereby corrupted, or rather, to say the truth, utterly
annihilated. But those bishops who have abused such kindness
of princes to their own profit, have sufficiently evinced, by this
one specimen, that they were in reality no bishops at all. For
if they had possessed a particle of the apostolic spirit, they
would unquestionably have answered, in the language of Paul,
that “the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but”[1041]
spiritual. Instead of this, hurried away with a blind cupidity,
they have ruined themselves, and their successors, and the
Church.
XI. At length the Roman pontiff, not content with small provinces,
first laid his hand upon kingdoms, and then seized upon
the empire. And to assign some plausible pretext for retaining
a possession acquired by mere robbery, he sometimes boasts
that he holds it by Divine right, sometimes pretends the donation
from Constantine, and sometimes pleads some other title. In
the first place, I answer with Bernard, that supposing he could
vindicate his claim by any other reason, yet he cannot establish
it by any apostolic right. “For Peter could not give what he
never possessed; but he left his successors, what he did possess,
the care of the churches. But as the Lord and Master
said of himself, that he was not constituted a judge between
two persons, the servant and disciple ought not to think it any
disgrace not to be judge of all men.” Bernard is speaking here
of civil judgments, for he adds, addressing the pope, “Therefore
your power is over sins, and not over possessions, since it is
for the former, and not for the latter, that you have received
the keys of the kingdom of heaven. For which appears to you
the superior dignity, to remit sins, or to divide lands? There
is no comparison. These low and earthly things are subject
to the judgment of kings and princes of the earth. Why do
you invade the province of others?” Again; “You are made
406a superior. For what purpose? Not to exercise dominion, I
apprehend. However highly we think of ourselves, therefore,
let us remember that we are appointed to a ministry not invested
with a sovereignty. Learn that you want no sceptre, but a
pruning-knife, to cultivate the Lord’s vineyard.” Again: “It is
plain that sovereignty is forbidden to the apostles. Go then, if
you dare, and sustaining the office of a temporal sovereign, usurp
the name of an apostle, or filling an apostolical office, usurp a
temporal sovereignty.” And immediately after: “This is the
apostolic form: they are forbidden to exercise any dominion;
they are commanded to minister and serve.” Though all these
observations of Bernard are evidently consistent with the truth,
and even though the true state of the case must be obvious to all
without any thing being said, yet the Roman pontiff was not
ashamed, at the Council of Arles, to decree, that the supreme
power of both swords belonged to him by Divine right.
XII. With respect to the donation of Constantine, persons
who have only a moderate acquaintance with the histories of
those times, need no information how fabulous, and even ridiculous,
this is. But to leave the histories, Gregory, who lived
above four hundred years after, is alone a competent and very
sufficient witness of this fact. For, wherever he speaks of the
emperor, he gives him the title of Most Serene Lord, and calls
himself his unworthy servant. In one place he says, “Let not
our lord, from his earthly power, be too ready to treat priests
with disdain; but with excellent consideration, for the sake of
him whose servants they are, let him rule over them in such a
manner, as at the same time to pay them due reverence.” We
see how, in the common subjection, he wished to be considered
as one of the people; for he is there pleading, not another
person’s cause, but his own. In another place he says, “I trust
in Almighty God, that he will grant a long life to our pious
lords, and will govern us under your hand according to his
mercy.” I have not quoted these passages with any design to
discuss at large this question of the donation of Constantine,
but merely to show my readers, by the way, what a puerile
falsehood it is of the Romanists, to attempt to claim a temporal
sovereignty for their pontiff. And so much the more contemptible
is the impudence of Augustine Steuchus, the pope’s librarian,
who has had the effrontery to prostitute his labours to serve his
master in such a desperate cause. Laurentius Valla had amply
refuted that fable, which was no difficulty to a man of learning
and an acute reasoner; yet, like a man little conversant in
ecclesiastical affairs, he had not said all that would have corroborated
the argument. Steuchus sallies forth, and scatters the
most disgusting trash to obscure the clear light. But, in fact, he
pleads the cause of his master with no more force than if some
407facetious wit, ironically professing the same object, were in
reality supporting the opposite side of the question. But this
cause is well worthy of such advocates as the pope hires to
defend it; and equally worthy are those mercenary scribblers of
being disappointed in their hopes of gain, as was the case with
Eugubinus.
XIII. But if any one inquire the time when this fictitious
empire began to arise, there have not yet elapsed five
hundred years since the pontiffs were still in subjection to the
emperors, and no pontiff was created without the authority of
the emperor. The first occasion of innovation in this order
was given to Gregory VII. by the emperor Henry, the fourth
of that name, a man of rash and unsteady disposition, of no
judgment, great audacity, and dissolute life. For when he had
all the bishoprics of Germany in his court, either exposed to
sale, or to be distributed as a booty, Hildebrand, who had been
offended with him, seized a plausible pretext to avenge himself.
Because he appeared to advocate a good and pious cause, he
was assisted by the favour of many; and Henry, on the other
hand, had rendered himself odious to the generality of princes,
by the insolence of his government. At length Hildebrand,
who assumed the name of Gregory VII., being a man of no
piety or integrity, betrayed the wickedness of his heart; in
consequence of which many, who had concurred with him,
afterwards deserted him. He so far succeeded, however, as to
enable his successors not only to cast off the imperial yoke with
impunity, but even to oblige the emperors to submit to them.
After that time there were many emperors, more like Henry
than like Julius Cæsar, whom there was no difficulty in overcoming
while they were sitting at home in indolence and
unconcern, when there was the greatest necessity for every
vigorous and legitimate exertion to repress the cupidity of the
pontiffs. Thus we see with what plausibility they have represented
this admirable donation of Constantine, by which the
pope pretends himself to have been invested with the sovereignty
of the Western empire.
XIV. From that period the pontiffs have never ceased encroaching
on the jurisdictions, and seizing on the territories, of
others, sometimes employing fraud, sometimes treachery, and
sometimes open war; even the city of Rome itself, which till
then was free, about a hundred and thirty years ago was compelled
to submit to their dominion; in short, they proceeded
to make continual advances, till they attained the power which
they at present possess, and for the retention or augmentation
of which, they have now, for the space of two hundred years,
(for they had begun before they usurped the government of the
city,) so disturbed and distracted the Christian world, that they
408have brought it to the brink of ruin. In the time of Gregory
the First, when the guardians of the ecclesiastical property
seized for themselves the lands which belonged to the Church,
and, according to the custom of princes, set up their titles and
armorial bearings on them in token of their claim, Gregory
assembled a provincial council of bishops, in which he severely
inveighed against that profane custom, and asked whether they
would not excommunicate any ecclesiastic who should attempt
the seizure of property by the inscription of a title, or even any
bishop who should direct such a thing to be done, or if done
without his direction, should not punish it. They all pronounced
that every such offender should be excommunicated. But
if claiming a field by the inscription of a title, be a crime deserving
of excommunication in a priest,—when for two whole
centuries the pontiffs have been meditating nothing but wars, effusion
of blood, slaughter of armies, storming and pillaging cities,
the destruction of nations, the devastation of kingdoms, for the
sole purpose of seizing the dominions of others,—what excommunications
can be sufficient for the punishment of such examples?
It is clear beyond all doubt, that the glory of Christ is the object
furthest from their pursuit. For if they voluntarily resign all
the secular power which they possess, no danger will result to
the glory of God, to sound doctrine, or to the safety of the
Church; but they are infatuated, and stimulated by the mere
lust of dominion; and consider nothing as safe, unless, as the
prophet says, “they rule with force and with cruelty.”[1042]
XV. With jurisdiction is connected the immunity which
the Roman ecclesiastics arrogate to themselves. For they
consider it a degradation for them to appear before a civil
judge in personal causes, and they imagine the liberty and
dignity of the Church to consist in their exemption from the
common judicature and laws. But the ancient bishops, who in
other respects were the most rigid assertors of the rights of the
Church, esteemed it no injury to themselves, or to their order,
to be subject to lay judges in civil causes. The pious emperors
also, without any opposition, always summoned the clergy
before their tribunals, whenever necessity required it. For
this is the language of Constantine, in his epistle to the bishops
of Nicomedia: “If any bishop excite any disturbance by his
indiscretion, his presumption shall be restrained by the authority
of the minister of God, that is, by mine.” And Valentinian
says, “Good bishops never traduce the power of the emperor,
but sincerely observe the commands of God, the sovereign King,
and obey our laws.” At that time this principle was universally
admitted, without any controversy. Ecclesiastical causes were
409referred to the judgment of the bishop. As for example, if any
ecclesiastic had committed no crime against the laws, but was
only charged with offending against the canons, he was not
summoned to the common tribunal, but was judged by the
bishop. In like manner, if a question was agitated respecting
an article of faith, or any other subject properly belonging to the
Church, to the Church the cognizance of it was committed.
In this sense is to be understood what Ambrose writes to the
emperor Valentinian: “Your father, of august memory, not only
answered verbally, but also ordained by edicts, that, in a cause
relating to faith, he ought to judge, who is not disqualified by
office or dignity.” Again: “If we regard the Scriptures or
ancient examples, who will deny that in a cause of faith,—I
say, in a cause of faith,—it is customary for bishops to judge of
Christian emperors, and not emperors of bishops?” Again: “I
would have come to your consistory, sire, if either the bishops
or the people would have suffered me to go; but they say, that
a cause of faith ought to be discussed in the Church, in the presence
of the people.” He contended that a spiritual cause—that
is, a cause affecting religion—ought not to be carried into a
civil court, where secular controversies are agitated; and his constancy
in this respect has been universally and justly applauded.
Yet, notwithstanding the goodness of his cause, he went no
further than to declare, that if the emperor proceeded to employ
force, he would submit. He says, “I will not voluntarily desert
the station committed to me: in case of compulsion, I know
not how to resist, for our arms are prayers and tears.” Let us
observe the singular combination of moderation and prudence
with magnanimity and confidence in this holy man. Justina,
the mother of the emperor, because she could not induce him
to join the Arians, endeavoured to deprive him of his bishopric.
And she would have succeeded in her attempts, if, in compliance
with the summons, he had gone to the palace of the emperor to
plead his cause. Therefore he denied the emperor to be a
competent judge of so important a controversy; and this was
necessary both from the circumstances of that time, and from
the invariable nature of the subject itself. For he was of
opinion, that it was his duty to suffer death rather than, by his
consent, to permit such an example to be transmitted to posterity;
and yet in case of violence being employed, he cherished not a
thought of resistance. For he denied it to be compatible with
the character of a bishop to defend the faith and privileges of
the Church by arms; but in other cases he showed himself
ready to do whatever the emperor would command. “If he
demands tribute,” says he, “we do not refuse it; the lands
of the Church pay tribute. If he demands the lands, he has
power to take them; none of us will oppose him.” Gregory
410also speaks in a similar manner. “I am not ignorant,” he says,
“of the mind of our most serene lord, that he is not in the habit
of interfering in sacerdotal causes, lest he should in any respect
be burdened with our sins.” He does not entirely exclude the
emperor from judging priests, but observes that there are certain
causes which he ought to leave to the decision of the Church.
XVI. And even in this exception, the sole object of these
holy men was to prevent the tyrannical violence and caprice of
princes less favourable to religion from obstructing the Church
in the discharge of its duty. For they did not disapprove of
the occasional interposition of princes in ecclesiastical affairs,
provided they would exert their authority for the preservation
of the order of the Church, and not for the disturbance of it; for
the establishment of discipline, and not for its relaxation. For
as the Church neither possesses, nor ought to desire, the power to
constrain,—I speak of civil coercion,—it is the part of pious
kings and princes to support religion by laws, edicts, and judicial
sentences. For this reason, when the emperor Mauritius commanded
certain bishops to receive their neighbouring colleagues,
who had been expelled from their sees by the barbarians, Gregory
confirmed this command, and exhorted them to obey it.
And when he himself was admonished by the same emperor to
be reconciled to John, the bishop of Constantinople, he did,
indeed, assign a reason why he ought not to be blamed, yet he
boasted no immunity exempting him from the imperial authority,
but on the contrary promised compliance as far as should be
consistent with a good conscience; and at the same time acknowledged
that Mauritius acted in a manner becoming a religious
prince in giving such commands to the bishops.
The discipline of the Church, the discussion of which I have
deferred to this place, must be despatched in a few words, that
we may proceed to the remaining subjects. Now, the discipline
depends chiefly on the power of the keys, and the spiritual
jurisdiction. To make this more easily understood, let us divide
the Church into two principal orders—the clergy and the
people. I use the word clergy as the common, though improper,
appellation of those who execute the public ministry in the
411Church. We shall, first, speak of the common discipline to
which all ought to be subject; and in the next place we shall
proceed to the clergy, who, beside this common discipline, have
a discipline peculiar to themselves. But as some have such a
hatred of discipline, as to abhor the very name, they should
attend to the following consideration: That if no society, and
even no house, though containing only a small family, can be
preserved in a proper state without discipline, this is far more
necessary in the Church, the state of which ought to be the
most orderly of all. As the saving doctrine of Christ is the soul
of the Church, so discipline forms the ligaments which connect
the members together, and keep each in its proper place.
Whoever, therefore, either desire the abolition of all discipline,
or obstruct its restoration, whether they act from design or
inadvertency, they certainly promote the entire dissolution of
the Church. For what will be the consequence, if every man
be at liberty to follow his own inclinations? But such would
be the case, unless the preaching of the doctrine were accompanied
with private admonitions, reproofs, and other means to
enforce the doctrine, and prevent it from being altogether
ineffectual. Discipline, therefore, serves as a bridle to curb
and restrain the refractory, who resist the doctrine of Christ;
or as a spur to stimulate the inactive; and sometimes as a
father’s rod, with which those who have grievously fallen may
be chastised in mercy, and with the gentleness of the Spirit of
Christ. Now, when we see the approach of certain beginnings
of a dreadful desolation in the Church, since there is no solicitude
or means to keep the people in obedience to our Lord, necessity
itself proclaims the want of a remedy; and this is the
only remedy which has been commanded by Christ, or which
has ever been adopted among believers.
II. The first foundation of discipline consists in the use of
private admonitions; that is to say, that if any one be guilty
of a voluntary omission of duty, or conduct himself in an
insolent manner, or discover a want of virtue in his life, or
commit any act deserving of reprehension, he should suffer
himself to be admonished; and that every one should study to
admonish his brother, whenever occasion shall require; but
that pastors and presbyters, beyond all others, should be vigilant
in the discharge of this duty, being called by their office, not
only to preach to the congregation, but also to admonish and
exhort in private houses, if in any instances their public instructions
may not have been sufficiently efficacious; as Paul inculcates,
when he says, that he “taught publicly and from house
to house,” and protests himself to be “pure from the blood of
all men,” having “ceased not to warn every one night and day
412with tears.”[1043] For the doctrine then obtains its full authority,
and produces its due effect, when the minister not only declares
to all the people together what is their duty to Christ, but has
the right and means of enforcing it upon them whom he
observes to be inattentive, or not obedient to the doctrine.
If any one either obstinately reject such admonitions, or manifest
his contempt of them by persisting in his misconduct;
after he shall have been admonished a second time in the
presence of witnesses, Christ directs him to be summoned
before the tribunal of the Church, that is, the assembly of the
elders, and there to be more severely admonished by the public
authority, that if he reverence the Church, he may submit and
obey; but if this do not overcome him, and he still persevere in
his iniquity, our Lord then commands him, as a despiser of the
Church, to be excluded from the society of believers.[1044]
III. But as Jesus Christ in this passage is speaking only of
private faults, it is necessary to make this distinction—that
some sins are private, and others public or notorious. With
respect to the former, Christ says to every private individual,
“Tell him his fault between thee and him alone.”[1045] With
respect to those which are notorious, Paul says to Timothy,
“Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may
fear.”[1046] For Christ has before said, “If thy brother shall
trespass against thee;” which no person who is not contentious
can understand in any other sense, than if our Lord had said,
“If any one sin against thee, and thou alone know it, without
any other persons being acquainted with it.” But the
direction given by the apostle to Timothy, to rebuke publicly
those whose transgressions were public, he himself exemplified
in his conduct to Peter. For when Peter committed a public
offence, he did not admonish him in private, but brought him
forward before all the Church.[1047] The legitimate course, then,
will be,—in correcting secret faults, to adopt the different
steps directed by Christ; and in the case of those which are
notorious, to proceed at once to the solemn correction of the
Church, especially if they be attended with public offence.
IV. It is also necessary to make another distinction between
different sins; some are smaller delinquencies, others are flagitious
or enormous crimes. For the correction of atrocious
crimes, it is not sufficient to employ admonition or reproof;
recourse must be had to a severer remedy; as Paul shows,
when he does not content himself with censuring the incestuous
Corinthian, but pronounces sentence of excommunication
immediately on being certified of his crime. Now, then, we
begin to have a clearer perception how the spiritual jurisdiction
413of the Church, which corrects sins according to the word of
the Lord, is a most excellent preservative of health, foundation
of order, and bond of unity. Therefore when the Church
excludes from its society all who are known to be guilty
of adultery, fornication, theft, robbery, sedition, perjury, false
witness, and other similar crimes, together with obstinate persons,
who, after having been admonished even of smaller faults,
contemn God and his judgment,—it usurps no unreasonable
authority, but only exercises the jurisdiction which God has
given it. And that no one may despise this judgment of the
Church, or consider it as of little importance that he is condemned
by the voice of the faithful, God has testified that it is
no other than a declaration of his sentence, and that what they
do on earth shall be ratified in heaven. For they have the
word of the Lord, to condemn the perverse; they have the
word, to receive the penitent into favour. Persons who believe
that the Church could not subsist without this bond of discipline,
are mistaken in their opinion, unless we could safely
dispense with that remedy which the Lord foresaw would be
necessary for us; and how very necessary it is, will be better
discovered from its various use.
V. Now, there are three ends proposed by the Church in
those corrections, and in excommunication. The first is, that
those who lead scandalous and flagitious lives, may not, to
the dishonour of God, be numbered among Christians; as if
his holy Church were a conspiracy of wicked and abandoned
men. For as the Church is the body of Christ, it cannot be
contaminated with such foul and putrid members without
some ignominy being reflected upon the Head. That nothing
may exist in the Church, therefore, from which any disgrace
may be thrown upon his venerable name, it is necessary to
expel from his family all those from whose turpitude infamy
would redound to the profession of Christianity. Here it is
also necessary to have particular regard to the Lord’s supper,
that it may not be profaned by a promiscuous administration.
For it is certain that he who is intrusted with the dispensation
of it, if he knowingly and intentionally admit an unworthy
person, whom he might justly reject, is as guilty of sacrilege
as if he were to give the Lord’s body to dogs. Wherefore,
Chrysostom severely inveighs against priests, who, from a fear
of the great and the powerful, did not dare to reject any persons
who presented themselves. “Blood,” says he, “shall be
required at your hands. If you fear man, he will deride you;
if you fear God, you will also be honoured among men. Let
us not be afraid of sceptres, or diadems, or imperial robes; we
have here a great power. As for myself, I will rather give up
my body to death, and suffer my blood to be shed, than I
414will be partaker of this pollution.” To guard this most sacred
mystery, therefore, from being reproached, there is need
of great discretion in the administration of it, and this requires
the jurisdiction of the Church. The second end is, that the
good may not be corrupted, as is often the case, by constant
association with the wicked. For, such is our propensity to
error, nothing is more easy than for evil examples to seduce us
from rectitude of conduct. This use of discipline was remarked
by the apostle, when he directed the Corinthians to
expel from their society a person who had been guilty of
incest. “A little leaven,” says he, “leaveneth the whole
lump.”[1048] And the apostle perceived such great danger
from this quarter, that he even interdicted believers from all
social intercourse with the wicked. “I have written unto you,
not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a
fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard,
or an extortioner; with such a one, no, not to eat.”[1049] The
third end is, that those who are censured or excommunicated,
confounded with the shame of their turpitude, may be led to
repentance. Thus it is even conducive to their own benefit
for their iniquity to be punished, that the stroke of the rod may
arouse to a confession of their guilt, those who would only be
rendered more obstinate by indulgence. The apostle intends
the same when he says, “If any man obey not our word, note
that man, and have no company with him, that he may be
ashamed.”[1050] Again, when he says of the incestuous Corinthian,
“I have judged to deliver such a one unto Satan, that
the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord;”[1051] that is, as
I understand it, that he had consigned him to a temporal condemnation,
that the spirit might be eternally saved. He therefore
calls it delivering to Satan, because the devil is without
the Church, as Christ is in the Church. For the opinion of
some persons, that it relates to a certain torment of the body
in the present life, inflicted by the agency of Satan, appears to
me extremely doubtful.
VI. Having stated these ends, it remains for us to examine
how the Church exercises this branch of discipline, which
consists in jurisdiction. In the first place, let us keep in view
the distinction before mentioned, that some sins are public,
and others private, or more concealed. Public sins are those
which are not only known to one or two witnesses, but are
committed openly, and to the scandal of the whole Church.
By private sins, I mean, not such as are entirely unknown to
men, like those of hypocrites,—for these never come under the
cognizance of the Church,—but those of an intermediate class,
415which are not without the knowledge of some witnesses, and
yet are not public. The first sort requires not the adoption of
the gradual measures enumerated by Christ; but it is the duty
of the Church, on the occurrence of any notorious scandal,
immediately to summon the offender, and to punish him in
proportion to his crime. Sins of the second class, according
to the rule of Christ, are not to be brought before the Church,
unless they are attended with contumacy, in rejecting private
admonition. When they are submitted to the cognizance of
the Church, then attention is to be paid to the other distinction,
between smaller delinquencies and more atrocious crimes.
For slighter offences require not the exertion of extreme severity;
it is sufficient to administer verbal castigation, and
that with paternal gentleness, not calculated to exasperate or
confound the offender, but to bring him to himself, that his
correction may be an occasion of joy rather than of sorrow.
But it is proper that flagitious crimes should receive severer
punishment; for it is not enough for him who has grievously
offended the Church by the bad example of an atrocious crime,
merely to receive verbal castigation; he ought to be deprived
of the communion of the Lord’s supper for a time, till he shall
have given satisfactory evidence of repentance. For Paul not
only employs verbal reproof against the Corinthian transgressor,
but excludes him from the Church, and blames the Corinthians
for having tolerated him so long. This order was
retained in the ancient and purer Church, while any legitimate
government continued. For if any one had perpetrated a
crime which was productive of offence, he was commanded, in
the first place, to abstain from the Lord’s supper, and, in the
next place, to humble himself before God, and to testify his
repentance before the Church. There were, likewise, certain
solemn rites which it was customary to enjoin upon those who
had fallen, as signs of their repentance. When the sinner had
performed these for the satisfaction of the Church, he was
then, by imposition of hands, readmitted to the communion.
This readmission is frequently called peace by Cyprian, who
briefly describes the ceremony. “They do penance,” he says,
“for a sufficient time; then they come to confession, and by
the imposition of the hands of the bishop and clergy, are restored
to the privilege of communion.” But though the bishop
and clergy presided in the reconciliation of offenders, yet they
required the consent of the people; as Cyprian elsewhere
states.
VII. From this discipline none were exempted; so that
princes and plebeians yielded the same submission to it; and
that with the greatest propriety, since it is evidently the discipline
of Christ, to whom it is reasonable that all the sceptres
416and diadems of kings should be subject. Thus Theodosius,
when Ambrose excluded him from the privilege of communion,
on account of a massacre perpetrated at Thessalonica, laid aside
the ensigns of royalty with which he was invested, publicly
in the Church bewailed his sin, which the deceitful suggestions
of others had tempted him to commit, and implored pardon
with groans and tears. For great kings ought not to think it
any dishonour to prostrate themselves as suppliants before
Christ the King of kings, nor ought they to be displeased at
being judged by the Church. As they hear scarcely any thing
in their courts but mere flatteries, it is the more highly necessary
for them to receive correction from the Lord by the
mouth of his ministers; they ought even to wish not to be
spared by the pastors, that they may be spared by the Lord.
I forbear to mention here by whom this jurisdiction is to be
exercised, having spoken of this in another place. I will only
add, that the legitimate process in excommunicating an offender,
which is pointed out by Paul, requires it to be done,
not by the elders alone, but with the knowledge and approbation
of the Church: in such a manner, however, that the
multitude of the people may not direct the proceeding, but
may watch over it as witnesses and guardians, that nothing
may be done by a few persons from any improper motive.
Beside the invocation of the name of God, the whole of the
proceeding ought to be conducted with a gravity declarative
of the presence of Christ, that there may be no doubt of his
presiding over the sentence.
VIII. But it ought not to be forgotten, that the severity
becoming the Church must be tempered with a spirit of gentleness.
For there is constant need of the greatest caution,
according to the injunction of Paul respecting a person who
may have been censured, “lest perhaps such a one should
be swallowed up with overmuch sorrow;”[1052] for thus a
remedy would become a poison. But the rule of moderation
may be better deduced from the end intended to be accomplished;
for as the design of excommunication is, that the
sinner may be brought to repentance, and evil examples taken
away, to prevent the name of Christ from being blasphemed
and other persons being tempted to imitation,—if we keep these
things in view, it will be easy to judge how far severity ought
to proceed, and where it ought to stop. Therefore, when
the sinner gives the Church a testimony of his repentance,
and by this testimony, as far as in him lies, obliterates
the offence, he is by no means to be pressed any further; and
if he be pressed any further, the rigour is carried beyond its
417proper limits. In this respect, it is impossible to excuse the excessive
austerity of the ancients, which was utterly at variance
with the directions of the Lord, and led to the most dangerous
consequences. For when they sentenced an offender to solemn
repentance, and exclusion from the holy communion, sometimes
for three, sometimes for four, sometimes for seven years,
and sometimes for the remainder of life,—what other consequence
could result from it, but either great hypocrisy or extreme
despair? In like manner, when any one had fallen a second
time, the refusal to admit him to a second repentance, and his
exclusion from the Church to the end of his life, was neither useful
nor reasonable. Whoever considers the subject with sound
judgment, therefore, will discover their want of prudence in this
instance. But I would rather reprobate the general custom,
than accuse all those who practised it; among whom it is
certain that some were not satisfied, but they complied with
it because it was not in their power to effect a reformation.
Cyprian declares that it was not from his own choice that he
was so rigorous. “Our patience,” he says, “and kindness
and tenderness, is ready for all who come. I wish all to return
into the Church: I wish all our fellow-soldiers to be assembled
in the camp of Christ, and all our brethren to be received into
the house of God our Father. I forgive every thing; I conceal
much; from a zealous wish to collect all the brotherhood
together, even the sins committed against God I examine not
with rigid severity; and am scarcely free from fault myself,
in forgiving faults more easily than I ought. With ready and
entire affection I embrace those who return with penitence,
confessing their sin with humble and sincere satisfaction.”
Chrysostom is rather more severe; yet he expresses himself thus:
“If God is so kind, why is his priest determined to be so
austere?” We know, likewise, what kindness Augustine exercised
towards the Donatists, so that he hesitated not to
receive into the bishoprics those who renounced their error;
and that immediately after their repentance. But because a
contrary system had prevailed, they were obliged to relinquish
their own judgment, in order to follow the established custom.
IX. Now, as it is required of the whole body of the Church,
in chastising any one who has fallen, to manifest such gentleness
and clemency as not to proceed to the extremity of rigour,
but rather, according to the injunction of Paul, to “confirm
their love toward him,”[1053] so it is the duty of every individual
to moderate himself to the like tenderness and clemency.
Such as are expelled from the Church, therefore, it is not for
us to expunge from the number of the elect, or to despair of
418them as already lost. It is proper to consider them as strangers
to the Church, and consequently from Christ, but this only as
long as they remain in a state of exclusion. And even then,
if they exhibit more appearance of obstinacy than of humility,
still let us leave them to the judgment of God, hoping better
things of them for the future than we discover at present, and
not ceasing to pray to God on their behalf. And to comprehend
all in a word, let us not condemn to eternal death the
person himself, who is in the hand and power of God alone,
but let us content ourselves with judging of the nature of his
works according to the law of the Lord. While we follow this
rule, we rather adhere to the judgment of God than pronounce
our own. Let us not arrogate to ourselves any greater latitude
of judging, unless we would limit the power and prescribe laws
to the mercy of God; for, whenever it seems good to him,
the worst of men are changed into the best, strangers are introduced,
and foreigners are admitted into the Church. And
this the Lord does, to frustrate the opinion and repress the
presumption of men, which would usurp the most unwarrantable
liberty of judging, if it were left without any restraint.
X. When Christ promises that what his ministers bind on
earth shall be bound in heaven, he limits the power of binding
to the censure of the Church; by which those who are excommunicated
are not cast into eternal ruin and condemnation, but,
by hearing their life and conduct condemned, are also certified
of their final condemnation, unless they repent. For excommunication
differs from anathema; the latter, which ought to
be very rarely or never resorted to, precluding all pardon,
execrates a person, and devotes him to eternal perdition;
whereas excommunication rather censures and punishes his
conduct. And though it does, at the same time, punish the
person, yet it is in such a manner, that, by warning him of his
future condemnation, it recalls him to salvation. If he obey, the
Church is ready to re-admit him to its friendship, and to restore
him to its communion. Therefore, though the discipline of
the Church admits not of our friendly association and familiar
intercourse with excommunicated persons, yet we ought to
exert all the means in our power to promote their reformation,
and their return to the society and communion of the Church;
as we are taught by the apostle, who says, “Yet count him not
as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.”[1054] Unless this
tenderness be observed by the individual members, as well as
by the Church collectively, our discipline will be in danger of
speedily degenerating into cruelty.
XI. It is also particularly requisite to the moderation of discipline,
419as Augustine observes in disputing with the Donatists,
that private persons, if they see faults corrected with too little
diligence by the council of elders, should not on that account
immediately withdraw from the Church; and that the pastors
themselves, if they cannot succeed according to the wishes of
their hearts in reforming every thing that needs correction,
should not, in consequence of this, desert the ministry, or
disturb the whole Church with unaccustomed asperity. For
there is much truth in his observation, that “whoever either
corrects what he can by reproof; or what he cannot correct,
excludes, without breaking the bond of peace; or what he
cannot exclude, without breaking the bond of peace, censures
with moderation and bears with firmness; he is free from the
curse, and chargeable with no blame.” In another passage he
assigns the reason; because “all the pious order and method of
ecclesiastical discipline ought constantly to regard the unity of
the Spirit in the bond of peace; which the apostle commands
to be kept by mutual forbearance; and without the preservation
of which, the medicine of chastisement is not only superfluous,
but even becomes pernicious, and consequently is no longer a
medicine.” Again: “He who attentively considers these things
neither neglects severity of discipline for the preservation of
unity, nor breaks the bond of fellowship by an intemperance of
correction.” He acknowledges indeed that it is not only the
duty of the pastors to endeavour to purify the Church from
every fault, but that it is likewise incumbent on every individual
to exert all his influence for the same purpose; and he
fully admits, that a person who neglects to admonish, reprove,
and correct the wicked, though he neither favours them nor
unites in their sins, is nevertheless culpable in the sight of the
Lord; but that he who sustains such an office as to have
power to exclude them from a participation of the sacraments,
and does it not, is chargeable, in that case, not with the guilt
of another, but with a sin of his own; he only recommends
it to be done with the prudence required by our Lord, “lest
while” they “gather up the tares,” they “root up also the wheat
with them.”[1055] Hence he concludes with Cyprian, “Let a
man, therefore, in mercy correct what he can; what he cannot,
let him patiently bear and affectionately lament.”
XII. These remarks of Augustine were made in consequence
of the rigour of the Donatists, who, seeing vices in the Church,
which the bishops condemned by verbal reproofs, but did not
punish with excommunication, which they thought not adapted
to produce any good effects, inveighed in a most outrageous
manner against the bishops, as betrayers of discipline, and by
an impious schism separated themselves from the flock of
420Christ. The same conduct is pursued in the present day by
the Anabaptists, who, acknowledging no congregation to belong
to Christ, unless it be, in all respects, conspicuous for angelic
perfection, under the pretext of zeal, destroy all edification.
“Such persons,” says Augustine, “not actuated by hatred
against the iniquity of others, but stimulated by fondness for
their own disputes, desire either wholly to pervert, or at least
to divide the weak multitude by insnaring them with their
boastful pretensions; inflated with pride, infuriated with obstinacy,
insidious with calumnies, turbulent with seditions, that
their destitution of the light of truth may not be detected, they
conceal themselves under the covert of a rigorous severity;
and those things which the Scripture commands to be done
for the correction of the faults of our brethren, without violating
the sincerity of love, or disturbing the unity of peace, but
with the moderation of a remedial process, they abuse, to an
occasion of dissension and to the sacrilege of schism. Thus
Satan transforms himself into an angel of light, when from
just severity he takes occasion to persuade men to inhuman
cruelty, with no other object than to corrupt and break the
bond of peace and unity; by the preservation of which among
Christians, all his power to injure them is weakened, his insidious
snares are broken, and his schemes for their ruin come to
nothing.”
XIII. There is one thing which this father particularly
recommends—that if the contagion of any sin has infected a
whole people, there is a necessity for the severity and mercy
which are combined in strict discipline. “For schemes of
separation,” he says, “are pernicious and sacrilegious, because
they proceed from pride and impiety, and disturb the good who
are weak, more than they correct the wicked who are bold.”
And what he here prescribes to others, he faithfully followed
himself. For writing to Aurelius, bishop of Carthage, he complained
that drunkenness, which is so severely condemned in
the Scripture, prevailed with impunity in Africa, and persuaded
him to endeavour to remedy it by calling a provincial council.
He immediately adds, “I believe these things are suppressed
not by harshness, severity, or imperiousness, but by teaching
rather than commanding, by admonitions rather than by menaces.
For this is the conduct to be pursued with a multitude
of offenders; but severity is to be exercised against the sins of
a few.” Yet he does not mean that bishops should connive or
be silent, because they cannot inflict severe punishments for
public crimes, as he afterwards explains; but he means that the
correction should be tempered with such moderation, as to be
salutary rather than injurious to the body. And therefore he at
length concludes in the following manner: “Wherefore, also,
421that command of the apostle, to put away the wicked,[1056] ought
by no means to be neglected, when it can be done without
danger of disturbing the peace; for in this case alone did he
intend that it should be enforced; and we are also to observe
his other injunction, to forbear one another in love, endeavouring
to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.”[1057]
XIV. The remaining part of discipline, which is not strictly
included in the power of the keys, consists in this—that the
pastors, according to the necessity of the times, should exhort
the people either to fastings or solemn supplications, or to other
exercises of humility, repentance, and faith, of which the word
of God prescribes neither the time, the extent, nor the form,
but leaves all this to the judgment of the Church. The observation
of these things, also, which are highly useful, was
always practised by the ancient Church from the days of the
apostles; though the apostles themselves were not the first
authors of them, but derived the example from the law and the
prophets. For there we find, that whenever any important
business occurred, the people were assembled, supplications
commanded, and fasting enjoined. The apostles, therefore, followed
what was not new to the people of God, and what they
foresaw would be useful. The same reasoning is applicable to
other exercises by which the people may be excited to duty, or
preserved in obedience. Examples abound in the sacred history,
which it is unnecessary to enumerate. The conclusion to be
deduced from the whole is, that whenever a controversy arises
respecting religion, which requires to be decided by a council or
ecclesiastical judgment; whenever a minister is to be chosen;
in short, whenever any thing of difficulty or great importance
is transacting; and also when any tokens of the Divine wrath
are discovered, such as famine, pestilence, or war;—it is a pious
custom, and beneficial in all ages, for the pastors to exhort the
people to public fasts and extraordinary prayers. If the testimonies
which may be adduced from the Old Testament be rejected,
as inapplicable to the Christian church, it is evident that the
apostles practised the same. Respecting prayers, however, I suppose
scarcely a person will be found disposed to raise any dispute.
Therefore let us say something of fasting; because many, for
want of knowing its usefulness, undervalue its necessity, and
some reject it as altogether superfluous; while, on the other
hand, where the use of it is not well understood, it easily degenerates
into superstition.
XV. Holy and legitimate fasting is directed to three ends.
For we practise it, either as a restraint on the flesh, to preserve
it from licentiousness, or as a preparation for prayers and pious
422meditations, or as a testimony of our humiliation in the presence
of God, when we are desirous of confessing our guilt
before him. The first is not often contemplated in public
fasting, because all men have not the same constitution or health
of body; therefore it is rather more applicable to private fasting.
The second end is common to both, such preparation for prayer
being necessary to the whole Church, as well as to every one of
the faithful in particular. The same may be said of the third.
For it will sometimes happen that God will afflict a whole nation
with war, pestilence, or some other calamity; under such a
common scourge, it behoves all the people to make a confession
of their guilt. When the hand of the Lord chastises an individual,
he ought to make a similar confession, either alone or
with his family. It is true that this acknowledgment lies principally
in the disposition of the heart; but when the heart is affected
as it ought to be, it can scarcely avoid breaking out into
the external expression, and most especially when it promotes the
general edification; in order that all, by a public confession of
their sin, may unitedly acknowledge the justice of God, and
may mutually animate each other by the influence of example.
XVI. Wherefore fasting, as it is a sign of humiliation, is
of more frequent use in public, than among individuals in
private; though it is common to both, as we have already
observed. With regard to the discipline, therefore, of which
we are now treating, whenever supplications are to be presented
to God on any important occasion, it would be right to enjoin
the union of fasting with prayer. Thus when the believers
at Antioch “laid their hands on Paul and Barnabas,” the
better to recommend their very important ministry to God,
they “fasted” as well as “prayed.”[1058] So also when Paul
and Barnabas afterwards “ordained elders in every Church,”
they used to “pray with fasting.”[1059] In this kind of fasting,
their only object was, that they might be more lively and unembarrassed
in prayer. And we find by experience, that after a
full meal, the mind does not aspire towards God so as to be able
to enter on prayer, and to continue in it with seriousness and
ardour of affection. So we are to understand what Luke says
of Anna, that she “served God with fastings and prayers.”[1060]
For he does not place the worship of God in fasting, but
signifies that by such means that holy woman habituated herself
to a constancy in prayer. Such was the fasting of Nehemiah,
when he prayed to God with more than common fervour
for the deliverance of his people.[1061] For this cause Paul
declares it to be expedient for believers to practise a temporary
423abstinence from lawful enjoyments, that they may be more at
liberty to “give themselves to fasting and prayer.”[1062] For
by connecting fasting with prayer as an assistance to it, he
signifies that fasting is of no importance in itself, any further
than as it is directed to this end. Besides, from the direction
which he gives in that place to husbands and wives, to “render
to” each other “due benevolence,” it is clear that he is
not speaking of daily prayers, but of such as require peculiar
earnestness of attention.
XVII. In like manner, when war, pestilence, or famine
begins to rage, or when any other calamity appears to threaten
a country and people, then also it is the duty of pastors to
exhort the Church to fasting, that with humble supplications
they may deprecate the wrath of the Lord; for when he
causes danger to appear, he announces himself as prepared and
armed for vengeance. Therefore, as it was anciently the custom
for criminals to appear with long beards, dishevelled hair,
and mourning apparel, in order to excite the pity of the judge;
so when we stand as criminals before the tribunal of God, it
is conducive to his glory and the general edification, as well
as expedient and salutary for ourselves, to deprecate his severity
by external demonstrations of sorrow. That this was
customary among the people of Israel, it is easy to infer from
the language of Joel; for when he commands to “blow the
trumpet, sanctify a fast, and call a solemn assembly,”[1063] and
proceeds to give other directions, he speaks as of things commonly
practised. He had just before said that inquisition was
made respecting the crimes of the people, had announced that
the day of the Lord was at hand, and had cited them, as criminals,
to appear and answer for themselves; afterwards, he
warns them to have recourse to sackcloth and ashes, to weeping
and fasting, that is, to prostrate themselves before the
Lord with external demonstrations of humility. Sackcloth
and ashes, perhaps, were more suitable to those times; but
there is no doubt that assembling, and weeping, and fastings,
and similar acts, are equally proper for us in the present age,
whenever the state of our affairs requires them. For as it is a
holy exercise, adapted both to humble men and to confess
their humility, why should it be less used by us than by the
ancients in similar necessities? We read that fasting in token
of sorrow was not only practised by the Israelitish Church,
which was formed and regulated by the word of God, but also
by the inhabitants of Nineveh, who had no instruction except
the preaching of Jonah.[1064] What cause, then, is there, why
we should not practise the same? But, it will be said, it is
424an external ceremony, which, with all the rest, terminated in
Christ. I reply, that even at this day it is, as it always has
been, a most excellent assistance and useful admonition to
believers to stimulate them, and guard them against further
provocations of God by their carelessness and inattention, when
they are chastised by his scourges. Therefore, when Christ
excuses his apostles for not fasting, he does not say that fasting
is abolished, but appoints it for seasons of calamity, and
connects it with sorrow. “The days will come,” says he,
“when the bridegroom shall be taken away from them.”[1065]
XVIII. That there may be no mistake respecting the term,
let us define what fasting is. For we do not understand it to
denote mere temperance and abstinence in eating and drinking,
but something more. The life of believers, indeed, ought to
be so regulated by frugality and sobriety, as to exhibit, as far
as possible, the appearance of a perpetual fast. But beside
this, there is another temporary fast, when we retrench any
thing from our customary mode of living, either for a day or
for any certain time, and prescribe to ourselves a more than
commonly rigid and severe abstinence in food. This restriction
consists in three things,—in time, in quality, and in quantity
of food. By time, I mean that we should perform, while fasting,
those exercises on account of which fasts are instituted.
As, for example, if any one fast for solemn prayer, he should
not break his fast till he has attended to it. The quality
consists in an entire abstinence from dainties, and contentment
with simpler and humbler fare, that our appetite may not be
stimulated by delicacies. The rule of quantity is, that we eat
more sparingly and slightly than usual, only for necessity, and
not for pleasure.
XIX. But it is necessary for us, above all things, to be particularly
on our guard against the approaches of superstition,
which has heretofore been a source of great injury to the
Church. For it were far better that fasting should be entirely
disused, than that the practice should be diligently observed,
and at the same time corrupted with false and pernicious opinions,
into which the world is continually falling, unless it be
prevented by the greatest fidelity and prudence of the pastors.
The first caution necessary, and which they should be constantly
urging, is that suggested by Joel: “Rend your heart,
and not your garments;”[1066] that is, they should admonish
the people, that God sets no value on fasting, unless it be
accompanied with a correspondent disposition of heart, a real
displeasure against sin, sincere self-abhorrence, true humiliation,
and unfeigned grief arising from a fear of God; and that fasting
425is of no use on any other account than as an additional
and subordinate assistance to these things. For nothing is
more abominable to God, than when men attempt to impose
upon him by the presentation of signs and external appearances
instead of purity of heart. Therefore he severely reprobates
this hypocrisy in the Jews, who imagined they had satisfied
God merely by having fasted, while they cherished impious
and impure thoughts in their hearts. “Is it such a fast, saith
the Lord, that I have chosen?”[1067] The fasting of hypocrites,
therefore, is not only superfluous and useless fatigue, but
the greatest abomination. Allied to this is another evil, which
requires the most vigilant caution, lest it be considered as a
meritorious act, or a species of divine service. For as it is a
thing indifferent in itself, and possesses no other value than it
derives from those ends to which it ought to be directed, it is
most pernicious superstition to confound it with works commanded
by God, and necessary in themselves, without reference
to any ulterior object. Such was formerly the folly of the
Manichæans, in the refutation of whom Augustine most clearly
shows, that fasting is to be held in no other estimation than
on account of those ends which I here mention, and that it
receives no approbation from God, unless it be practised for
their sake. The third error is not so impious, indeed, yet it is
pregnant with danger, to enforce it with extreme rigour as
one of the principal duties, and to extol it with extravagant
encomiums, so that men imagine themselves to have performed
a work of peculiar excellence when they have fasted.
In this respect, I dare not wholly excuse the ancient fathers
from having sown some seeds of superstition, and given occasion
to the tyranny which afterwards arose. Their writings
contain some sound and judicious sentiments on the subject
of fasting; but they also contain extravagant praises, which
elevate it to a rank among the principal virtues.
XX. And the superstitious observance of Lent had at that
time generally prevailed, because the common people considered
themselves as performing an eminent act of obedience to
God, and the pastors commended it as a holy imitation of
Christ; whereas it is plain that Christ fasted, not to set an example
to others, but in order that by such an introduction to
the preaching of the gospel, he might prove the doctrine not
to be a human invention, but a revelation from heaven. And
it is surprising that men of acute discernment could ever entertain
such a gross error, which is disproved by such numerous
and satisfactory arguments. For Christ did not fast often,
which it was necessary for him to do, if he intended to establish
426a law for anniversary fasts, but only once, while he was
preparing to enter on the promulgation of the gospel. Nor did
he fast in the manner of men, as it behoved him to do, if he
intended to stimulate men to an imitation of him: on the contrary,
he exhibited an example calculated to attract the admiration
of all, rather than to excite them to a desire of emulating
his example. In short, there was no other reason for his fasting
than for that of Moses, when he received the law from the
hand of the Lord. For as that miracle was exhibited in Moses,
to establish the authority of the law, it was necessary that
it should not be omitted in Christ, lest the gospel should seem
to be inferior to the law. But from that time, it never entered
into any man’s mind to introduce such a form of fasting among
the people of Israel, under the pretext of imitating Moses; nor
was it followed by any of the holy prophets and fathers, notwithstanding
their inclination and zeal for all pious exercises.
For the account of Elijah, that he lived forty days without
meat and drink, was only intended to teach the people that
he was raised up to be the restorer of the law, from which
almost all Israel had departed. It was nothing but a vain and
superstitious affectation, therefore, to dignify the fasting of
Lent with the title and pretext of an imitation of Christ. In
the manner of fasting, however, there was at that time a great
diversity, as Cassiodorus relates from Socrates, in the ninth
book of his history. “For the Romans,” he says, “had no
more than three weeks; but during these there was a continual
fast, except on the Sunday and Saturday. The Illyrians and
Greeks had six weeks, and others had seven; but they fasted
at intervals. Nor did they differ less as to the nature of their
food. Some made use of nothing but bread and water; others
added vegetables to fish; some did not abstain from fowl;
others made no distinction at all between any kinds of food.”
This diversity is also mentioned by Augustine, in his second
epistle to Januarius.
XXI. The times which followed were still worse; to the
preposterous zeal of the multitude was added the ignorance
and stupidity of the bishops, with their lust of dominion and
tyrannical rigour. Impious laws were enacted to bind men’s
consciences with fatal chains. The eating of animal food was
interdicted, as though it would contaminate them. Sacrilegious
opinions were added one after another, till they arrived
at an ocean of errors. And that no corruption might be omitted,
they have begun to trifle with God by the most ridiculous
pretensions to abstinence. For in the midst of all the most
exquisite delicacies, they seek the praise of fasting; no dainties
are then sufficient; they never have food in greater plenty,
or variety, or deliciousness. Such splendid provision they call
427fasting, and imagine it to be the legitimate service of God. I
say nothing of the base gluttony practised at that season, more
than at any other time, by those who wish to pass for the
greatest saints. In short they esteem it the highest worship
of God to abstain from animal food, and with this exception,
to indulge themselves in every kind of dainties. On the other
hand, to taste the least morsel of bacon or salted meat and
brown bread, they deem an act of the vilest impiety, and deserving
of worse than death. Jerome relates, that there were
some persons, even in his time, who trifled with God by such
fooleries; who, to avoid making use of oil, procured the most
delicate kinds of food to be brought from every country; and
who, to do violence to nature, abstained from drinking water,
but procured delicious and costly liquors to be made for them,
which they drank, not from a cup, but from a shell. What
was then the vice of a few, is now become common among all
wealthy persons; they fast for no other purpose than to feast
with more than common sumptuousness and delicacy. But I
have no inclination to waste many words on a thing so notorious.
I only assert, that neither in their fastings, nor in any
other parts of their discipline, have the Papists any thing so
correct, sincere, or well regulated, as to have the least occasion
to pride themselves upon any thing being left among them
worthy of praise.
XXII. There remains the second part of the discipline of
the Church, which particularly relates to the clergy. It is contained
in the canons which the ancient bishops imposed on
themselves and their order; such as these: That no ecclesiastic
should employ his time in hunting, gambling, or feasting;
that no one should engage in usury or commerce; that no one
should be present at dissolute dances; and other similar injunctions.
Penalties were likewise annexed, to confirm the authority
of the canons, and to prevent their being violated with impunity.
For this end, to every bishop was committed the government of
his clergy, to rule them according to the canons, and to oblige
them to do their duty. For this purpose were instituted annual
visitations and synods, that if any one were negligent in his
duty, he might be admonished, and that any one who committed
a fault might be corrected according to his offence. The
bishops also had their provincial councils, once every year, and
anciently even twice a year, by which they were judged, if
they had committed any breach of their duty. For if a bishop
was too severe or violent against his clergy, there was a right of
appeal to the provincial councils, even though there was only a
single complainant. The severest punishment was the deposition
of the offender from his office, and his exclusion for a time
from the communion. And because this was a perpetual regulation,
428they never used to dissolve a provincial council without appointing
a time and place for the next. For, to summon a universal
council, was the exclusive prerogative of the emperor, as
all the ancient records testify. As long as this severity continued,
the clergy required nothing more from the people than
they exemplified in their own conduct. Indeed, they were far
more severe to themselves than to the laity; and it is reasonable
that the people should be ruled with a milder and less rigid discipline;
and that the clergy should inflict heavier censures, and
exercise far less indulgence to themselves than to other persons.
How all this has become obsolete, it is unnecessary to relate,
when nothing can be imagined more licentious and dissolute
than this order of men in the present day; and their profligacy
has gone to such a length, that the whole world is exclaiming
against them. That all antiquity may not appear to have been
entirely forgotten by them, I confess, they deceive the eyes of the
simple with certain shadows, but these bear no more resemblance
to the ancient usages, than the mimicry of an ape to the rational
and considerate conduct of men. There is a remarkable passage
in Xenophon, where he states how shamefully the Persians had
degenerated from the virtues of their ancestors, and, from an
austere course of life, had sunk into delicacy and effeminacy,
but that, to conceal their shame, they sedulously observed the
ancient forms. For whereas, in the time of Cyrus, sobriety and
temperance were carried so far, that it was unnecessary, and was
even considered as a disgrace for any one to blow his nose, their
posterity continued scrupulously to refrain from this act; but to
absorb the mucus, and retain the fetid humours produced by their
gluttony, even till they almost putrefied, was held quite allowable.
So, according to the ancient rule, it was unlawful to bring cups
to the table; but they had no objection to drink wine till they
were obliged to be carried away drunk. It had been an established
custom to eat only one meal a day; these good successors
had not abolished this custom, but they had continued their
banquets from noon to midnight. Because their ancient law enjoined
men to finish their day’s journey fasting, it continued to
be a permanent custom among them; but they were at liberty,
and it was the general practice, for the sake of avoiding fatigue, to
contract the journey to two hours. Whenever the Papists bring
forward their degenerate rules, for the purpose of showing their
resemblance to the holy fathers, this example will sufficiently
expose their ridiculous imitation, of which no painter could draw
a more striking likeness.
XXIII. In one instance, they are too rigorous and inflexible,
that is, in not permitting priests to marry. With what impunity
fornication rages among them, it is unnecessary to remark;
imboldened by their polluted celibacy, they have become hardened
429to every crime. Yet this prohibition clearly shows how
pestilent are all their traditions; since it has not only deprived
the Church of upright and able pastors, but has formed a horrible
gulf of enormities, and precipitated many souls into the abyss
of despair. The interdiction of marriage to priests was certainly
an act of impious tyranny, not only contrary to the word of God,
but at variance with every principle of justice. In the first
place, it was on no account lawful for men to prohibit that
which the Lord had left free. Secondly, that God had expressly
provided in his word that this liberty should not be infringed,
is too clear to require much proof. I say nothing of the
direction, repeatedly given by Paul, that a bishop should be
“the husband of one wife;”[1068] but what could be expressed
with greater force, than where he announces a revelation
from the Holy Spirit, “that in the latter times some shall depart
from the faith, forbidding to marry,” and represents these not
only as impostors, but as disseminating “doctrines of devils.”[1069]
This, therefore, was a prophecy, a sacred oracle of the Holy
Spirit, by which he intended from the beginning to forearm
the Church against dangers—that the prohibition of marriage is
a doctrine of devils. But our adversaries imagine themselves to
have admirably evaded this charge, when they misapply it to
Montanus, the Tatianists, Encratites, and other ancient heretics.
It refers, say they, to those who have condemned marriage
altogether; we by no means condemn it; we merely prohibit
it to the clergy, from an opinion that it is not proper for them.
As if, though this prophecy had once been accomplished in those
ancient heretics, it might not also be applicable to them; or as
if this puerile cavil, that they do not prohibit marriage, because
they do not prohibit it to all, were deserving of the least attention.
This is just as if a tyrant should contend that there can be no
injustice in a law, the injustice of which only oppresses one
part of a nation.
XXIV. They object, that there ought to be some mark to
distinguish the clergy from the laity. As though the Lord
did not foresee what are the true ornaments in which priests
ought to excel. By this plea, they charge the apostle with
disturbing the order and violating the decorum of the Church,
who, in delineating the perfect model of a good bishop, among
the other virtues which he required in him, dared to mention
marriage. I know that they interpret this to mean, that no
one is chosen a bishop who shall have had a second wife.
And I grant that this interpretation is not new; but that it is
erroneous, is evident from the context itself; because he immediately
after prescribes what characters the wives of bishops
and deacons ought to possess. Paul places marriage among
430the virtues of a bishop; these men teach that it is a vice not
to be tolerated in the clergy; and not content with this general
censure, they call it carnal pollution and impurity, which
is the language of Syricius, one of the pontiffs, recited in their
canons. Let every man reflect from what source these things
can have proceeded. Christ has been pleased to put such
honour upon marriage, as to make it an image of his sacred
union with the Church. What could be said more, in commendation
of the dignity of marriage? With what face can
that be called impure and polluted, which exhibits a similitude
of the spiritual grace of Christ?
XXV. Now, though their prohibition is so clearly repugnant
to the word of God, yet they find something in the Scriptures to
urge in its defence. The Levitical priests, whenever it came
to their turn to minister at the altar, were required not to cohabit
with their wives, that they might be pure and immaculate
to perform the sacrifices; it would therefore be exceedingly
unbecoming for our sacraments, which are far more excellent
and of daily recurrence, to be administered by married men.
As though the evangelical ministry and the Levitical priesthood
were one and the same office. On the contrary, the
Levitical priests were antitypes, representing Christ, who, as
the Mediator between God and man, was to reconcile the
Father to us by his perfect purity. Now, as it was impossible
for sinners to exhibit in every respect a type of his sanctity,
yet in order to display some faint shadows of it, they were
commanded to purify themselves in a manner beyond what is
common among men, whenever they approached the sanctuary;
because on those occasions they properly represented Christ, in
appearing at the tabernacle, which was a type of the heavenly
tribunal, as mediators to reconcile the people to God. As the
pastors of the Church now sustain no such office, the comparison
is nothing to the purpose. Wherefore the apostle, without any
exception, confidently pronounces, that “marriage is honourable
in all; but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.”[1070]
And the apostles themselves have proved by their own example
that marriage is not unbecoming the sanctity of any office,
however excellent; for Paul testifies that they not only retained
their wives, but took them about with them.[1071]
XXVI. It has also betrayed egregious impudence, to insist
on this appearance of chastity as a necessary thing, to the great
disgrace of the ancient Church, which abounded with such
peculiar Divine knowledge, but was still more eminent for
sanctity. For if they pay no regard to the apostles, whom
they often have the hardihood to treat with contempt, what
431will they say of all the ancient fathers, who, it is certain, not
only tolerated marriage in bishops, but likewise approved of
it? It would follow that they must have practised a foul
profanation of sacred things, since, according to the notion we
are opposing, they did not celebrate the mysteries of the Lord
with the requisite purity. The injunction of celibacy was
agitated in the council of Nice; for there are never wanting
little minds, absorbed in superstition, who endeavour to make
themselves admired by the invention of some novelty. But
what was the decision? The council coincided in the opinion
of Paphnutius, who pronounced that “a man’s cohabitation
with his own wife is chastity.” Therefore marriage continued
to be held sacred among them, nor was it esteemed
any disgrace to them, or considered as casting any blemish on
the ministry.
XXVII. Afterwards followed times distinguished by a too
superstitious admiration of celibacy. Hence those frequent
and extravagant encomiums on virginity, with which scarcely
any other virtue was in general deemed worthy to be compared.
And though marriage was not condemned as impure, yet its
dignity was so diminished, and its sanctity obscured, that he
who did not refrain from it was not considered as aspiring to
perfection with sufficient fortitude of mind. Hence those
canons, which prohibited the contraction of marriage by those
who had already entered on the office of priests; and succeeding
ones, which prohibited the admission to that office of any
but those who had never been married, or who had abjured all
cohabitation with their wives. Because these things seemed
to add respectability to the priesthood, they were received, I
confess, even in early times, with great applause. But our
adversaries object antiquity against us. I answer, In the
first place, in the days of the apostles, and for several ages
after, the bishops were at liberty to marry; and the apostles
themselves, as well as other pastors of the highest reputation
who succeeded them, made use of this liberty without any
difficulty. The example of the primitive Church we ought to
hold in higher estimation than to deem that unlawful or unbecoming
which was then received and practised with approbation.
Secondly; even that age, which, from a superstitious
attachment to virginity, began to be more unfavourable to
marriage, did not impose the law of celibacy upon the priests as
if it were absolutely necessary, but because they preferred
celibacy to marriage. Lastly; this law did not require the
compulsion of continence in those who were not able to keep
it; for while the severest punishments were denounced on
priests who were guilty of fornication, those who married were
merely dismissed from their office.
432XXVIII. Therefore, whenever the advocates of this modern
tyranny attempt to defend their celibacy with the pretext of
antiquity, we shall not fail to reply, that they ought to restore
the ancient chastity in their priests, to remove all adulterers
and fornicators, not to suffer those, whom they forbid the virtuous
and chaste society of a wife, to abandon themselves with
impunity to every kind of debauchery, to revive the obsolete
discipline by which all indecencies may be repressed, to deliver
the Church from this flagitious turpitude, by which it has been
so long deformed. When they shall have granted this, it will
still be necessary to admonish them not to impose that as necessary,
which, being free in itself, depends on the convenience
of the Church. Yet I have not made these observations from
an opinion that we ought on any condition to admit those
canons which impose the obligation of celibacy on the clergy,
but to enable the more judicious to perceive the effrontery of
our adversaries in alleging the authority of antiquity to bring
disgrace on holy marriage in priests. With respect to the fathers,
whose writings are extant, with the exception of Jerome,
they have not so malignantly detracted from the virtue of marriage,
when they have been expressing their own sentiments.
We shall content ourselves with one testimony of Chrysostom,
because he, who was a principal admirer of virginity, cannot
be supposed to have been more lavish than others in commendation
of marriage. He says, “The first degree of chastity is
pure virginity; the second is faithful marriage. Therefore the
second species of virginity is the chaste love of matrimony.”
It is a thing truly to be deplored, that the Church, after its
liberty had been purchased by the inestimable price of the
blood of Christ, should have been so oppressed with a cruel
tyranny, and almost overwhelmed with an immense mass of
traditions; but the general frenzy of individuals shows that it
has not been without the justest cause, that God has permitted
so much to be done by Satan and his ministers. For it was
not sufficient for them to neglect the command of Christ, and
to endure every burden imposed on them by false teachers,
unless they respectively added some of their own, and so sunk
themselves deeper in pits of their own digging. This was the
433consequence of their rivalling each other in the contrivance of
vows to add a stronger and stricter obligation to the common
bonds. As we have shown that the service of God was corrupted
by the audacity of those who domineered over the Church
under the title of pastors, insnaring unhappy consciences
with their unjust laws; it will not be irrelevant here to expose
a kindred evil, in order to show that men, in the depravity
of their hearts, have opposed every possible obstacle to those
means by which they ought to have been conducted to God.
Now, to make it more evident that vows have been productive
of the most serious mischiefs, it is necessary to remind the
readers of the principles already stated. In the first place, we
have shown that every thing necessary to the regulation of a
pious and holy life is comprehended in the law. We have also
shown, that the Lord, in order to call us off more effectually
from the contrivance of new works, has included all the praise
of righteousness in simple obedience to his will. If these
things be true, the conclusion is obvious, that all the services
which we invent for the purpose of gaining the favour of God,
are not at all acceptable to him, whatever pleasure they may
afford to ourselves; and, in fact, the Lord himself, in various
places, not only openly rejects them, but declares them to be
objects of his utter abomination. Hence arises a doubt respecting
vows which are made without the authority of the express
word of God, in what light they are to be considered; whether
they may be rightly made by Christian men, and how far they
are obligatory upon them. For what is styled a promise among
men, in reference to God is called a vow. Now, we promise to
men either such things as we think will be agreeable to them,
or such as we owe them on the ground of duty. There is
need, therefore, of far greater care respecting vows, which are
addressed to God himself, towards whom we ought to act with
the utmost seriousness. But here superstition has prevailed, in
all ages, to a wonderful degree, so that, without judgment or
discretion, men have precipitately vowed to God whatever was
uppermost in their minds, or even on their lips. Hence those
fooleries, and even monstrous absurdities of vows, by which
the heathen insolently trifled with their gods. And I sincerely
wish that Christians had not imitated them in such audacity.
This ought never to have been the case; but we see, that for
several ages nothing has been more common than this presumption;
amidst the general contempt of the law of God, people
have been all inflamed with a mad passion for vowing
whatever had delighted them in their dreams. I have no wish
to proceed to an odious exaggeration, or a particular enumeration
of the enormity and varieties of this offence; but I have
thought it proper to make these remarks by the way, to show
434that we are not instituting an unnecessary discussion, when
we treat of vows.
II. If we would avoid any error in judging what vows are legitimate,
and what are preposterous, it is necessary to consider three
things—first, to whom vows are to be addressed; secondly,
who we are that make vows; lastly, with what intention vows
are made. The first consideration calls us to reflect, that we
have to do with God; who takes such pleasure in our obedience,
that he pronounces a curse on all acts of will-worship,
however specious and splendid they may be in the eyes of men.
If God abominates all voluntary services invented by us without
his command, it follows, that nothing can be acceptable to
him, except what is approved by his word. Let us not, therefore,
assume to ourselves such a great liberty, as to presume to
vow to God any thing that has no testimony of his approbation.
For the maxim of Paul, that “whatsoever is not of faith is
sin,”[1072] while it extends to every action, is without doubt
principally applicable when a man addresses his thoughts directly
to God. Paul is there arguing respecting the difference
of meats; and if we err and fall even in things of the least
moment, where we are not enlightened by the certainty of
faith, how much greater modesty is requisite when we are undertaking
a business of the greatest importance! For nothing
ought to be of greater importance to us than the duties of
religion. Let this, then, be our first rule in regard to vows—never
to attempt vowing any thing without a previous conviction
of conscience, that we are attempting nothing rashly.
And our conscience will be secure from all danger of rashness,
when it shall have God for its guide, dictating, as it were, by
his word, what it is proper or useless to do.
III. The second consideration which we have mentioned,
calls us to measure our strength, to contemplate our calling,
and not to neglect the liberty which God has conferred on us.
For he who vows what is not in his power, or is repugnant to
his calling, is chargeable with rashness; and he who despises
the favour of God, by which he is constituted lord of all things,
is guilty of ingratitude. By this remark, I do not intend that
we have any thing in our power, so as to enable us to promise
it to God in a reliance on our own strength. For, with the
strictest regard to truth, it was decreed in the council of
Arausium, that nothing is rightly vowed to God but what we
have received from his hand, seeing that all the things which are
presented to him are merely gifts which he has imparted. But
as some things are given to us by the goodness of God, and
other things are denied to us by his justice, let every man
435follow the admonition of Paul, and consider the measure of
grace which he has received.[1073] My only meaning here,
therefore, is, that vows ought to be regulated by that measure
which the Lord prescribes to us, by what he has given us; lest,
by attempting more than he permits, we precipitate ourselves
into danger, by arrogating too much to ourselves. Luke gives
us an example in those assassins who vowed “that they would
neither eat nor drink till they had killed Paul:”[1074] even though
the design itself had not been criminal, yet it would have betrayed
intolerable rashness, to make a man’s life and death
subject to their power. So Jephthah suffered the punishment
of his folly, when, in the fervour of precipitation, he made an
inconsiderate vow.[1075] In vows of this class, distinguished
by mad presumption, that of celibacy holds the preëminence.
Priests, monks, and nuns, forgetting their infirmity, think themselves
capable of celibacy. But by what revelation have they
been taught that they shall preserve their chastity all their lifetime,
to the end of which their vow reaches? They hear the
declaration of God concerning the universal condition of man;
“It is not good for man to be alone.”[1076] They understand,
and I wish they did not feel, that sin remaining in us is attended
with the most powerful stimulants. With what confidence
can they dare to reject that general calling for their whole
life-time, whereas the gift of continence is frequently bestowed
for a certain time, as opportunity requires? In such obstinacy
let them not expect God to assist them, but rather let them
remember what is written: “Thou shalt not tempt the Lord
thy God.”[1077] Now, it is tempting God, to strive against the
nature which he has implanted in us, and to despise the gifts
which he presents, as though they were not at all suitable for
us. And they not only do this, but even marriage itself,
which God has deemed it no degradation of his majesty to
institute, which he has pronounced to be “honourable in all,”
which our Lord Jesus Christ sanctified with his presence,
which he deigned to dignify with his first miracle, they are
not ashamed to stigmatize as pollution, for the mere purpose
of extolling celibacy, however it may be spent, with the most
extravagant encomiums. As though they did not exhibit a
striking proof in their own lives, that celibacy is one thing, and
that virginity is another; and yet they have the consummate
impudence to call such a life angelic. This is certainly doing
a great injury to the angels of God, to whom they compare
persons guilty of fornication, adultery, and other crimes far more
atrocious and impure. And there is not the least need of arguments,
when they are clearly convicted by the fact itself. For
436it is very evident what dreadful punishments the Lord generally
inflicts on such arrogance, self-confidence, and contempt of
his gifts. Modesty forbids me to animadvert on those things
which are more secret, of which too much is already known.
That we are not at liberty to vow any thing which may hinder
us from serving God in our vocation, is beyond all controversy;
as if a father of a family should vow that he will desert his
wife and children, to undertake some other charge; or as if a
person qualified to fill the office of magistrate, on being chosen
to it, should vow that he would remain in a private station.
But the observation we have made, that our liberty ought not
to be despised, has some difficulty, which requires a further
explication. Now, the meaning may be briefly explained in
the following manner: As God has constituted us lords of all
things, and has placed them in subjection to us, in order that
we might use them all for our accommodation, we have no
reason to hope that we should perform a service acceptable to
God, by making ourselves slaves to external things, which
ought to be subservient to our assistance. I say this, because
some persons consider themselves entitled to the praise of
humility, if they entangle themselves with many observances,
from which the Lord, for the best of reasons, intended we should
be exempt. Therefore, if we would escape this danger, let us
always remember, that we are never to depart from that economy
which the Lord has instituted in the Christian Church.
IV. I proceed now to the third consideration which I mentioned;
that it is of great importance with what intention a
vow is made, if we wish it to be approved by God. For as
the Lord regards the heart, and not the external appearance, it
happens that the same action, performed with different designs,
is sometimes acceptable to him, and sometimes highly displeasing.
If any one vow abstinence from wine, as if there were
any holiness in such abstinence, he is chargeable with superstition;
if this be done for any other end which is not improper,
no one can disapprove of it. Now, as far as I am able to judge,
there are four ends to which our vows may be rightly directed.
For the sake of further elucidation, I refer two of them to the
time past, and the other two to the future. To the time past
belong those vows by which we either testify our gratitude to
God for benefits received, or, in order to deprecate his wrath, inflict
punishment on ourselves for sins that we have committed.
The former may be called vows of thanksgiving; the latter,
vows of penitence. Of the former we have an example in
Jacob, who vowed to give to God the tenth of all he should
acquire, if the Lord would bring him again from his exile to
his father’s house in peace.[1078] We have other examples of
437the same kind in the ancient peace-offerings, which used to be
vowed by pious kings and generals, entering on just wars, to
be offered in case they should obtain the victory; or by persons
labouring under more than common difficulty, in case the
Lord would deliver them. Thus we are to understand all
those places in the Psalms which speak of vows.[1079] Vows
of this kind may also be now used among us, whenever God
delivers us from any great calamity, from a severe disease, or
from any other danger. For on such occasions, it is not inconsistent
with the duty of a pious man to consecrate to God
some oblation that he has vowed, merely as a solemn token of
grateful acknowledgment, that he may not appear unthankful
for his goodness. The nature of the second species of vows
will sufficiently appear from only one familiar example. If a
person has fallen into any crime through the vice of intemperance,
nothing prevents him from correcting that vice by
a temporary renunciation of all delicacies, and enforcing this
abstinence by a vow, to lay himself under the stronger obligation.
Yet I impose no perpetual law on those who have
been guilty of such an offence; I only point out what they are
at liberty to do, if they think that such a vow would be useful
to them. I consider a vow of this kind, therefore, as lawful,
but, at the same time, as left to the free choice of every
individual.
V. Vows which regard the future, as I have observed, have
for their object, partly to render us more cautious of danger,
partly to stimulate us to the performance of duty. For example;
a person perceives himself to be so prone to a certain
vice, that, in something not otherwise evil, he cannot restrain
himself from falling into sin; he will commit no absurdity, if
he should deny himself the use of that thing for a season
by a vow. If any one be convinced that this or the other
ornament of dress is dangerous to him, and yet feel excessive
desire for it, he cannot do better than restrain himself by imposing
a necessity of abstinence, in order to free himself from
all hesitation. So, if any one be forgetful or negligent of
the necessary duties of piety, why may he not arouse his
memory, and shake off his negligence by the imposition of a
vow? In both cases, I confess, there is an appearance of pupilage;
but, considered as helps of infirmity, such vows may
be used with advantage by the inexperienced and imperfect.
Vows, therefore, which respect one of these ends, especially
those relating to external things, we shall affirm to be lawful, if
they be supported by the approbation of God, if they be
suitable to our calling, and if they be limited by the ability of
grace which God has given us.
438VI. It will not now be difficult to conclude what ideas
ought to be entertained of vows universally. There is one
vow common to all believers, which is made in baptism, and
confirmed and established by us in the profession of our faith
in the Catechism, and in the reception of the Lord’s supper.
For the sacraments resemble covenants, or instruments of
agreement, by which God conveys his mercy to us, and in it
eternal life; and we, on the other hand, promise him obedience.
Now, the form, or at least the sum of the vow is, that,
renouncing Satan, we devote ourselves to the service of God,
to obey his holy commands, and not to follow the corrupt
inclinations of the flesh. This vow being sanctioned by the
Scripture, and even required of all the children of God, it
ought not to be doubted that it is holy and useful. It is no
objection to this, that no man in the present life performs the
perfect obedience which God requires of us; for as this stipulation
is included in the covenant of grace, which contains
both remission of sins and the spirit of sanctification, the
promise which we then make is connected with, and presupposes
our supplication for mercy, and our solicitation for
assistance. In judging of particular vows, it is necessary to
remember the three rules which we have given, which will
enable us to form a correct estimate of the nature of every
vow. Yet I would not be thought to carry my recommendation,
even of those vows which I maintain to be holy, so far as
to wish their daily use. For though I venture to determine
nothing respecting the number or time, yet, if any person
would follow my advice, he will make none but such as are
sober, and of short duration. For if any one often recur to
the making of many vows, all religion will be injured by their
frequency, and there will be great danger of falling into superstition.
If any one bind himself by a perpetual vow, he will
not discharge it without great trouble and difficulty; or, wearied
by its long continuance, he will at length violate it altogether.
VII. Now, it is evident what great superstition has for some
ages prevailed in the world on this subject. One person vowed
that he would drink no wine; as though abstinence from wine
were a service in itself acceptable to God. Another obliged himself
to fast; another to abstain from meat on certain days, which
he had falsely imagined to possess some peculiar sanctity beyond
others. There were some vows far more puerile, though not
made by children. For it was esteemed great wisdom to vow
pilgrimages to places of more than common holiness, and to
perform the journey either on foot, or with the body half
naked, that the merit might be augmented by the fatigue.
These, and similar vows, with an incredible rage for which the
439world has long been inflamed, examined according to the rules
which we have laid down, will not only be found to be vain
and nugatory, but replete with manifest impiety. For whatever
may be the judgment of the flesh, God holds nothing in greater
abomination than services of human invention. The following
pernicious and execrable opinions are also entertained; hypocrites,
when they have performed these fooleries, suppose
themselves to have attained a high degree of righteousness;
they place the whole substance of piety in external observances;
and they despise all who discover less concern about
these things than themselves.
VIII. To enumerate all the particular kinds of vows, would
answer no good purpose. But, because monastic vows are held
in very high veneration, as they seemed to be sanctioned by the
public authority of the Church, it is proper to make a few
brief remarks respecting them. In the first place, that no one
may defend monachism, as it exists in the present day, under
the pretence of ancient and long-continued prescription, it must
be observed, that the mode of life in monasteries, in ancient
times, was very different from what it is now. They were the
retreats of those who wished to habituate themselves to the
greatest austerity and patience; for the discipline attributed to
the Lacedæmonians, under the laws of Lycurgus, was equalled,
and even considerably exceeded in rigour, by that which was
then practised among the monks. They slept on the ground
without any beds or couches; they drank nothing but water;
their food consisted entirely of bread, herbs, and roots; their
principal dainties were oil, pease, and beans. They abstained
from all delicacy of victuals and ornaments of the body. These
things might be thought incredible, if they were not attested
by persons who saw and experienced them, Gregory of Nazianzum,
Basil, and Chrysostom. But it was by such probationary
discipline that they prepared themselves for higher offices. For
that the monastic colleges were at that time the seminaries,
from which the Church was furnished with ministers, is sufficiently
evident from the examples of those whom we have
mentioned, who were all educated in monasteries, and from
that situation were called to the episcopal office, as well as of
many other great and excellent men of their age. And Augustine
shows that the same custom of supplying ministers for the
Church from the monasteries continued in his time; for the
monks of the Island of Capraria are addressed by him in the
following manner: “We exhort you in the Lord, brethren,
that you keep your purpose, and persevere to the end; and
that, if at any time your mother the Church shall have need
of your labour, you neither undertake the charge with eager
pride, nor refuse it with flattering indolence; but that you obey
440God with gentleness of heart; not preferring your leisure to the
necessities of the Church, whom, if no good men had been
disposed to assist in the production of her children, you cannot
discover how you could yourselves have been born.” He here
speaks of the ministry, which is the means of the regeneration
of believers. Again, in an epistle to Aurelius, he says: “It
causes an occasion of falling to themselves, and a most injurious
indignity to the ecclesiastical order, if the deserters of monasteries
are chosen to clerical offices; while of those who remain
in the monastery, we are accustomed to promote to such offices
only the best and most approved. Unless, perhaps, as the
common people say, A bad dancer is a good musician, so it
should be jocularly said of us, A bad monk will be a good minister.
It is too much to be lamented, if we stimulate monks to such
ruinous pride, and think the clergy deserving of such heavy
disgrace; whereas, sometimes even a good monk will hardly
make a good priest, if he has sufficient continence, and yet
is deficient in necessary learning.” From these passages it
appears that pious men were accustomed to prepare themselves,
by monastic discipline, for the government of the Church,
that they might be the better qualified to undertake such
an important office. Not that all monks attained this end;
or even aimed at it; for they were in general illiterate men,
but those who were qualified were selected.
IX. But Augustine has given us a portraiture of the ancient
monachism, principally in two places; in his treatise On the
Manners of the Catholic Church, in which he defends the
sanctity of that profession against the calumnies of the Manichæans;
and in another book, On the Labour of Monks, in which
he inveighs against some degenerate monks, who had begun to
corrupt that order. The different things which he states, I
shall here collect in a brief summary, using, as far as possible,
his own words. “Despising the allurements of this world,
united in a common life of the strictest chastity and holiness,
they spend their time together, living in prayers, in readings,
and in conferences, neither inflated with pride, nor turbulent
with obstinacy, nor pale with envy. No one possesses any
thing of his own; no one is burdensome to another. By the
labour of their hands, they procure those things which are
sufficient to support the body, without hindering the mind from
devotion to God. Their work they deliver to those who are
called Deans. These Deans dispose of every thing with great
care, and render an account to one, whom they call Father.
Most holy in their manners, preëminent in divine learning, and
excelling in every virtue, these Fathers, without any pride,
consult the welfare of those whom they call children, commanding
them with great authority, and obeyed by them with
441great cheerfulness. At the close of the day, while yet fasting,
every one comes forth from his cell, and they all assemble to
hear the Father; and each of these Fathers is surrounded by
at least three thousand men,” (he is speaking chiefly of Egypt
and the East;) “there they take some bodily refreshment, as
much as is sufficient for life and health; every one restraining
his appetite that he may make but a sparing use even of the
provisions placed before him, which are in small quantities, and
of the plainest description. That they not only abstain from
animal food and from wine, in order to repress libidinous
desires, but from such things as stimulate the appetite with
greater power, in proportion to the opinion entertained by
some persons of their purity; under which pretence a vile
longing after exquisite meats, with the exception of animal
food, is wont to be ridiculously and shamefully defended.
Whatever remains beyond their necessary food, (and the surplus
is considerable, both from the diligence of their hands,
and from the abstemiousness of their meals,) is distributed
to the poor, with greater care than if it had been earned by
those who distribute it. For they are not anxious to have
an abundance of these things, but all their concern is, that none
of their abundance may remain with them.” Afterwards,
having mentioned their austerity, of which he had seen examples
at Milan and other places, he says, “In these circumstances,
no one is urged to austerities which he is unable to
bear; there is no imposition on any one, of that which he refuses;
nor is he condemned by the rest, because he confesses
himself too weak to imitate them; for they remember the high
commendations given of charity; they remember that to the
pure, all things are pure.[1080] Therefore all their industry is
exerted, not in rejecting certain kinds of food as polluted, but in
subduing concupiscence and preserving the love of the brethren.
They remember that it is said, Meats for the belly, and the
belly for meats; but God shall destroy both it and them.[1081]
Yet many strong persons abstain on account of the weak.
Many have a different reason for doing it; they are fond of
living on meaner and less sumptuous food. These persons,
therefore, who are abstemious when in perfect health, if a state
of indisposition requires, partake, without any fear, when they
are sick. Many drink no wine; but this is not from an apprehension
of being defiled with it; for they most humanely cause
it to be given to those who are languid, and cannot obtain
health of body without it; and some, who foolishly refuse it,
they admonish, with brotherly affection, to beware lest their
vain superstition debilitate them rather than promote their holiness.
442Thus they diligently exercise themselves in piety: but
they know that the exercise of the body extends only to a
short time. Charity is principally observed; to charity the
food, the conversation, the apparel, the countenance, are subservient.
They all assemble and combine into one charity;
to violate this, is accounted unlawful, and a sin against God;
if any one resist charity, he is expelled and shunned; if any
one offend against it, he is not suffered to remain a single day.”
As Augustine appears, in these passages, to have exhibited a
portraiture of the true character of ancient monachism, I have
thought proper, notwithstanding their length, to insert them
here; for I saw that, however I might study brevity, yet I
should go into still greater length, if I were to collect the same
things from different authors.
X. My design here is not to pursue the whole argument,
but merely to point out, by the way, the characters of the
monks who belonged to the ancient Church, and the nature of
the monastic profession at that period, that the judicious readers
may be able, from a comparison, to judge of the effrontery of
those who plead antiquity in support of the monachism of the
present day. When Augustine gives us a description of holy
and legitimate monachism, he excludes from it all rigid exaction
or imposition of those things which the Lord in his word
has left free. But there is nothing at the present day more
severely enforced. For they consider it a crime, never to be
expiated, for any one to deviate in the minutest particular from
the rules prescribed in the colour or shape of their apparel, the
kind of food, or other frivolous and uninteresting ceremonies.
Augustine strenuously contends, that it is not lawful for monks
to live in idleness at the expense of others. He denies that
there was such an example to be found in his time in any well
regulated monastery. The present monks place the principal
part of their sanctity in idleness. For if they were divested
of idleness, what would become of that contemplative life, in
which they boast of excelling other men, and of making near
approaches to the life of angels? In fine, Augustine requires
a monachism which would be no other than an exercise and
assistance in the duties of piety, which are enjoined on all
Christians. What! when he represents charity as the principal
and almost only rule of it, can we suppose him to be commending
a conspiracy, by which a few men are closely united to
each other, and separated from the whole body of the Church?
On the contrary, he would have them to enlighten others by
their example, in order to the preservation of the unity of the
Church. In both these respects, the nature of modern monachism
is so different, that it is scarcely possible to find any
thing more dissimilar or opposite. For, not content with that
443piety, to the study of which Jesus Christ commands his servants
constantly to devote themselves, our present monks imagine
I know not what new kind of piety, in the meditation of
which they are become more perfect than all others.
XI. If they deny this, I would wish them to inform me
why they dignify their order alone with the title of perfection,
and deny this character to all the callings appointed by God. I
am not unacquainted with their sophistical solution, that it is
so called, not as containing perfection in it, but because it is
the best calculated of all callings for the attainment of perfection.
When they wish to elevate themselves in the estimation
of the people, to entrap inexperienced and ignorant youths, to
assert their privileges, to extol their own dignity to the degradation
of others, they boast of being in a state of perfection.
When they are so closely pressed, that they cannot
defend such empty arrogance, they have recourse to this subterfuge—that
they have not yet attained perfection, but that
they are in a condition more favourable than any others
for aspiring towards it. In the mean time they retain the
admiration of the people, as though the monastic life, and
that alone, were angelic, perfect, and purified from every
blemish. Under this pretext they carry on a most lucrative
traffic; but their moderation lies buried in a few books. Who
does not see that this is an intolerable mockery? But let us
argue the case as if they really attributed no higher honour to
their profession, than to call it a state adapted to the attainment
of perfection. Still, by giving it this designation, they distinguish
it, as by a peculiar mark, from all other modes of life.
And who can bear that such honour should be transferred to
an institution, which has never received from God even a single
syllable of approbation, and that such indignity should be cast
on all the other callings of God, which have not only been
enjoined, but adorned with signal commendations by his most
holy word? And what an outrageous insult is offered to God,
when a mere human invention is preferred beyond all the kinds
of life which he has appointed and celebrated by his own
testimony!
XII. Now, let them charge me with a calumny in what I
have already alleged, that they are not content with the rule
which God has prescribed to his servants. Though I were
silent on the subject, they furnish more than sufficient ground
for their own accusation; for they openly teach that they
take upon themselves a greater burden than Christ laid upon
his disciples, because they promise to keep the evangelical
counsels, which inculcate the love of our enemies, and prohibit
the desire of revenge and profane swearing, and which,
444they say, are not binding on Christians at large. What antiquity
will they plead here? This notion never entered into
the mind of one of the ancients. They all, with one consent,
declare that there was not a syllable uttered by Christ which
we are not bound to obey; and without any hesitation they
uniformly and expressly represent the passages in question as
commands, which these sagacious interpreters pretend to have
been delivered by Christ merely as counsels. But as we have
already shown that this is a most pestilent error, it may suffice
to have briefly remarked here, that the monachism which
exists at present, is founded on the opinion, which justly deserves
to be execrated by all believers, that some rule of life
may be imagined more perfect than the common one given by
God to all the Church. Whatever superstructure is raised on
this foundation, cannot but be abominable.
XIII. But they adduce another argument in proof of their
perfection, which they consider as most conclusive; our Lord
said to the young man who inquired what was the perfection
of righteousness, “If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou
hast, and give to the poor.”[1082] Whether they do this, I shall
not now dispute; let us at present put the case that they do.
They boast, therefore, that they have been made perfect by
forsaking all that they have. If the whole of perfection consist
in this, what does Paul mean, when he says, “Though I
bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and have not charity, I
am nothing?”[1083] What kind of perfection is that which is
reduced to nothing by the absence of charity? Here they
will be obliged to answer, that though this is the principal, yet
it is not the only work of perfection. But here also they are
contradicted by Paul, who hesitates not to make “charity,”
without any such renunciation, “the bond of perfection.”[1084]
If it is certain, that there is no discordance between the Master
and the disciple,—and Paul explicitly denies the perfection of
a man to consist in the renunciation of his property, and, on
the other hand, asserts that it may exist without that relinquishment,—it
is necessary to examine in what sense we are to
understand the declaration of Christ, “If thou wilt be perfect,
go and sell that thou hast.” Now, there will be no obscurity
in the sense, if we consider, what ought always to be
considered in all the discourses of Christ, to whom the words
are addressed. A young man inquires, “What good thing
shall I do, that I may inherit eternal life?”[1085] As the question
related to works, Christ refers him to the law; and that
justly; for, considered in itself, it is the way of eternal life,
445and is not otherwise insufficient to conduct us to salvation,
than in consequence of our depravity. By this answer Christ
declared, that he taught no other system of life than that
which had anciently been delivered in the law of God. Thus
he at the same time gave a testimony to the divine law as the
doctrine of perfect righteousness, and precluded all calumnies,
that he might not appear, by inculcating a new rule of life, to
incite the people to a departure from the law. The young
man, not indeed from badness of heart, but infected with vain
confidence, replies respecting the precepts of the law, “All
these things have I kept from my youth up.”[1086] It is certain
beyond all doubt, that he was at an immense distance from
that which he boasted of having attained; and had his boast
been true, he would have wanted nothing necessary to complete
perfection. For it has been already proved that the
law contains in itself a perfect righteousness; and it appears
from this passage that the observance of it is called the entrance
into eternal life. To teach him how little proficiency he had
made in that righteousness, which he too confidently replied
that he had fulfilled, it was necessary to investigate and expose
a vice which lay concealed in his heart. He abounded
in riches, and his heart was fixed on them. Because he was
not sensible of this secret wound, therefore, Christ probes it.
“Go,” says he, “sell all that thou hast.” If he had been so
good an observer of the law as he imagined, he would not have
gone away sorrowful on hearing this answer. For he who
loves God with all his heart, not only esteems as worthless
whatever is inconsistent with his love, but also abominates it
as pernicious. Therefore, when Christ commands a rich and
avaricious man to relinquish all his wealth, it is just the
same as if he commanded an ambitious man to renounce all
his honours, a voluptuous man to abandon all his delicacies,
and an unchaste man to forsake all the instruments of temptation.
Thus consciences, which receive no impression from general
admonitions, require to be recalled to a particular sense of
their own guilt. It is in vain, therefore, to extend this particular
argument to a general maxim, as though Christ placed all the perfection
of man in the renunciation of his possessions, whereas
he only meant by this direction to drive this young man, who
betrayed such excessive self-complacency, into a sense of his
malady, that he might perceive himself to be still very far
from the perfect obedience of the law, to which he arrogantly
and falsely pretended. I confess that this passage was misunderstood
by some of the fathers, and that their misconstruction
gave rise to an affectation of voluntary poverty; so that
446they were supposed to be the only happy persons, who renounced
all earthly things, and devoted themselves entirely
to Christ. But I trust that the explication which I have given
will be satisfactory to all good and peaceable persons, so as to
leave them in no doubt of the true meaning of Christ.
XIV. Nothing, however, was further from the intention of
the fathers, than to establish such a perfection as has since
been fabricated by these hooded sophisters, which goes to set
up two kinds of Christianity. For no one had then given birth
to that sacrilegious dogma, which compares the monastic profession
to baptism, and even openly asserts it to be a species
of second baptism. Who can doubt that the fathers would
have sincerely abhorred such blasphemy? As to the concluding
observation of Augustine, respecting the ancient monks,
that they devoted themselves wholly to charity, what need is
there for a word to be said to demonstrate it to be altogether
inapplicable to this modern profession? The fact itself declares,
that all who retire into monasteries separate themselves
from the Church. For do they not separate themselves from
the legitimate society of believers, by taking to themselves a
peculiar ministry and a private administration of the sacraments?
What is a disruption of the communion of the
Church, if this be not? And to pursue the comparison which
I have commenced, and to conclude it at once, what resemblance
have they in this respect to the monks of ancient times?
Though they lived in a state of seclusion from other men, they
had no separate Church; they received the sacraments with
others; they attended the solemn assemblies to hear preaching,
and to unite in prayers with the company of believers;
and there they formed a part of the people. In erecting a
private altar for themselves, what have the present monks
done, but broken the bond of unity? For they have excommunicated
themselves from the general body of the Church,
and have shown contempt of the ordinary ministry, by which
it has pleased God that peace and charity should be preserved
among his servants. All the present monasteries, therefore, I
maintain to be so many conventicles of schismatics, who disturb
the order of the Church, and have been cut off from the legitimate
society of believers. And to place this division beyond
all doubt, they have assumed various names of sects; and
have not been ashamed to glory in that which Paul execrates
beyond all possibility of exaggeration. Unless we suppose that
Christ was divided by the Corinthians, when every one boasted
of his particular teacher;[1087] and that it is now no derogation
from the honour of Christ, when, instead of the name of
447Christians, some are called Benedictines, others Franciscans,
others Dominicans; and when they haughtily assume these
titles to themselves as the badges of their religious profession,
from an affectation of being distinguished from the general
body of Christians.
XV. The differences which I have stated, between the ancient
monks and those of the present age, relate not to manners,
but to the profession itself. Let it, therefore, be remembered by
the readers, that I have spoken of monachism rather than of
monks, and have censured those faults which are not merely
chargeable on the lives of a few, but which are inseparable
from the life itself. The great dissimilarity of their manners
can hardly require a particular representation. It is obvious,
that there is no order of men more polluted with all the turpitude
of vice; none more disgraced by factions, animosities,
cabals, and intrigues. In some few convents, indeed, they live
in chastity; if chastity it must be called, where concupiscence
is so far restrained as not to be publicly infamous; but it is
scarcely possible to find one convent in ten, which is not
rather a brothel than a sanctuary of chastity. What frugality
is there in their food? They are exactly like so many swine
fattening in a sty. But lest they should complain that I
handle them too roughly, I proceed no further; though in the
few particulars upon which I have touched, whoever knows
the matter of fact will acknowledge that I have confined myself
to the simple truth. Augustine, at a time when, according
to his own testimony, monks were so eminent for the
strictest chastity, yet complains that there were many vagabonds
among them, who, by wicked arts and impostures, extorted
money from the unwary, who exercised a scandalous
traffic by carrying about the relics of martyrs, and even sold
the bones of any dead men as the bones of martyrs, and who
brought disgrace on the order by a great number of similar
crimes. As he declares that he had seen no better men than
those who had been improved in monasteries, so he complains
that he had seen no worse men than those who had been corrupted
in monasteries. What would he say, at the present day,
to see almost all monasteries, not only filled, but overflowing,
with so many and such desperate vices? I say nothing but what
is notorious to every person; though this censure is not applicable
to all without any exception. For as the rule and discipline
of holy living has never been so well established in monasteries,
but that there were always some drones very different
from the rest, so I do not say that the monks of the present
day have so far degenerated from that holy antiquity, that there
are not still some good men among their body; but they are
448few, dispersed and concealed among a vast multitude of the
wicked and abandoned; and they are not only held in contempt,
but insulted and molested, and sometimes even treated
with cruelty by the rest; who, according to a proverb of the
Milesians, think that no good man ought to be suffered to remain
among them.
XVI. By this comparison of ancient and modern monachism
I trust I have succeeded in my design of evincing the fallacy
of the plea, which the present men of the hood allege in defence
of their profession, from the example of the primitive
Church; as they differ from the early monks just as apes do
from men. At the same time, I admit that even in the ancient
system which Augustine commends, there is something which
I cannot altogether approve. I grant, they discovered no
superstition in the external exercises of a too rigid discipline;
but I maintain that they were not free from excessive affectation
and misguided zeal. It seemed a good thing to forsake
their property in order to exempt themselves from all earthly
solicitude; but God sets a higher value on pious exertions for
the government of a family, when a holy father of a family,
free from all avarice, ambition, and other corrupt passions,
devotes himself to this object, that he may serve God in a
particular calling. It is a beautiful thing to live the life of a
philosopher in retirement, at a distance from the society of
men; but it is not the part of Christian charity for a man to
act as if he hated all mankind, withdrawing to the solitude
of a desert, and abandoning the principal duties which the
Lord has commanded. Though we should grant that there
was no other evil in this profession, yet certainly this was not
a small one, that it introduced a useless and pernicious example
into the Church.
XVII. Let us now examine the nature of the vows by
which monks in the present day are initiated into this celebrated
order. In the first place, their design is to institute a
new service, in order to merit the favour of God; therefore
I conclude, from the principles already established, that whatever
they vow is an abomination in the sight of God. Secondly,
without any regard to the calling of God, and without
any approbation from him, they invent for themselves a new
mode of life, in conformity with their own inclinations; therefore
I maintain it to be a rash and unlawful attempt, because their
consciences have nothing to rest upon before God, and “whatsoever
is not of faith, is sin.”[1088] Thirdly, they bind themselves
to many corrupt and impious services, comprehended in the
monachism of the present day; therefore I contend, that they
449are not consecrated to God, but to the devil. For why was it
lawful for the prophet to say of the Israelites, that “they sacrificed
unto devils, not to God,”[1089] only because they had corrupted
the true worship of God with profane ceremonies; and why
shall it not be lawful for us to say the same of the monks,
whose assumption of the hood is accompanied with the yoke
of a thousand impious superstitions? Now, what is the nature
of their vows? They promise to God to maintain perpetual
virginity, as if they had previously stipulated with him that
he should exempt them from the necessity of marriage. They
have no room to plead, that they make this vow merely in a
reliance on the grace of God; for as he declares that it is not
given to all men,[1090] we have no right to entertain a confidence
that we shall receive the special gift. Let those who possess
it use it: if they experience disquietude from the stimulations
of passion, let them have recourse to his aid by whom alone
they can be strengthened to resist. If they are unsuccessful, let
them not despise the remedy which is offered to them. For
those who are denied the gift of continence, are undoubtedly
called to marriage by the voice of God. By continence I mean,
not a mere abstinence of the body from fornication, but an unpolluted
chastity of mind. For Paul enjoins the avoidance not
only of external impurity, but also of the internal burning of libidinous
desire.[1091] It has been a custom, they say, from time
immemorial, for persons who intended to devote themselves entirely
to the Lord, to bind themselves by a vow of continence.
I confess that this custom was practised in the early ages; but
I cannot admit those ages to have been so free from every fault,
that whatever was done then must be received as a rule. And
it was only by degrees that in process of time things were carried
to such an extreme of rigour that no one, after having made the
vow, was permitted to recall it. This is evident from Cyprian.
“If virgins have faithfully dedicated themselves to God, let
them persevere in modesty and chastity without any disguise.
Thus, being firm and constant, they may expect the reward of
virginity. But if they will not, or cannot persevere, it is better
for them to be married, than with their pleasure to fall into
the fire.” With what reproaches would they now hesitate to
stigmatize a person who would wish to introduce such a reasonable
limitation of the vow of continence? They have
widely departed, therefore, from the ancient custom, in refusing
to admit the least moderation or relaxation, if any one be found
incapable of performing the vow; and not only so, but they
are not ashamed to pronounce that he commits a greater sin,
450if he remedies his intemperance by taking a wife, than if he
contaminates his body and soul with fornication.
XVIII. But they still pursue the argument, and endeavour
to show that vows of this kind were in use in the times of the
apostles; because Paul says that widows who, after having
been received into the public service of the church, married,
had “cast off their first faith.”[1092] I do not deny that widows
who dedicated themselves and their services to the Church,
thereby entered into a tacit obligation never to marry again;
not because they placed any religion in such abstinence, as
began to be the case afterwards; but because they could not
discharge that office without being at their own disposal, free
from the restraint of marriage. But if, after having pledged
their faith, they contemplated a second marriage, what was
this but renouncing the calling of God? It is no wonder,
therefore, if he says that with such desires “they wax wanton
against Christ.” Afterwards, by way of amplification, he subjoins,
that they failed of performing what they had promised
to the Church, so that they even violated and annulled their
first faith pledged in baptism; which includes an engagement
from every one to fulfil the duties of his calling. Unless it be
thought better to understand the meaning to be, that having,
as it were, lost all shame, they would thenceforward have no
longer any regard for virtue, but would abandon themselves to
every kind of profligacy, and in a licentious and dissolute life
exhibit the greatest contrariety to the character of Christian
women—an interpretation which I much approve. We reply,
therefore, that those widows, who were then received into the
service of the Church, imposed on themselves the condition of
perpetual widowhood; if they afterwards married, we easily
understand their situation to have been as Paul states, that,
casting off shame, they betrayed an insolence unbecoming
Christian women; and that thus they not only sinned in breaking
their faith pledged to the Church, but in departing from
the common obligations of pious females. But first, I deny
that they engaged to remain in a state of widowhood for any
other reason than because marriage would be altogether incompatible
with the office which they undertook; or that they
bound themselves to widowhood at all, except as far as the
necessity of their vocation should require. Secondly, I do not
admit that their profession was so binding, but that even then
it was better for them to marry than to be inflamed with concupiscence,
or to be guilty of any impurity of conduct. Thirdly,
I observe that Paul prescribes that age which is generally beyond
all danger, forbidding any to be received under threescore
451years old; and especially when he directs that the choice shall
be limited to those who have been content with one marriage,
and have thus already given proof of their continence. And
we condemn the vow of celibacy for no other reason, but
because it is unjustly considered as a service acceptable to
God, and is rashly made by those who have not the power to
keep it.
XIX. But how was it possible to apply this passage of Paul
to nuns? For widows were appointed deaconesses, not to
charm God by songs or unintelligible murmurs, and to spend
the rest of their time in idleness; but to serve the poor on
behalf of the whole Church, and to employ themselves with
all attention, earnestness, and diligence, in the duties of charity.
They made a vow of widowhood, not with a view of performing
any service to God in abstaining from marriage, but merely
that they might be more at liberty for the discharge of their
office. Lastly, they made this vow, not in their youth, nor in
the flower of their age, to learn afterwards, by late experience,
over what a precipice they had thrown themselves; but, when
they appeared to have passed all danger, they made a vow
equally consistent with safety and with piety. But, not to
urge the two former considerations, it is sufficient to observe,
that it was not allowable for women to be admitted to make
vows of continence before the age of sixty years; since the
apostle says, “Let not a widow be taken into the number
under threescore years old.” “I will that the younger women
marry and bear children.”[1093] The subsequent admission of
this vow at the age of forty-eight years, then forty years, and
then thirty, can by no means be excused; and it is still more
intolerable that unhappy girls, before they are old enough to
be capable of knowing or having any experience of themselves,
should be inveigled by fraud and compelled by threats to entangle
themselves in those execrable snares. I shall not stay
to oppose the other two vows, made by monks and nuns, of
poverty and obedience. I will only observe, that beside the
many superstitions with which, under existing circumstances,
they are interwoven, they appear to be framed for the purpose
of mocking both God and men. But that we may not seem
too severe in agitating every particular point, we shall content
ourselves with the general repetition already given.
XX. The nature of those vows which are legitimate and
acceptable to God, I think, has been sufficiently declared.
Yet as timid and inexperienced consciences, even after they
are dissatisfied with a vow, and convinced of its impropriety,
nevertheless feel doubts respecting the obligation, and are grievously
452distressed, on the one hand, from a dread of violating
their promise to God, and, on the other, from a fear of incurring
greater guilt by observing it, it is necessary here to offer them
some assistance to enable them to extricate themselves from
this difficulty. Now, to remove every scruple at once, I remark,
that all vows, not legitimate or rightly made, as they
are of no value with God, so they ought to have no force with
us. For if in human contracts no promises are obligatory upon
us, but those to which the party with whom we contract
wishes to bind us, it is absurd to consider ourselves constrained
to the performance of those things which God never
requires of us; especially as our works cannot be good unless
they please God, and are accompanied with the testimony of
our conscience that he accepts them. For this remains a fixed
principle, that “whatsoever is not of faith, is sin;”[1094] by
which Paul intends, that whatever work is undertaken with
doubts, is consequently sinful, because all good works spring
from faith, by which we are assured of their acceptance with
God. Therefore, if it be not lawful for a Christian man to attempt
any thing without this assurance, and if any one through
ignorance has made a rash vow, and afterwards discovered his
error, why should he not desist from the performance of it?
since vows inconsiderately made, not only are not binding, but
ought of necessity to be cancelled; and, also, as they are not
only of no value in the sight of God, but are an abomination
to him, as we have already demonstrated. It is useless to argue
any longer on a subject which does not require it. This one
argument appears to me sufficient to tranquillize pious consciences,
and to liberate them from every scruple—That all
works not proceeding from a pure source, and directed to a legitimate
end, are rejected by God, and rejected in such a manner
that he forbids our continuance, as much as our commencement,
of them. Hence we may conclude, that vows which
have originated in error and superstition, are of no value with
God, and ought to be relinquished by us.
XXI. This solution will furnish an answer to the calumnies
of the wicked, in defence of those who leave monachism for
some honourable way of life. They are heavily accused of
breach of faith and perjury; having broken, as it is commonly
supposed, the indissoluble bond which held them to God and
the Church. But I maintain that there is no bond, where that
which man confirms is abrogated by God. Besides, though we
should grant that they were bound while they were involved in
error and ignorance of God,—now, since they have been enlightened
with the knowledge of the truth, I maintain that the
453grace of Christ has delivered them from the obligation. For if
the cross of Christ possesses such efficacy as to deliver us from
the curse, under which we were held by the law of God, how
much more, then, shall it extricate us from other bonds, which
are nothing but delusive snares of Satan! Whomsoever, therefore,
Christ illuminates with the light of his gospel, there is no
doubt that he liberates them from all the snares in which they
had entangled themselves by superstition. Though they are
not at a loss for another defence, if they are not qualified to
live in celibacy. For if an impossible vow be the ruin of souls,
which it is the will of the Lord to save and not to destroy,—it
follows that it is not right to persevere in it. But the impossibility
of an observance of the vow of continence by those who
are not endued with a special gift, we have already shown,
and without my saying a word, experience itself declares; for
it is notorious what extreme impurity prevails in almost all
monasteries; and if any of them appear more virtuous and
modest than the rest, it does not follow that they are really
more chaste, because they conceal the vice of unchastity.
Thus God inflicts awful punishments on the audacity of men,
when, forgetting their weakness, they covet, in opposition to
nature, that which is denied them, and, despising the remedies
which God had put into their hands, indulge a contumacious
and obstinate presumption that they are able to overcome the
vice of incontinence. For what shall we call it but contumacy,
when any one who is admonished that he stands in
need of marriage, and that it has been given to him by the
Lord as a remedy, not only contemns it, but binds himself by
an oath to persevere in that contempt?
Connected with the preaching of the gospel, another assistance
and support for our faith is presented to us in the sacraments;
on the subject of which it is highly important to lay
down some certain doctrine, that we may learn for what end
they were instituted, and how they ought to be used. In the
first place, it is necessary to consider what a sacrament is.
Now, I think it will be a simple and appropriate definition, if
we say that it is an outward sign, by which the Lord seals in
our consciences the promises of his good-will towards us, to
454support the weakness of our faith; and we on our part testify
our piety towards him, in his presence and that of angels, as
well as before men. It may, however, be more briefly defined,
in other words, by calling it a testimony of the grace of God
towards us, confirmed by an outward sign, with a reciprocal
attestation of our piety towards him. Whichever of these definitions
be chosen, it conveys exactly the same meaning as that
of Augustine, which states a sacrament to be “a visible sign
of a sacred thing,” or “a visible form of invisible grace;” but
it expresses the thing itself with more clearness and precision;
for as his conciseness leaves some obscurity, by which many
inexperienced persons may be misled, I have endeavoured to
render the subject plainer by more words, that no room might
be left for any doubt.
II. The reason why the ancient fathers used this word in
such a sense is very evident. For whenever the author of the
old common version of the New Testament wanted to render
the Greek word μυστηριον, mystery, into Latin, especially where
it related to Divine things, he used the word sacramentum,
“sacrament.” Thus, in the Epistle to the Ephesians, “Having
made known unto us the mystery of his will.”[1095] Again:
“If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God
which is given me to you-ward; how that by revelation he
made known unto me the mystery.”[1096] In the Epistle to the
Colossians: “The mystery which hath been hid from ages and
from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints; to
whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory
of this mystery.”[1097] Again, to Timothy: “Great is the mystery
of godliness; God was manifest in the flesh.”[1098] In all
these places, where the word mystery is used, the author of
that version has rendered it sacrament. He would not say
arcanum, or secret, lest he should appear to degrade the majesty
of the subject. Therefore he has used the word sacrament for
a sacred or Divine secret. In this signification it frequently
occurs in the writings of the fathers. And it is well known,
that baptism and the Lord’s supper, which the Latins denominate
sacraments, are called mysteries by the Greeks; a synonymous
use of the terms, which removes every doubt. And
hence the word sacrament came to be applied to those signs
which contained a representation of sublime and spiritual
things; which is also remarked by Augustine, who says, “It
would be tedious to dispute respecting the diversity of signs,
which, when they pertain to Divine things, are called sacraments.”
455III. Now, from the definition which we have established, we
see that there is never any sacrament without an antecedent
promise of God, to which it is subjoined as an appendix, in
order to confirm and seal the promise itself, and to certify and
ratify it to us; which means God foresees to be necessary, in
the first place on account of our ignorance and dulness, and in the
next place on account of our weakness; and yet, strictly speaking,
not so much for the confirmation of his sacred word, as
for our establishment in the faith of it. For the truth of God
is sufficiently solid and certain in itself, and can receive no
better confirmation from any other quarter than from itself;
but our faith being slender and weak, unless it be supported
on every side, and sustained by every assistance, immediately
shakes, fluctuates, totters, and falls. And as we are corporeal,
always creeping on the ground, cleaving to terrestrial and
carnal objects, and incapable of understanding or conceiving of
any thing of a spiritual nature, our merciful Lord, in his infinite
indulgence, accommodates himself to our capacity, condescending
to lead us to himself even by these earthly elements, and
in the flesh itself to present to us a mirror of spiritual blessings.
“For if we were incorporeal,” as Chrysostom says, “he
would have given us these things pure and incorporeal. Now
because we have souls enclosed in bodies, he gives us spiritual
things under visible emblems; not because there are
such qualities in the nature of the things presented to us in the
sacraments, but because they have been designated by God to
this signification.”
IV. This is what is commonly said, that a sacrament consists
of the word and the outward sign. For we ought to understand
the word, not of a murmur uttered without any meaning or
faith, a mere whisper like a magical incantation, supposed to possess
the power of consecrating the elements, but of the gospel
preached, which instructs us in the signification of the visible
sign. That which is commonly practised under the tyranny of
the pope, therefore, involves a gross profanation of the mysteries;
for they have thought it sufficient for the priest to mutter
over the form of consecration, while the people are gazing in
ignorance. Indeed, they have taken effectual care that it
should be all unintelligible to the people; for they have pronounced
the consecration in Latin, before illiterate men; and
have at length carried superstition to such a pitch, as to consider
it not rightly performed, unless it be done in a hoarse
murmur, which few could hear. But Augustine speaks in a
very different manner of the sacramental word. “Let the
word,” says he, “be added to the element, and it will become
a sacrament. For whence does the water derive such great
virtue, as at once to touch the body and purify the heart,
456except from the word? not because it is spoken, but because
it is believed. For in the word itself the transient sound is
one thing, the permanent virtue is another. ‘This is the
word of faith which we preach,’[1099] says the apostle. Whence
it is said of the Gentiles, in the Acts of the Apostles, that ‘God
purifies their hearts by faith.’[1100] And the apostle Peter says,
‘Baptism doth also now save us, (not the putting away of the
filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience towards
God.)’[1101] ‘This is the word of faith which we preach,’
by which baptism is consecrated to endue it with a purifying
virtue.” We see how he makes the preaching of the word
necessary to the production of faith. And we need not labour
much to prove this, because it is very plain what Christ did,
what he commanded us to do, what the apostles followed, and
what the purer Church observed. Even from the beginning
of the world, whenever God gave the holy fathers any sign,
it is well known to have been inseparably connected with some
doctrine, without which our senses would only be astonished
with the mere view of it. Therefore, when we hear mention
made of the sacramental word, let us understand it of the
promise, which, being audibly and intelligibly preached by the
minister, instructs the people in the meaning and tendency of
the sign.
V. Nor ought any attention to be paid to some, who endeavour
to oppose this by a dilemma which discovers more subtlety
than solidity. They say, Either we know that the word of
God which precedes the sacrament is the true will of God,
or we do not know it. If we know it, then we learn nothing
new from the sacrament which follows. If we do not know
it, neither shall we learn it from the sacrament, the virtue of
which lies entirely in the word. Let it be concisely replied,
that the seals appended to charters, patents, and other public
instruments, are nothing, taken by themselves; because they
would be appended to no purpose, if the parchment had nothing
written upon it; and yet they nevertheless confirm and authenticate
what is written on the instruments to which they are
annexed. Nor can it be objected that this similitude has been
recently invented by us; for it has been used by Paul himself,
who calls circumcision a seal,[1102] σφραγιδα, in a passage where
he is professedly contending that circumcision did not constitute
the righteousness of Abraham, but was a seal of that covenant,
in the faith of which he had already been justified. And what
is there that ought to give any man much offence, if we teach
that the promise is sealed by the sacraments, while it is evident
457that among the promises themselves one is confirmed by
another? For in proportion to its superior clearness, it is the
better calculated for the support of faith. Now, the sacraments
bring us the clearest promises, and have this peculiarity beyond
the word, that they give us a lively representation of them, as
in a picture. Nor ought we to regard the objection, frequently
urged, from the distinction between sacraments and seals of
civil instruments, that while they both consist of the carnal
elements of this world, the former cannot be fit to seal the
promises of God, which are spiritual and eternal, as the latter
are accustomed to be appended to seal the edicts of princes
relative to frail and transitory things. For the believer, when
the sacraments are placed before his eyes, does not confine
himself to that carnal spectacle; but by those steps of analogy
which I have indicated, rises in pious contemplation to
the sublime mysteries which are concealed under the sacramental
symbols.
VI. And since the Lord calls his promises covenants, and the
sacraments seals of covenants, we may draw a similitude from
the covenants of men. The ancients, in confirmation of their
engagements, were accustomed to kill a sow. But what would
have been the slaughter of a sow, if it had not been accompanied,
and even preceded, by some words? For sows were often
slaughtered without any latent or sublime mystery. What
is the contact of one man’s right hand with that of another,
since hands are not unfrequently joined in hostility? But
when words of friendship and compact have preceded, the obligations
of covenants are confirmed by such signs, notwithstanding
they have been previously conceived, proposed, and
determined in words. Sacraments, therefore, are exercises,
which increase and strengthen our faith in the word of God;
and because we are corporeal, they are exhibited under corporeal
symbols, to instruct us according to our dull capacities,
and to lead us by the hand as so many young children. For
this reason Augustine calls a sacrament “a visible word;” because
it represents the promises of God portrayed as in a picture,
and places before our eyes an image of them, in which
every lineament is strikingly expressed. Other similitudes may
also be adduced for the better elucidation of the nature of
sacraments; as if we call them pillars of our faith; for as an
edifice rests on its foundation, and yet, from the addition of
pillars placed under it, receives an increase of stability, so faith
rests on the word of God as its foundation; but when the
sacraments are added to it as pillars, they bring with them an
accession of strength. Or if we call them mirrors, in which
we may contemplate the riches of grace which God imparts to
us; for in the sacraments, as we have already observed, he
458manifests himself to us as far as our dulness is capable of
knowing him, and testifies his benevolence and love towards
us more expressly than he does by his word.
VII. Nor is there any force in their reasoning, when they
contend that the sacraments are not testimonies of the grace of
God, because they are often administered to the wicked, who
yet do not, in consequence of this, experience God to be more
propitious to them, but rather procure to themselves more
grievous condemnation. For, by the same argument, neither
would the gospel be a testimony of the grace of God, because
it is heard by many who despise it, nor even Christ himself,
who was seen and known by multitudes, of whom very few
received him. A similar observation may be applied to royal
edicts; for great numbers of people despise and deride that seal
of authentication, notwithstanding they know that it proceeded
from the monarch to confirm his will; some utterly disregard
it, as a thing not relating to them; others even hold it in
execration; so that a survey of the correspondence of the two
cases ought to produce greater approbation of the similitude
which I have before used. Therefore it is certain that the
Lord offers us his mercy, and a pledge of his grace, both in
his holy word and in the sacraments; but it is not apprehended
except by those who receive the word and sacraments with a
certain faith; as the Father has offered and presented Christ to
all for salvation, but he is not known and received by all.
Augustine, intending to express this sentiment, somewhere says,
that the efficacy of the word is displayed in the sacrament,
“not because it is spoken, but because it is believed.” Therefore
Paul, when he is addressing believers, speaks of the sacraments
so as to include in them the communion of Christ; as
when he says, “As many of you as have been baptized into
Christ, have put on Christ.”[1103] Again: “By one Spirit are
we all baptized into one body.”[1104] But when he speaks of
the improper use of the sacraments, he attributes no more to
them than to vain and useless figures; by which he signifies
that, however impious persons and hypocrites, by their perversion
of the sacraments, may destroy or obscure the effect of
Divine grace in them, yet that, notwithstanding this, whenever
and wherever God pleases, they afford a true testimony of the
communion of Christ, and the Spirit of God himself exhibits
and performs the very thing which they promise. We conclude,
therefore, that sacraments are truly called testimonies of
the grace of God, and are, as it were, seals of the benevolence
he bears to us, which, by confirming it to our minds, sustain,
cherish, strengthen, and increase our faith. The reasons which
459some are in the habit of objecting against this sentiment
are exceedingly weak and frivolous. They allege, that if
our faith be good, it cannot be made better; for that there is no
real faith except that which rests on the mercy of God, without
any wavering, instability, or distraction. It would have been
better for such persons to pray, with the apostles, that the Lord
would increase their faith,[1105] than confidently to boast of such
a perfection of faith, as no one of the sons of men ever yet
attained, or ever will attain, in this life. Let them answer
what kind of faith they suppose him to have possessed, who
said, “Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief.”[1106] For
even that, though yet only in its commencement, was a good
faith, and capable of being improved by the removal of unbelief.
But there is no argument which more fully refutes
them than their own conscience; for if they confess themselves
sinners, which, whatever they may wish, they cannot deny, they
must be obliged to impute it to the imperfection of their faith.
VIII. But they say, Philip answered the eunuch, that he might
be baptized “if” he “believed with all” his “heart.”[1107] And
what room, they ask, is there here for the confirmation of baptism,
where faith fills the whole heart? On the other hand, I
ask them, whether they do not feel a large part of their heart
destitute of faith, and whether they do not daily know some
fresh increase of it. A heathen gloried that he grew old in
learning. We Christians are miserable indeed if we grow old
in making no improvement, whose faith ought to be advancing
from one stage to another till its attainment of perfect manhood.
“To believe with all the heart,” therefore, in this
passage, is not to believe Christ in a perfect manner, but only
signifies embracing him with sincerity of soul and firmness
of mind; not to be filled with him, but to hunger, thirst, and
sigh after him with ardent affection. It is the custom of the
Scriptures to say that any thing is done with the whole heart
which is done with sincerity of mind, as in these and other
passages: “With my whole heart have I sought thee;” “I
will praise the Lord with my whole heart.”[1108] On the contrary,
when it rebukes the fraudulent and deceitful, it reproaches
them with “a double heart.”[1109] Our adversaries further
allege, that if faith be increased by the sacraments, the Holy
Spirit must have been given in vain, whose work and influence
it is to commence, to confirm, and to consummate faith.
I confess that faith is the peculiar and entire work of the Holy
Spirit, by whose illumination we know God and the treasures
of his goodness, and without whose light our mind is too blind
460to be capable of any sight, and too stupid to be capable of the
least relish of spiritual things. But instead of one favour of
God, which they mention, we acknowledge three. For, first,
the Lord teaches and instructs us by his word; secondly, he
confirms us by his sacraments; lastly, he illuminates our minds
by the light of his Holy Spirit, and opens an entrance into our
hearts for the word and sacraments; which otherwise would
only strike the ears and present themselves to the eyes, without
producing the least effect upon the mind.
IX. With respect to the confirmation and increase of faith,
therefore, I wish the reader to be apprized, and I conceive I
have already expressed, in language too plain to be misunderstood,
that I assign this office to the sacraments; not from an
opinion of their possessing a perpetual inherent virtue, efficacious
of itself to the advancement or confirmation of faith;
but because they have been instituted by the Lord for the
express purpose of promoting its establishment and augmentation.
But they only perform their office aright when they are
accompanied by the Spirit, that internal Teacher, by whose
energy alone our hearts are penetrated, our affections are
moved, and an entrance is opened for the sacraments into our
souls. If he be absent, the sacraments can produce no more
effect upon our minds than the splendour of the sun on blind
eyes, or the sound of a voice on deaf ears. I make such a
distinction and distribution, therefore, between the Spirit and
the sacraments, that I consider all the energy of operation as
belonging to the Spirit, and the sacraments as mere instruments,
which, without his agency, are vain and useless, but
which, when he acts and exerts his power in the heart, are
fraught with surprising efficacy. Now, it is evident how, according
to this opinion, the faith of a pious mind is confirmed
by the sacraments; namely, as the eyes see by the light of the
sun, and the ears hear by the sound of a voice: the light
would have no effect upon the eyes, unless they had a natural
faculty capable of being enlightened; and it would be in vain
for the ears to be struck with any sound, if they had not been
naturally formed for hearing. But if it be true, as we ought
at once to conclude, that what the visive faculty is in our
eyes towards our beholding the light, and the faculty of hearing
is in our ears towards our perception of sound, such is
the work of the Holy Spirit in our hearts for the formation,
support, preservation, and establishment of our faith; then
these two consequences immediately follow—that the sacraments
are attended with no benefit without the influence of
the Holy Spirit; and that, in hearts already instructed by that
Teacher, they still subserve the confirmation and increase of
faith. There is only this difference, that our eyes and ears are
461naturally endued with the faculties of seeing and hearing, but
Christ accomplishes this in our hearts by special and preternatural
grace.
X. This reasoning will also serve for a solution of the objections
with which some persons are greatly disturbed; that if we
attribute to creatures either the increase or confirmation of faith,
we derogate from the Spirit of God, whom we ought to acknowledge
as its sole Author. For we do not, at the same time, deny
him the praise of its confirmation and increase; but we assert
that the way in which he increases and confirms our faith is by
preparing our minds, by his inward illumination, to receive that
confirmation which is proposed in the sacraments. If the way
in which this has been expressed be too obscure, it shall be
elucidated by the following similitude. If you intend to persuade
a person to do a certain act, you will consider all the
reasons calculated to draw him over to your opinion, and to
constrain him to submit to your advice. But you will make no
impression upon him, unless he possess a perspicuous and acute
judgment, to be able to determine what force there is in your
reasons; unless his mind also be docile, and prepared to listen to
instruction; and lastly, unless he have conceived such an opinion
of your fidelity and prudence as may prepossess him in favour
of your sentiments. For there are many obstinate spirits, never
to be moved by any reasons; and where a person’s fidelity is
suspected, and his authority despised, little effect will be produced,
even with those who are disposed to learn. On the
contrary, let all these things be present, and they will insure
the acquiescence of the person advised, in those counsels which
he would otherwise have derided. This work also the Spirit
effects within us. Lest the word should assail our ears in vain,—lest
the sacraments should in vain strike our eyes,—he shows us
that it is God who addresses us in them; he softens the hardness
of our hearts, and forms them to that obedience which is
due to the word of the Lord; in fine, he conveys those external
words and sacraments from the ears into the soul. Our
faith is confirmed, therefore, both by the word and by the
sacraments, when they place before our eyes the good-will of
our heavenly Father towards us, in the knowledge of which
all the firmness of our faith consists, and by which its strength
is augmented; the Spirit confirms it, when he makes this
confirmation effectual by engraving it on our minds. In the
mean time, the Father of lights cannot be prohibited from illuminating
our minds by means of the lustre of the sacraments,
as he enlightens our bodily eyes with the rays of the sun.
XI. That there is this property in the external word, our
Lord has shown in a parable, by calling it “seed.”[1110] For
462as seed, if it fall on a desert and neglected spot of ground, will
die without producing any crop, but if it be cast upon a well
manured and cultivated field, it brings forth its fruit with
an abundant increase,—so the word of God, if it fall upon
some stiff neck, will be as unproductive as seed dropped
upon the sea-shore; but if it light upon a soul cultivated by
the agency of the heavenly Spirit, it will be abundantly
fruitful. Now, if the word be justly compared to seed,—as
we say that from seed, corn grows, increases, and comes to maturity,—why
may we not say that faith derives its commencement,
increase, and perfection, from the word of God? Paul,
in different places, excellently expresses both these things.
For, with a view to recall to the recollection of the Corinthians
with what efficacy God had attended his labours, he glories
in having the ministry of the Spirit, as if there were an
indissoluble connection between his preaching and the power
of the Holy Spirit operating to the illumination of their minds,
and the excitement of their hearts.[1111] But in another place,
with a view to apprize them how far the power of the word of God
extends, merely as preached by man, he compares ministers to
husbandmen; who, when they have employed their labour and
industry in cultivating the ground, have nothing more that
they can do. But what would ploughing, and sowing, and
watering, avail, unless heavenly goodness caused the seed to
vegetate? Therefore he concludes, “Neither is he that planteth
any thing, neither he that watereth; but God, that giveth
the increase.”[1112] The apostles, then, in their preaching, exerted
the power of the Spirit, as far as God made use of the
instruments appointed by himself for the exhibition of his
spiritual grace. But we must always keep in view this distinction,
that we may remember how far the power of man extends,
and what is exclusively the work of God.
XII. Now, it is so true that the sacraments are confirmations
of our faith, that sometimes, when the Lord intends to take
away the confidence of those things which had been promised
in the sacraments, he removes the sacraments themselves.
When he deprived Adam of the gift of immortality, he expelled
him from the garden of Eden, saying, “Lest he put
forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and
live for ever.”[1113] What can be the meaning of this language?
Could the fruit restore to Adam the incorruption from which
he had now fallen? Certainly not. But it was the same as
if the Lord had said, Lest he should cherish a vain confidence,
if he retain the symbol of my promise, let him be deprived of
that which might give him some hope of immortality. For
463the same reason, when the apostle exhorts the Ephesians to
“remember that” they “were without Christ, being aliens
from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenant
of promise, having no hope, and without God in the
world,” he states that they were not partakers of circumcision;[1114]
thereby signifying that not having received the
sign of the promise, they were excluded from the promise itself.
To the other objection which they make, that the glory
of God is transferred to creatures to whom so much power is
attributed, and thereby sustains a proportionate diminution, it
is easy to answer, that we place no power in creatures; we
only maintain that God uses such means and instruments as he
sees will be suitable, in order that all things may be subservient
to his glory, as he is the Lord and Ruler of all. Therefore,
as by bread and other aliments he feeds our bodies, as by the
sun he enlightens the world, as by fire he produces warmth,—yet
bread, the sun, and fire, are nothing but instruments by
which he dispenses his blessings to us,—so he nourishes our
faith in a spiritual manner by the sacraments, which are instituted
for the purpose of placing his promises before our eyes
for our contemplation, and of serving us as pledges of them.
And as we ought not to place any confidence in the other
creatures, which, by the liberality and beneficence of God, have
been destined to our uses, and by whose instrumentality he
communicates to us the bounties of his goodness, nor to admire
and celebrate them as the causes of our enjoyments,—so neither
ought our confidence to rest in the sacraments, or the glory of
God to be transferred to them; but, forsaking all other things,
both our faith and confession ought to rise to him, the Author
of the sacraments and of every other blessing.
XIII. The argument which some persons adduce from the
very name of sacrament is destitute of any force;—though
the word sacrament has various significations in authors of the
first authority, yet it has but one which has any agreement or
connection with signs or standards, (signa;) that is, when it
denotes the solemn oath taken by a soldier to his commander
when he enters on a military life. For as by the military oath
new soldiers bind themselves to their commander, and assume
the military profession, so by our signs we profess Christ to
be our Leader, and declare that we fight under his banners.
They add similitudes for the further elucidation of their opinion.
As the dress of the Romans, who wore gowns, distinguished
them from the Greeks, who wore cloaks; as the different
orders among the Romans were distinguished from each
other by their respective badges, the senatorial order from the
464equestrian by purple habits and round shoes, and the equestrian
from the plebeian by a ring; as French and English ships
of war are known by flags of different colours, the French flags
being white and the English red; so we have our signs or
badges to distinguish us from unbelievers. But from the observations
already made, it is evident that the ancient fathers,
who gave our signs the name of sacraments, were not at all
guided by the previous use of this word in Latin writers; but
that they gave it a new sense for their own convenience,
simply denoting sacred signs. And if we wish to carry our
researches any further, it may be found that they transferred
this name to the signification now given, on the same principle
of analogy which induced them to transfer the word faith to
the sense in which it is now used. For as faith properly signifies
truth in the fulfilment of promises, yet they have applied
it to the assurance or certain persuasion which a person has of
the truth itself; so, as a sacrament is an oath by which a soldier
binds himself to his leader, they have applied it to the sign
by which the leader receives soldiers into his army. For by
the sacraments the Lord promises that he will be our God, and
that we shall be his people. But we pass over such subtleties,
as I think I have proved by sufficient arguments that the
ancients had no other view, in their application of the word
sacrament, than to signify that the ceremonies to which they
applied it were signs of holy and spiritual things. We admit
the comparison deduced from external badges, but we cannot
bear that the last and least use of the sacraments should be
represented as their principal and even sole object. The first
object of them is, to assist our faith towards God; the second,
to testify our confession before men. The similitudes which
have been mentioned are applicable to this secondary design,
but the primary one ought never to be forgotten; for otherwise,
as we have seen, these mysteries would cease to interest us,
unless they were aids of our faith, and appendices of doctrine,
destined to the same use and end.
XIV. On the other hand, we require to be apprized, that
as these persons weaken the force of the sacraments, and
entirely subvert their use, so there are others of a contrary
party, who attribute to the sacraments I know not what latent
virtues, which are nowhere represented as communicated to
them by the word of God. By this error the simple and inexperienced
are dangerously deceived, being taught to seek the
gifts of God where they can never be found, and being gradually
drawn away from God to embrace mere vanity instead of
his truth. For the sophistical schools have maintained, with
one consent, that the sacraments of the new law, or those now
used in the Christian Church, justify and confer grace, provided
465we do not obstruct their operation by any mortal sin. It is
impossible to express the pestilent and fatal nature of this
opinion, and especially as it has prevailed over a large part of
the world, to the great detriment of the Church, for many ages
past. Indeed, it is evidently diabolical; for by promising justification
without faith, it precipitates souls into destruction: in
the next place, by representing the sacraments as the cause of
justification, it envelops the minds of men, naturally too much
inclined to the earth, in gross superstition, leading them to rest in
the exhibition of a corporeal object rather than in God himself.
Of these two evils I wish we had not had such ample experience
as to supersede the necessity of much proof. What is a sacrament,
taken without faith, but the most certain ruin of the
Church? For as nothing is to be expected from it, but in
consequence of the promise, which denotes God’s wrath against
unbelievers as much as it offers his grace to believers,—the
person who supposes that the sacraments confer any more upon
him than that which is offered by the word of God, and which
he receives by a true faith, is greatly deceived. Hence also it
may be concluded, that confidence of salvation does not depend
on the participation of the sacraments, as though that constituted
our justification, which we know to be placed in Christ
alone, and to be communicated to us no less by the preaching
of the gospel than by the sealing of the sacraments, and that it
may be completely enjoyed without this participation. So true
is the observation, which has also been made by Augustine,
that invisible sanctification may exist without the visible sign,
and, on the contrary, that the visible sign may be used without
real sanctification. For, as he also writes in another place,
“Men put on Christ, sometimes by the reception of a sacrament,
sometimes by sanctification of life.” The first case
may be common to the good and the bad; the second is peculiar
to believers.
XV. Hence that distinction, if it be well understood, which
is frequently stated by Augustine, between a sacrament and the
matter of a sacrament. For his meaning is, not only that a
sacrament contains a figure, and some truth signified by that
figure, but that their connection is not such as to render them
inseparable from each other; and even when they are united,
the thing signified ought always to be distinguished from the
sign, that what belongs to the one may not be transferred to
the other. He speaks of their separation, when he observes,
that “the sacraments produce the effect which they represent,
in the elect alone.” Again, when he is speaking of the Jews:
“Though the sacraments were common to all, the grace which
is the power of the sacrament was not common; so now, also,
the washing of regeneration is common to all; but the grace
466itself, by which the members of Christ are regenerated with
their Head, is not common to all.” Again, in another place,
speaking of the Lord’s supper: “We also in the present day
receive visible meat; but the sacrament is one thing, and the
power of the sacrament is another. How is it that many
receive of the altar and die, and die in consequence of receiving?
For the morsel of bread given by the Lord to Judas was
poison; not because Judas received an evil thing, but because,
being a wicked man, he received a good thing in a sinful
manner.” A little after: “The sacrament of this thing, that
is, of the unity of the body and blood of Christ, is prepared on
the table of the Lord, in some places daily, in other places on
appointed days, at stated intervals of time; and is thence received,
by some to life, by others to destruction. But the thing
signified by this sacrament is received, not to destruction, but
to life, by every one who partakes of it.” He had just before
said, “He shall not die, who eats; I refer not to the visible
sacrament, but to the power of the sacrament; who eats internally,
not externally; he who eats in his heart, not he who
presses with his teeth.” In all these passages we find it maintained,
that a sacrament is separated from the truth signified in
it, by the unworthiness of a person who receives it amiss, so
that there is nothing left in it but a vain and useless figure.
In order to enjoy the thing signified together with the sign,
and not a mere sign destitute of the truth it was intended to
convey, it is necessary to apprehend by faith the word which is
contained in it. Thus, in proportion to the communion we
have with Christ by means of the sacraments, will be the advantage
which we shall derive from them.
XVI. If this be obscure in consequence of its brevity, I will
explain it more at large. I affirm that Christ is the matter, or
substance, of all the sacraments; since they have all their solidity
in him, and promise nothing out of him. So much more
intolerable is the error of Peter Lombard, who expressly makes
them causes of righteousness and salvation, of which they are
parts. Leaving all causes, therefore, of human invention, we
ought to adhere to this one cause. As far as we are assisted
by their instrumentality, to nourish, confirm, and increase our
faith in Christ, to obtain a more perfect possession of him
and an enjoyment of his riches, so far they are efficacious to
us; and this is the case when we receive by true faith that
which is offered in them. Do the impious, then, it will be
said, by their ingratitude, frustrate the ordinance of God, and
cause it to come to nothing? I reply, that what I have said is
not to be understood as implying, that the virtue and truth of a
sacrament depends on the condition or choice of him who receives
it. For what God has instituted continues unshaken,
467and retains its nature, however men may vary; but as it is
one thing to offer, and another to receive, there is no incongruity
in maintaining, that a symbol, consecrated by the word
of the Lord, is in reality what it is declared to be, and preserves
its virtue, and yet that it confers no benefit on a wicked and
impious person. But Augustine happily solves this question
in a few words: he says, “If thou receive it carnally, still it
ceases not to be spiritual; but it is not so to thee.” And, as
in the passages already cited, this father shows that the symbol
used in a sacrament is of no value, if it be separated from the
truth signified by it, so, on the other hand, he states that it is
necessary to distinguish them, even where they are united, lest
our attention be confined too much to the external sign. “As
to follow the letter,” says he, “and to take the signs instead of
the things signified, betrays servile weakness, so it is the part of
unsteadiness and error to interpret the signs in such a manner
as to derive no advantage from them.” He mentions two
faults, against which it is necessary to guard. One is, when
we take the signs as if they were given in vain, and disparaging
or diminishing their secret significations by our perverse misconstruction,
exclude ourselves from the advantage which we
ought to derive from them. The other is, when, not elevating
our minds beyond the visible sign, we transfer to the sacraments
the praise of those benefits, which are only conferred upon us
by Christ alone, and that by the agency of the Holy Spirit,
who makes us partakers of Christ himself, by the instrumentality
of the external signs which invite us to Christ, but
which cannot be perverted to any other use, without a shameful
subversion of all their utility.
XVII. Wherefore let us abide by this conclusion, that the
office of the sacraments is precisely the same as that of the
word of God; which is to offer and present Christ to us, and
in him the treasures of his heavenly grace; but they confer
no advantage or profit without being received by faith; just as
wine, or oil, or any other liquor, though it be poured plentifully
on a vessel, yet will it overflow and be lost, unless the mouth of
the vessel be open; and the vessel itself, though wet on the
outside, will remain dry and empty within. It is also necessary
to guard against being drawn into an error allied to this,
from reading the extravagant language used by the fathers with
a view to exalt the dignity of the sacraments; lest we should
suppose there is some secret power annexed and attached to
the sacraments, so that they communicate the grace of the
Holy Spirit, just as wine is given in the cup; whereas the
only office assigned to them by God, is to testify and confirm
his benevolence towards us; nor do they impart any benefit,
unless they are accompanied by the Holy Spirit to open our
468minds and hearts, and render us capable of receiving this
testimony: and here, also, several distinct favours of God are
eminently displayed. For the sacraments, as we have before
hinted, fulfil to us, on the part of God, the same office as messengers
of joyful intelligence, or earnests for the confirmation
of covenants on the part of men; they communicate no grace
from themselves, but announce and show, and, as earnests and
pledges, ratify, the things which are given to us by the goodness
of God. The Holy Spirit, whom the sacraments do not
promiscuously impart to all, but whom God, by a peculiar
privilege, confers upon his servants, is he who brings with him
the graces of God, who gives the sacraments admission into
our hearts, and causes them to bring forth fruit in us. Now,
though we do not deny that God himself accompanies his
institution by the very present power of his Spirit, that the administration
of the sacraments which he has ordained may not
be vain and unfruitful, yet we assert the necessity of a separate
consideration and contemplation of the internal grace of the
Spirit, as it is distinguished from the external ministry. Whatever
God promises and adumbrates in signs, therefore, he really
performs; and the signs are not without their effect, to prove
the veracity and fidelity of their Author. The only question
here is, whether God works by a proper and intrinsic power,
as it is expressed, or resigns the office to external symbols.
Now, we contend, that whatever instruments he employs, this
derogates nothing from his supreme operation. When this
doctrine is maintained respecting the sacraments, their dignity
is sufficiently announced, their use plainly signified, their utility
abundantly declared, and a proper moderation is preserved in
all these particulars, so that nothing is attributed, which ought
not to be attributed to them, and nothing that belongs to them
is denied; while there is no admission of that figment, which
places the cause of justification and the power of the Spirit in
the sacramental elements, as in so many vehicles; and that
peculiar power which has been omitted by others is clearly
expressed. Here, also, it must be remarked, that God accomplishes
within, that which the minister represents and testifies
by the external act; that we may not attribute to a mortal
man what God challenges exclusively to himself. Augustine
has judiciously suggested the same sentiment. “How,” says
he, “do Moses and God both sanctify? Not Moses instead of
God. Moses does it with visible signs, by his ministry. God
does it with invisible grace, by his Holy Spirit. Here also
lies all the efficacy of visible sacraments. For what avail
those visible sacraments without that sanctification of invisible
grace?”
XVIII. The term sacrament, as we have hitherto treated of
469its nature, comprehends generally all the signs which God has
ever given to men, to certify and assure them of the truth of
his promises. These he has been pleased to place in natural
things, and sometimes to exhibit in miracles. Examples of the
former kind are such as these: when he gave Adam and Eve
the tree of life, as a pledge of immortality, which they might
assure themselves of enjoying as long as they should eat of the
fruit of that tree;[1115] and when he “set” his “bow in the
cloud,” as a token to Noah and his posterity, that there should
“no more be a flood to destroy the earth.”[1116] These Adam
and Noah had as sacraments. Not that the tree would actually
communicate immortality to them, which it could not
give to itself; or that the rainbow, which is merely a refraction
of the rays of the sun on the opposite clouds, would have
any efficacy in restraining the waters; but because they had
a mark impressed upon them by the word of God, constituting
them signs and seals of his covenants. The tree and the
rainbow both existed before, but when they were inscribed with
the word of God, they were endued with a new form, so that
they began to be something that they were not before. And
that no one may suppose this to be spoken in vain, the bow
itself continues to be a witness to us in the present age, of that
covenant which God made with Noah: whenever we behold
it, we read this promise of God in it, that he would never more
destroy the earth with a flood. Therefore, if any smatterer in
philosophy, with a view to ridicule the simplicity of our faith,
contend that such a variety of colours is the natural result of
the refraction of the solar rays on an opposite cloud, we must
immediately acknowledge it, but we may smile at his stupidity
in not acknowledging God as the Lord and Governor of nature,
who uses all the elements according to his will for the promotion
of his own glory. And if he had impressed similar
characters on the sun, on the stars, on the earth, and on stones,
they would all have been sacraments to us. Why is not silver
of as much value before it is coined, as it is after, since the
metal is the very same? The reason is, that it has nothing
added to its natural state; stamped with a public impression,
it becomes money, and receives a new valuation. And shall
not God be able to mark his creatures with his word, that they
may become sacraments, though before they were mere elements?
Examples of the second kind were exhibited, when
God showed Abraham “a smoking furnace and a burning
lamp;”[1117] when he watered the fleece with dew while the
earth remained dry, and afterwards bedewed the earth without
wetting the fleece, to promise victory to Gideon;[1118] when “he
470brought the shadow ten degrees backward in the dial,”[1119] to
promise recovery to Hezekiah. As these things were done to
support and establish the weakness of their faith, they also were
sacraments.
XIX. But our present design is to treat particularly of those
sacraments which the Lord has appointed to be ordinarily used
in his Church, to keep his worshippers and servants in one
faith and in the confession of the same. “For,” to use the language
of Augustine, “men cannot be united in any profession
of religion, whether true or false, unless they are connected by
some communion of visible signs or sacraments.” Our most
merciful Father, therefore, foreseeing this necessity, did, from
the beginning, institute for his servants certain exercises of
piety, which Satan afterwards depraved and corrupted in a
variety of ways, transferring them to impious and idolatrous
worship. Hence those initiations of the heathen into their
mysteries, and the rest of their degenerate rites, which, though
fraught with error and superstition, at the same time furnish
an evidence that such external signs are indispensable to a profession
of religion. But as they were neither founded on the
word of God, nor referred to that truth which ought to be the
object of all religious emblems, they are unworthy of notice,
where mention is made of the sacred symbols which have been
instituted by God, and which have never been perverted from
their original principle, which constitutes them aids of true
piety. Now, they consist not of mere signs, like the rainbow
and the tree of life, but in ceremonies; or, rather, the signs
which are here given are ceremonies. And, as we have before
observed, as they are testimonies of grace and salvation on the
part of the Lord, so on our part they are badges of our profession,
by which we publicly devote ourselves to God, and swear
obedience and fidelity to him. Chrysostom, therefore, somewhere
properly calls them compacts, by which God covenants
with us, and we bind ourselves to purity and sanctity of life;
because a mutual stipulation is made in them between God and
us. For as the Lord promises to obliterate and efface all the guilt
and punishment that we have incurred by sin, and reconciles
us to himself in his only begotten Son, so we, on our parts, by
this profession, bind ourselves to him, to serve him in piety and
innocence of life; so that such sacraments may justly be described
as ceremonies by which God is pleased to exercise his
people, in the first place, to nourish, excite, and confirm faith
in their hearts; and in the next place, to testify their religion
before men.
XX. And even the sacraments have been different according
471to the varieties of different periods, and corresponding to the
dispensation by which it has pleased the Lord to manifest
himself in different ways to mankind. For to Abraham and
his posterity circumcision was commanded; to which the law
of Moses afterwards added ablutions, sacrifices, and other rites.
These were the sacraments of the Jews till the coming of Christ;
which was followed by the abrogation of these, and the institution
of two others, which are now used in the Christian Church;
namely, baptism and the supper of the Lord. I speak of those
which were instituted for the use of the whole Church; for
as to the imposition of hands, by which the ministers of the
Church are introduced into their office, while I make no objection
to its being called a sacrament, I do not class it among the
ordinary sacraments. What opinion ought to be entertained
respecting those which are commonly reputed the five other
sacraments, we shall see in a subsequent chapter. Those ancient
sacrifices, however, referred to the same object towards
which ours are now directed, their design being to point and lead
to Christ, or rather, as images, to represent and make him known.
For as we have already shown that they are seals to confirm the
promises of God, and it is very certain that no promise of God
was ever offered to man except in Christ,—in order to teach us
any thing respecting the promises of God, they must of necessity
make a discovery of Christ. This was the design of that heavenly
pattern of the tabernacle and model of the legal worship,
which was exhibited to Moses in the mount. There is only one
difference between those sacraments and ours: they prefigured
Christ as promised and still expected; ours represent him as
already come and manifested.
XXI. All these things will be considerably elucidated by a
particular detail. In the first place, circumcision was a sign to
the Jews to teach them that whatever is produced from human
seed—that is, the whole nature of man—is corrupt, and requires
to be pruned: it was likewise a testification and memorial to
confirm them in the promise given to Abraham respecting the
blessed seed, in whom all the nations of the earth were to be
blessed, and from whom their own blessing was also to be expected.[1120]
Now, that blessed seed, as Paul informs us, was
Christ, on whom alone they relied for recovering that which they
had lost in Adam. Wherefore circumcision was the same to
them as Paul declares it to have been to Abraham, even “a seal
of the righteousness of faith;”[1121] that is, a seal for the further
assurance that their faith, with which they expected that seed,
would be imputed by God to them for righteousness. But the
comparison between circumcision and baptism we shall have
472more suitable occasion for pursuing in another place. Ablutions
and purifications placed before their eyes their uncleanness
and pollution, by which they were naturally contaminated, and
promised another ablution, by which they would be purified
from all their defilement; and this ablution was Christ, washed
in whose blood we bring his purity into the presence of God
to cover all our impurities.[1122] Their sacrifices accused and
convicted them of their iniquity, and, at the same time, taught
the necessity of some satisfaction to be made to the Divine
justice, and that, therefore, there would come a great High
Priest, a Mediator between God and men, who was to satisfy
the justice of God by the effusion of blood and the oblation of
a sacrifice, which would be sufficient to obtain the remission
of sins. This great High Priest was Christ; he shed his own
blood, and was himself the victim; was obedient to his Father
even unto death, and by his obedience obliterated the disobedience
of man, which had provoked the indignation of God.[1123]
XXII. Our two sacraments present us with a clearer exhibition
of Christ, in proportion to the nearer view of him which
men have enjoyed since he was really manifested by the Father
in the manner in which he had been promised. For baptism
testifies to us our purgation and ablution; the eucharistic
supper testifies our redemption. Water is a figure of ablution,
and blood of satisfaction. These things are both found in
Christ, who, as John says, “came by water and blood;”[1124]
that is, to purify and redeem. Of this the Spirit of God is a
witness; or, rather, “there are three that bear witness, the
Spirit, the Water, and the Blood.”[1125] In the water and
the blood we have a testimony of purgation and redemption;
and the Spirit, as the principal witness, confirms and
secures our reception and belief of this testimony. This
sublime mystery was strikingly exhibited on the cross, when
blood and water issued from Christ’s sacred side; which, on
this account, Augustine has justly called “the fountain of our
sacraments;” of which we are yet to treat more at large. And
there is no doubt, if we compare one time with another, but that
the more abundant grace of the Spirit is also here displayed.
For that belongs to the glory of the kingdom of Christ; as
we gather from various places, and especially from the seventh
chapter of John. In this sense we must understand that passage
where Paul, speaking of the legal institutions, says, “which
are a shadow of things to come, but the body is of Christ.”[1126]
His design in this declaration is, not to deny the efficacy of
those testimonies of grace, in which God was formerly pleased
473to attest his veracity to the fathers, as he does to us now in
baptism and the sacred supper, but to represent the comparative
superiority of what has been given to us, that no one might
wonder at the ceremonies of the law having been abolished at
the advent of Christ.
XXIII. I will just observe by the way, that the doctrine of
the schools, which asserts such a wide difference between the
sacraments of the old and new law, as though the former
merely prefigured the grace of God, and the latter actually communicated
it, ought to be altogether exploded. For the apostle
speaks in a manner equally as honourable of the former as of
the latter, when he states that the fathers, in the time of
Moses, “did all eat the same spiritual meat”[1127] with us, and
explains that meat to be Christ. Who will dare to call that
an empty sign, which exhibited to the Jews the real communion
of Christ? And the state of the case, which the
apostle is there discussing, is clearly in favour of our argument.
For, that no man might dare to despise the judgment
of God, in a reliance on a speculative knowledge of Christ, and
the mere name of Christianity, with its external signs, he exhibits
the examples of Divine severity displayed among the
Jews, to teach us that the same punishments which they
suffered await us, if we indulge in the same sins. Now, that
the comparison might be pertinent, it was necessary to show
that there was no inequality between us and them in those
privileges of which he forbids us to indulge unfounded boasts.
First, therefore, he shows them to have been equal to us in the
sacraments, and leaves not a particle of superiority capable of
exciting in our minds the least hope of impunity. Nor is it
right to attribute to our baptism any thing more than he attributes
to circumcision, when he calls it “a seal of the righteousness
of faith.”[1128] Whatever is presented to us in the present
day in our sacraments, was anciently received by the Jews in
theirs—even Christ and his spiritual riches. Whatever power
our sacraments have, they also experienced the same in theirs:
they were seals of the Divine benevolence to them, confirming
their hope of eternal salvation. If the advocates of the opinion
which we are opposing had been skilful interpreters of the
Epistle to the Hebrews, they would not have been so deceived;
but when they read there that sins were not expiated by the
legal ceremonies, and that the ancient shadows had no power to
confer righteousness,—neglecting the comparison intended to
be drawn, and confining their attention to this single consideration,
that the law in itself was unprofitable to its observers,
they have simply concluded that the figures were destitute of
474any truth. But the design of the apostle was to represent
the ceremonial law as of no value till it was referred to Christ,
on whom alone depended all its efficacy.
XXIV. But they will allege what Paul says of the “circumcision
in the letter,”[1129] that it is in no estimation with
God; that it confers no advantage; that it is in vain; for such
a representation they conceive to degrade it far below baptism.
But this is not true; for all that he says of circumcision might
justly be affirmed of baptism. And it is actually asserted; first
by Paul himself, where he shows that God regards not the external
ablution by which we enter on the profession of religion,
unless the heart be purified within, and persevere in piety to
the end; and, secondly, by Peter, when he declares the truth
of baptism to consist, not in “the putting away of the filth of
the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience.”[1130] It will be
objected, that Paul seems in another place utterly to despise
“the circumcision made with hands,” when he compares it
with “the circumcision of Christ.”[1131] I reply, that that
passage derogates nothing from its dignity. Paul is there disputing
against those who required it as still necessary, after it
had been abrogated. He therefore admonishes believers to
leave the ancient shadows, and adhere to the truth. These
teachers, he says, urge you to be circumcised in your bodies.
But you have been spiritually circumcised both in body and
soul: you have the substance itself, therefore, which is better
than the shadow. Some one might object to this, that the
figure was not to be despised in consequence of their having
the substance; for that the fathers under the Old Testament
had experienced the circumcision of the heart, and the putting
off of the old man, of which the apostle was speaking, and yet
that external circumcision had not been unnecessary or useless
to them. He anticipates and supersedes this objection, by immediately
adding, that the Colossians had been “buried with
Christ in baptism;” by which he signifies that baptism is to
Christians what circumcision was to the ancient believers, and
consequently that circumcision cannot be imposed upon Christians
without injury to baptism.
XXV. But our objectors proceed to allege, that a still
stronger argument in their favour arises from what follows,
which I have lately quoted,—that all the Jewish ceremonies
were “a shadow of things to come, but the body is of
Christ;”[1132] and that the strongest argument of all is what is
contained in the Epistle to the Hebrews, that the blood of
beasts did not reach the conscience, that “the law” had “a
shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the
475things, and that the worshippers could never attain perfection
from the Mosaic ceremonies.”[1133] I repeat what I have already
suggested, that Paul called the ceremonies shadows, not as if
they had nothing solid in them, but because their accomplishment
had been deferred till the manifestation of Christ. In
the next place, I remark that this is to be understood, not of
the efficacy of the ceremonies, but rather of the mode of representation.
For till Christ was manifested in the flesh, all the
signs prefigured him as absent; however, he displayed his
power, and consequently himself, as present in the hearts of
believers. But the principal thing to be observed is, that in all
these places Paul is not speaking of the subject, considered
simply in itself, but with reference to those against whom he
is contending. As he was combating the false apostles, who
maintained piety to consist in the ceremonies alone, without
any regard to Christ,—nothing more was necessary for their
confutation, than to discuss what value ceremonies possess of
themselves. This also was the object pursued by the author of
the Epistle to the Hebrews. Let us remember, therefore, that
the question here does not respect ceremonies, taken in their true
and natural signification, but as distorted by a false and perverse
interpretation; the controversy is not about the legitimate use,
but the superstitious abuse of them. What wonder, then, is it,
if ceremonies, separated from Christ, are divested of all their
virtue? For all signs are reduced to nothing, when the thing
signified is taken away. So when Christ was addressing those
who supposed the manna to have been mere food for the body,
he accommodated his discourse to their gross notion, and said
that he would give them better food, to nourish their souls
with the hope of immortality.[1134] If a clearer solution be required,
all that has been said may be comprised in these three
observations: first, that all the ceremonies of the law of Moses,
unless they were directed to Christ, were vain and useless;
secondly, that they had reference to Christ, so that when he
was manifested in the flesh, they received their accomplishment;
lastly, that it was necessary for them to be abolished
at his advent, as a shadow vanishes in the clear light of the
sun. But as I defer the more extended discussion of this subject
to the chapter in which I intend to compare baptism with
circumcision, I touch the more briefly upon it here.
XXVI. It is possible that these miserable sophists have
been led into this error by the extravagant encomiums on the
sacraments which are found in the writings of the fathers;
as when Augustine says, that “the sacraments of the old law
only promised the Saviour, but ours give salvation.” Not
476observing that these and other similar forms of expression were
hyperbolical, they, also, on their part, have promulgated their
hyperbolical dogmas, but in a sense altogether foreign from
the writings of the fathers. For the meaning of Augustine
in that passage was the same as in another, where he says,
“The sacraments of the Mosaic law announced Christ as afterwards
to come; ours announce him as already come.” Again:
“They were promises of things to be fulfilled; these are signs
of things accomplished;” as if he had said, that the old
sacraments prefigured Christ while he was yet expected, but
that ours exhibit him as present, since he has already come.
Besides, he speaks of the mode of representation, as he also
shows in another place, where he says, “The law and the
prophets had sacraments announcing something future; but
what they celebrated as about to come, the sacraments of our
time announce as already come.” His sentiments respecting
their truth and efficacy he declares in several places; as when
he says, “The sacraments of the Jews were different from ours
in the signs; in the thing signified, they were equal; different
in visible form, equal in spiritual efficacy.” Again: “In
different signs, the same faith; in different signs, just as in
different words; because words change their sounds in different
times, and words are no other than signs. The fathers
drank the same spiritual drink as we; though their corporeal
drink was different. See, then, the signs have been varied
without any change in the faith. To them the Rock was
Christ; to us, that which is placed on the altar is Christ.
And as a great sacrament, they drank the water flowing from
the Rock; what we drink, believers know. If we consider
the visible form, there was a difference; if we regard the intelligible
signification, they drank the same spiritual drink.”
In another place: “In the mystery their meat and drink were
the same as ours; but the same in signification, not in form;
because the very same Christ was prefigured to them in the
Rock, and has been manifested to us in the flesh.” Yet in
this respect, also, we admit that there is some difference between
their sacraments and ours. For both testify that the
paternal benevolence of God is offered to us in Christ, together
with the graces of the Holy Spirit; but ours testify it in a
more clear and evident manner. In both there is an exhibition
of Christ, but the exhibition of him in ours is richer and
fuller, corresponding to the difference between the Old Testament
and the New, of which we have already treated. And
this is what was intended by Augustine, whom I quote more
frequently than any other, as the best and most faithful writer
of antiquity, when he states, that after the revelation of Christ,
sacraments were instituted, “fewer in number, more noble in
477signification, and more excellent in efficacy.” It is right, also,
just to apprize the readers, that all the jargon of the sophists
respecting the work wrought (opus operatum) is not only false,
but repugnant to the nature of the sacraments; which God
has instituted, in order that believers, being poor and destitute
of every good, may come to them simply confessing their
wants, and imploring him to supply them. Consequently, in
receiving the sacraments, they perform nothing at all meritorious,
and the action itself being, as far as they are concerned,
merely passive, no work can be attributed to them in it.
Baptism is a sign of initiation, by which we are admitted
into the society of the Church, in order that, being incorporated
into Christ, we may be numbered among the children of God.
Now, it has been given to us by God for these ends, which I
have shown to be common to all sacraments: first, to promote
our faith towards him; secondly, to testify our confession before
men. We shall treat of both these ends of its institution
in order. To begin with the first: from baptism our faith
derives three advantages, which require to be distinctly considered.
The first is, that it is proposed to us by the Lord, as
a symbol and token of our purification; or, to express my meaning
more fully, it resembles a legal instrument properly attested,
by which he assures us that all our sins are cancelled, effaced,
and obliterated, so that they will never appear in his sight, or
come into his remembrance, or be imputed to us. For he
commands all who believe to be baptized for the remission of
their sins. Therefore those who have imagined that baptism
is nothing more than a mark or sign by which we profess our
religion before men, as soldiers wear the insignia of their
sovereign as a mark of their profession, have not considered
that which was the principal thing in baptism; which is, that
we ought to receive it with this promise, “He that believeth
and is baptized shall be saved.”[1135]
II. In this sense we are to understand what is said by Paul,
that Christ sanctifies and cleanses the Church “with the
washing of water by the word;”[1136] and in another place, that
478“according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration,
and renewing of the Holy Ghost;”[1137] and by Peter,
that “baptism doth save us.”[1138] For it was not the intention
of Paul to signify that our ablution and salvation are completed
by the water, or that water contains in itself the virtue to purify,
regenerate, and renew; nor did Peter mean that it was the
cause of salvation, but only that the knowledge and assurance
of it is received in this sacrament; which is sufficiently evident
from the words they have used. For Paul connects together the
“word of life” and “the baptism of water;” as if he had said
that our ablution and sanctification are announced to us by the
gospel, and by baptism this message is confirmed. And Peter,
after having said that “baptism doth save us,” immediately adds
that it is “not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the
answer of a good conscience towards God,” which proceeds
from faith. But, on the contrary, baptism promises us no other
purification than by the sprinkling of the blood of Christ;
which is emblematically represented by water, on account of
its resemblance to washing and cleansing. Who, then, can
pretend that we are cleansed by that water, which clearly testifies
the blood of Christ to be our true and only ablution? So
that, to refute the error of those who refer all to the virtue of
the water, no better argument could be found, than in the signification
of baptism itself, which abstracts us, as well from that
visible element which is placed before our eyes, as from all
other means of salvation, that it may fix our minds on Christ
alone.
III. Nor must it be supposed that baptism is administered
only for the time past, so that for sins into which we fall after
baptism it would be necessary to seek other new remedies of
expiation in I know not what other sacraments, as if the virtue
of baptism were become obsolete. In consequence of this error,
it happened, in former ages, that some persons would not be baptized
except at the close of their life, and almost in the moment
of their death, that so they might obtain pardon for their whole
life—a preposterous caution, which is frequently censured in
the writings of the ancient bishops. But we ought to conclude,
that at whatever time we are baptized, we are washed and
purified for the whole of life. Whenever we have fallen, therefore,
we must recur to the remembrance of baptism, and arm
our minds with the consideration of it, that we may be always
certified and assured of the remission of our sins. For though,
when it has been once administered, it appears to be past, yet
it is not abolished by subsequent sins. For the purity of
Christ is offered to us in it; and that always retains its virtue,
479is never overcome by any blemishes, but purifies and obliterates
all our defilements. Now, from this doctrine we ought not to
take a license for the commission of future sins; for it is very
far from inculcating such presumption; it is only delivered to
those who, when they have sinned, groan under the fatigue
and oppression of their transgressions; in order to afford them
some relief and consolation, and to preserve them from sinking
into confusion and despair. Thus Paul says, that Christ was
“set forth to be a propitiation for the remission of sins that
are past.”[1139] He does not deny that we have a constant and
perpetual remission of sins in Christ, but signifies that he has
been given by the Father only to miserable sinners, who sigh
for the physician to heal the wounds of a guilty conscience.
To such the mercy of God is offered; while those who, from a
remission of punishment, seek to derive an occasion and license
for sinning, do nothing but draw down upon themselves the
wrath and vengeance of God.
IV. I know the common opinion is, that remission of sins,
which at our first regeneration we receive by baptism alone, is
afterwards obtained by repentance and the benefit of the keys.
But the advocates of this opinion have fallen into an error, for
want of considering that the power of the keys, of which they
speak, is so dependent on baptism that it cannot by any means
be separated from it. It is true, that the sinner receives remission
by the ministry of the Church; but not without the
preaching of the gospel. Now, what is the nature of that
preaching? That we are cleansed from our sins by the blood
of Christ. What sign and testimony of that ablution is there,
except baptism? We see, then, how this absolution is referred
to baptism. This error has produced the imaginary sacrament
of penance; on which I have touched a little already, and shall
finish what remains in its proper place. Now, it is no wonder
if men, whose groveling minds were inordinately attached to
external things, have betrayed that corrupt propensity, by a
discontent with the pure institution of God, and an introduction
of new expedients invented by themselves; as if baptism
itself were not a sacrament of repentance; but if repentance
be enjoined upon us as long as we live, the virtue of baptism
ought to be extended to the same period. Wherefore it is
evident that the pious, whenever, in any part of their lives, they
are distressed with a consciousness of their sins, may justly have
recourse to the remembrance of baptism, in order to confirm
themselves in the confidence of their interest in that one perpetual
ablution which is enjoyed in the blood of Christ.
V. Baptism is also attended with another advantage: it
480shows us our mortification in Christ, and our new life in him.
For, as the apostle says, “So many of us as were baptized into
Jesus Christ, were baptized into his death: therefore we are
buried with him by baptism into death, that we should walk
in newness of life.”[1140] In this passage he does not merely
exhort us to an imitation of Christ, as if he had said, that we
are admonished by baptism, that after the example of his death
we should die to sin, and that after the example of his resurrection
we should rise to righteousness; but he goes considerably
further, and teaches us, that by baptism Christ has made us
partakers of his death, in order that we may be ingrafted into
it. And as the scion derives substance and nourishment from
the root on which it is ingrafted, so they, who receive baptism
with the faith with which they ought to receive it, truly experience
the efficacy of Christ’s death in the mortification of
the flesh, and also the energy of his resurrection in the vivification
of the spirit. Hence he deduces matter of exhortation,
that, if we are Christians, we ought to be “dead unto sin, but
alive unto God.”[1141] He uses the same argument in another
place; that we “are circumcised, putting off the body of the
sins of the flesh,” after we have been “buried with” Christ
“in baptism.”[1142] And in this sense, in the passage already
quoted, he calls it “the washing of regeneration and renewing.”[1143]
Thus we are promised, first, the gratuitous remission
of sins, and imputation of righteousness; and, secondly,
the grace of the Holy Spirit to reform us to newness
of life.
VI. The last advantage which our faith receives from baptism,
is the certain testimony it affords us, that we are not only
ingrafted into the life and death of Christ, but are so united as to
be partakers of all his benefits. For this reason he dedicated
and sanctified baptism in his own body, that he might have it
in common with us, as a most firm bond of the union and
society which he has condescended to form with us; so that
Paul proves from it, that we are the children of God, because
we have put on Christ in baptism.[1144] Thus we see that the
accomplishment of baptism is in Christ; whom, on this account,
we call the proper object of baptism. Therefore it is no wonder
if the apostles baptized in his name,[1145] though they had also
been commanded to baptize in the name of the Father and of
the Spirit.[1146] For all the gifts of God, which are presented
in baptism, are found in Christ alone. Yet it cannot be but
that he who baptizes into Christ, equally invokes the name of
the Father and of the Spirit. For we have purification in his
481blood, because our merciful Father, in his incomparable goodness,
being pleased to receive us to his mercy, has appointed
this Mediator between us, to conciliate his favour to us. But
we receive regeneration from his death and resurrection, when
we are endued with a new and spiritual nature by the sanctification
of the Spirit. Of our purification and regeneration,
therefore, we obtain, and distinctly perceive, the cause in the
Father, the matter in the Son, and the efficacy in the Spirit.
Thus John first, and the apostles afterwards, baptized “with
the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins;”[1147] by
repentance, intending regeneration, and by remission of sins,
ablution.
VII. Hence also it is very certain that the ministry of John
was precisely the same as that which was afterwards committed
to the apostles. For their baptism was not different, though it
was administered by different hands; but the sameness of their
doctrine shows their baptism to have been the same. John and
the apostles agreed in the same doctrine; both baptized to
repentance, both to remission of sins; both baptized in the
name of Christ, from whom repentance and remission of sins
proceed. John said of Christ, “Behold the Lamb of God,
which taketh away the sin of the world;”[1148] thus acknowledging
and declaring him to be the sacrifice acceptable to the
Father, the procurer of righteousness, and the author of salvation.
What could the apostles add to this confession?
Wherefore let no one be disturbed by the attempts of the
ancient writers to distinguish and separate one baptism from
the other; for their authority ought not to have weight enough
to shake our confidence in the Scripture. For who will attend
to Chrysostom, who denies that remission of sins was included
in the baptism of John, rather than to Luke, who, on the
contrary, affirms that “John came preaching the baptism of
repentance, for the remission of sins?”[1149] Nor must we
admit that subtlety of Augustine, “that in the baptism of John
sins were remitted in hope, but in the baptism of Christ they
were remitted in fact.” For as the evangelist clearly testifies
that John, in his baptism, promised the remission of sins, why
should we diminish this commendation, when no necessity
constrains us to it? But if any difference be sought for in the
word of God, the only difference that will be found is, that John
baptized in the name of him who was to come, the apostles in
the name of him who had already manifested himself.
VIII. The more abundant effusion of the graces of the
Spirit, after the resurrection of Christ, contributes nothing to
482establish a diversity of baptisms. For the baptism administered
by the apostles, during his life on earth, was called
his; yet it was attended with no greater abundance of the
Spirit than the baptism of John. And even after his ascension,
the Samaritans, even though they had been baptized
in the name of Jesus, received no other gifts of the Spirit
than those which were common to all believers, till Peter
and John were sent to lay their hands upon them.[1150] I
suppose that the fathers were misled into an opinion, that the
baptism of John was merely a preparation for that of Christ,[1151]
entirely from an apprehension that some persons, who had
previously received the baptism of John, were baptized again
by Paul. But that they were mistaken in this point, shall be
very clearly shown in the proper place. What is the meaning,
then, of the declaration of John, that he “baptized with water,”
but that Christ would come to “baptize with the Holy Ghost
and with fire?”[1152] This may be explained in few words; for
he did not mean to distinguish between one baptism and the
other, but was comparing himself with the person of Christ;
that he was a minister of water, but that Christ was the giver
of the Holy Spirit, and would display this power by a visible
miracle, on that day when he would send down the Holy Spirit
upon the apostles in the form of fiery tongues.[1153] What
could the apostles boast beyond this? What more can they
pretend to, who baptize in the present day? For they are
merely ministers of the outward sign, and Christ is the author of
the inward grace; as the same ancient writers invariably teach,
and especially Augustine, whose principal argument against the
Donatists is, that whatever be the character of the person who
administers baptism, yet Christ alone presides in it.
IX. These things, which we have stated respecting mortification
and ablution, were adumbrated in the people of Israel,
whom, on this account, the apostle declares to have been
“baptized in the cloud and in the sea.”[1154] Mortification was
figuratively represented, when the Lord, delivering them from
the power and cruel servitude of Pharaoh, made a way for them
through the Red Sea, and drowned Pharaoh himself, and the
Egyptians, their enemies, who pursued, and almost overtook
them. For in this manner, in baptism, he promises, and gives
us a sign to assure us, that we are extricated and delivered by
his power from the captivity of Egypt, that is, from the servitude
of sin; that our Pharaoh, that is, the devil, is drowned,
though still he ceases not to harass and fatigue us. But as the
Egyptians did not remain sunk to the bottom of the sea, but,
483being cast upon the shore, still terrified the Israelites with the
dreadful sight, though they were not able to injure them, so
this enemy of ours still threatens, displays his arms, and makes
himself felt, but cannot overcome. In the cloud there was an
emblem of ablution. For as the Lord there covered them with
a cloud, affording them refreshment, that they might not faint
and be consumed by the overpowering heat of the sun, so, in
baptism, we acknowledge ourselves to be covered and protected
by the blood of Christ, that the severity of God, which
is indeed an intolerable flame, may not fall upon us. Though
this mystery was then obscured, and known only to few
persons, yet, as there is no other way of obtaining salvation
but by those two blessings of grace, the Lord, having adopted
the ancient fathers as his heirs, was pleased to bestow upon them
tokens of both.
X. Now, we may clearly perceive the falsehood of the notion
which some have long ago disseminated, and which others
persist in maintaining,—that by baptism we are delivered and
exempted from original sin, and from the corruption which
has descended from Adam to all his posterity, and are restored
to the same righteousness and purity of nature which Adam
would have obtained if he had continued in the integrity in
which he was first created. For teachers of this kind have
never understood the nature of original sin, or original righteousness,
or the grace of baptism. Now, we have already
proved that original sin is the pravity and corruption of our
nature, which first renders us obnoxious to the wrath of God,
and then produces in us those works which the Scripture calls
“works of the flesh.”[1155] Therefore these two things are to
be distinctly observed: first, that our nature being so entirely
depraved and vitiated, we are, on account of this very corruption,
considered as convicted and justly condemned in the
sight of God, to whom nothing is acceptable but righteousness,
innocence, and purity. And therefore even infants themselves
bring their own condemnation into the world with them, who,
though they have not yet produced the fruits of their iniquity,
yet have the seed of it within them; even their whole nature
is, as it were, a seed of sin, and therefore cannot but be odious
and abominable to God. By baptism, believers are certified
that this condemnation is removed from them; since, as we
said, the Lord promises us by this sign, that a full and entire remission
is granted both of the guilt which is to be imputed to us,
and of the punishment to be inflicted on account of that guilt;
they also receive righteousness, such as the people of God may
obtain in this life; that is, only by imputation, because the
Lord, in his mercy, accepts them as righteous and innocent.
484XI. The other thing to be remarked is, that this depravity
never ceases in us, but is perpetually producing new fruits—those
works of the flesh which we have already described, like
the emission of flame and sparks from a heated furnace, or like
the streams of water from an unfailing spring. For concupiscence
never dies, nor is altogether extinguished in men, till by
death they are delivered from the body of death, and entirely
divested of themselves. Baptism, indeed, promises us the submersion
of our Pharaoh, and the mortification of sin; yet not
so that it no longer exists, or gives us no further trouble; but
only that it may never overcome us. For as long as we
live immured in this prison of the body, the relics of sin will
dwell in us; but if we hold fast by faith the promise which
God has given us in baptism, they shall not domineer or reign
over us. But let no one deceive himself, let no one flatter
himself in his guilt, when he hears that sin always dwells in us.
These things are not said in order that those who are already
too prone to do evil may securely sleep in their sins, but only
that those who are tempted by their corrupt propensities may
not faint and sink into despondency; but that they may
rather reflect that they are yet in the way, and may consider
themselves as having made some progress, when they experience
their corruptions diminishing from day to day, till
they shall attain the mark at which they are aiming, even the
final destruction of their depravity, which will be accomplished
at the close of this mortal life. In the mean time, let them not
cease to fight manfully, to animate themselves to constant advances,
and to press forward to complete victory. For it ought
to give additional impulse to their exertions, to see that, after
they have been striving so long, so much still remains for them
to do. We conclude, therefore, that we are baptized into the
mortification of the flesh, which commences in us at baptism,
which we pursue from day to day, and which will be perfected
when we shall pass out of this life to the Lord.
XII. Here we say nothing different from what is most
clearly stated by Paul in the sixth and seventh chapters of the
Epistle to the Romans. For after he had argued respecting gratuitous
righteousness,—because some impious men concluded
from that doctrine that they might live according to their own
corrupt inclinations, as we are not accepted by God for the
merit of our works, he adds, that all who are clothed with the
righteousness of Christ are also regenerated by his Spirit, and
that of this regeneration we have an earnest in baptism.
Hence he exhorts believers not to suffer sin to reign in their
members. Because he knew that there always remains some
infirmity in them, that they might not be dejected on account
of it, he adds for their consolation, that they are not under
485the law. On the other hand, as it might seem to encourage
licentiousness in Christians, to say that they were not under
the yoke of the law, he discusses the nature of that abrogation,
and shows what is the use of the law—a question which he
had already determined. The sum of all that he says is, that
we are delivered from the rigour of the law to adhere to
Christ; and that the office of the law is to convince us of our
depravity, and lead us to a confession of our impotence and
misery. Now, because the depravity of our nature is not so
easily discovered in a profane man who indulges his corrupt
passions without any fear of God, he gives an example in a
regenerate man, that is, in himself. He says, therefore, that
he has a perpetual conflict with the relics of his corruption,
and that he is bound with a miserable servitude, which prevents
his entire consecration of himself to an obedience of the
Divine law; so that he is constrained to exclaim, “O wretched
man that I am! Who shall deliver me from the body of this
death?” If the children of God are captives detained in
prison as long as they live, they cannot but feel great anxiety
from reflection on their danger, unless there be something to
obviate this fear. For this purpose, therefore, he has added a
consolation, that “there is now no condemnation to them
which are in Christ Jesus;”[1156] by which he teaches, that
those whom the Lord has once received into his favour, incorporated
into the communion of his Christ, and introduced
by baptism into the society of his Church, notwithstanding
they are surrounded and assaulted with sin, and even carry sin
about within them, yet while they persevere in the faith of
Christ, are absolved from guilt and condemnation. If this be
the simple and genuine meaning of Paul, there is no reason
why we should be considered as promulgating a new or strange
doctrine.
XIII. Baptism also serves for our confession before men.
For it is a mark by which we openly profess our desire to be
numbered among the people of God, by which we testify our
agreement with all Christians in the worship of one God, and
in one religion, and by which we make a public declaration of
our faith; that the praises of God may not only be breathed in
the secret aspirations of our hearts, but may also be loudly
proclaimed by our tongues, and by all the members of our
body, in the different modes in which they are capable of
expressing them. For thus all that we have is devoted, as it
ought to be, to the glory of God, to which every thing ought
to be subservient, and by our example others are incited to the
same pursuit. It was with this view that Paul inquired of the
Corinthians, whether they had not been baptized in the name
486of Christ; signifying that, in having been baptized in his name,
they had dedicated themselves to him, had avowed him as
their Lord and Master, and had bound themselves by a solemn
obligation before men; so that they could never again confess
any other except him, unless they intended to renounce the
confession which they had made at their baptism.
XIV. Now, as we have stated what was the design of our
Lord in the institution of baptism, it is easy to judge in what
manner we ought to use and receive it. For as it is given for
the support, consolation, and confirmation of our faith, it requires
to be received as from the hand of the Author himself:
we ought to consider it as beyond all doubt, that it is he who
speaks to us by this sign; that it is he who purifies and
cleanses us, and obliterates the remembrance of our sins; that
it is he who makes us partakers of his death, who demolishes
the kingdom of Satan, who weakens the power of our corrupt
propensities, who even makes us one with himself, that, being
clothed with him, we may be reckoned children of God; and
that he as truly and certainly performs these things internally
on our souls, as we see that our bodies are externally washed,
immersed, and enclosed in water. For this analogy or similitude
is a most certain rule of sacraments; that in corporeal
things we contemplate spiritual things, just as if they were
placed before our eyes, as it has pleased God to represent them
to us by such figures: not that such blessings are bound or
enclosed in the sacrament, or that it has the power to impart
them to us; but only because it is a sign by which the Lord
testifies his will, that he is determined to give us all these
things: nor does it merely feed our eyes with a bare prospect of
the symbols, but conducts us at the same time to the thing signified,
and efficaciously accomplishes that which it represents.
XV. We may see this exemplified in Cornelius the centurion,
who, after having received the remission of his sins and
the visible graces of the Holy Spirit, was baptized; not with a
view to obtain by baptism a more ample remission of sins, but
a stronger exercise of faith, and an increase of confidence from
that pledge.[1157] Perhaps it may be objected, “Why, then, did
Ananias say to Paul, ‘Arise, and be baptized, and wash away
thy sins,’[1158] if sins are not washed away by the efficacy of
baptism itself?” I answer, We are said to receive or obtain
that which our faith apprehends, as presented to us by the
Lord, whether at the time that he first declares it to us, or
when, by any subsequent testimony, he affords us a more certain
confirmation of it. Ananias, therefore, only intended to
say to Paul, “That thou mayest be assured that thy sins are
487forgiven, be baptized. For in baptism the Lord promises remission
of sins; receive this and be secure.” It is not my
design, however, to diminish the efficacy of baptism; but the
substance and truth accompanies the sign, as God works by
external means. Nevertheless, from this sacrament, as from
all others, we obtain nothing except what we receive by faith.
If faith be wanting, it will be a testimony of our ingratitude,
to render us guilty before God, because we have not believed
the promise given in the sacrament; but as baptism is a sign of
our confession, we ought to testify by it, that our confidence
is in the mercy of God, and our purity in the remission of sins,
which is obtained for us by Jesus Christ; and that we enter
into the Church of God in order to live in the same harmony
of faith and charity, of one mind with all the faithful. This
is what Paul meant when he said, that “by one Spirit we are
all baptized into one body.”[1159]
XVI. Now, if it be true, as we have stated, that a sacrament
is to be considered as received, not so much from the hand of
him by whom it is administered, as from the hand of God
himself, from whom, without doubt, it proceeded, we may conclude
that it is not capable of any addition or diminution from
the dignity of the person by whose hand it is delivered. And
as, among men, if a letter be sent, provided the hand and seal
of the writer be known, it is of very little importance who and
what the carrier of it may be, so it ought to be sufficient
for us to know the hand and seal of our Lord in his sacraments,
by whatever messenger they may be conveyed. This
fully refutes the error of the Donatists, who measured the
virtue and value of the sacrament by the worthiness of the
minister. Such, in the present day, are our Anabaptists, who
positively deny that we are rightly baptized, because we were
baptized by impious and idolatrous ministers in the kingdom
of the pope, and therefore violently urge us to be baptized
again; against whose follies we shall be fortified with an argument
of sufficient strength, if we consider that we are baptized
not in the name of any man, but in the name of the Father,
and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and consequently that
it is not the baptism of man, but of God, by whomsoever it is
administered. Though those who baptized us were chargeable
with the grossest ignorance or contempt of God and of
all religion, yet they did not baptize us into the fellowship of
their own ignorance or sacrilege, but into the faith of Jesus
Christ; because they invoked, not their own name, but the
name of God, and baptized in no other name but his. Now,
if it was the baptism of God, it certainly contained the promise
488of remission of sins, mortification of the flesh, spiritual vivification,
and participation of Christ. Thus it was no injury to
the Jews to have been circumcised by impure and apostate
priests; nor was the sign on that account useless, so as to
render it necessary to be repeated, but it was sufficient to recur
to the genuine original. They object, that baptism ought to
be celebrated in the congregation of the godly; but this does
not prove that it loses all its value in consequence of being
partially wrong. For when we teach what ought to be done
to preserve baptism pure and free from every blemish, we do
not abolish the institution of God, however idolaters corrupt it.
For when circumcision was anciently corrupted with many
superstitions, yet it ceased not to be considered as a sign of
grace; nor, when Hezekiah and Josiah assembled together out
of all Israel those who had revolted from God, did they call
any of them to a second circumcision.
XVII. When they ask us what faith we had for many years
after our baptism, in order to show that our baptism was vain,
since baptism is not sanctified to us except by the word of
promise received in faith,—to this inquiry we answer, that
being blind and unbelieving for a long time, we did not embrace
the promise which had been given us in baptism, yet
that the promise itself, as it was from God, always remained
steady, firm, and true. Though all men were false and perfidious,
yet God ceases not to be true; though all men were
lost, yet Christ remains a Saviour. We confess, therefore, that
during that time we received no advantage whatever from
baptism, because we totally neglected the promise offered to
us in it, without which baptism is nothing. Now, since, by
the grace of God, we have begun to repent, we accuse our
blindness and hardness of heart for our long ingratitude to his
great goodness; yet we believe that the promise itself never
expired, but, on the contrary, we reason in the following manner:—By
baptism God promises remission of sins, and will
certainly fulfil the promise to all believers: that promise was
offered to us in baptism; let us, therefore, embrace it by faith:
it was long dormant by reason of our unbelief; now, then, let
us receive it by faith. Wherefore, when God exhorts the Jewish
people to repentance, he does not command them, who had
been circumcised, as we have remarked, by impious and sacrilegious
hands, and who had lived for some time immersed in the
same impiety, to be circumcised again: he only urges conversion
of heart. For however the covenant had been violated by
them, yet the symbol of the covenant, according to the institution
of the Lord, always remained firm and inviolable. On
the sole condition of repentance, therefore, they were restored
to the covenant which God had once made with them in circumcision;
489even though they had received it by the hands of
the unfaithful priests, and had themselves done all that was in
their power to corrupt it and render it ineffectual.
XVIII. But they conceive themselves to be armed with an
invincible argument, when they allege that Paul rebaptized
some who had previously been baptized with the baptism
of John.[1160] For if, by our own confession, the baptism of
John was in all respects the same as ours is now,—as these
persons who had first been erroneously instructed, after having
been taught the right faith, were rebaptized into it, so that baptism,
which was unaccompanied with the true doctrine, should
be considered as nothing, and we ought to be baptized afresh
into the true religion, which we have now first imbibed. It is
supposed by some, that they had received their first baptism
from a pretended and corrupt imitator of John, who had rather
baptized them into a vain superstition than into the truth.
This conjecture they seem to derive from the confession of
those persons that they were entirely ignorant of the Holy
Spirit—an ignorance in which it is concluded John would not
have suffered his disciples to remain. But it is not probable
that Jews, even though they had never been baptized at all,
would have been destitute of all knowledge of the Holy Spirit,
who is celebrated in so many testimonies of Scripture. The
answer, therefore, which they gave, “We have not so much as
heard whether there be any Holy Ghost,” is to be understood
as equivalent to a declaration that they had never heard
whether the graces of the Spirit, respecting which Paul inquired,
were given to the disciples of Christ. For myself, I
grant that the baptism they had received was the true baptism
of John, and the very same with the baptism of Christ; but I
deny that they were baptized again. What is the meaning of
these words, “They were baptized in the name of the Lord
Jesus?” Some explain it to be, that they were only instructed
by Paul in the pure doctrine; but I prefer understanding it, in
a more simple manner, of the baptism of the Holy Spirit; that
is, of the visible graces of the Spirit given by imposition of
hands. It is not uncommon in the Scripture to designate
those graces by the appellation of baptism; as on the day of
Pentecost, the apostles are said to have remembered the words
of the Lord respecting the baptism of the Spirit and of fire.
And Peter declared that he remembered the same, when he
saw those graces poured out on Cornelius and his family and
relatives. Nor is this interpretation inconsistent with what is
stated afterwards, that “When Paul had laid his hands upon
them, the Holy Ghost came on them.” For Luke does not
490relate two different things, but follows a mode of narration familiar
to the Hebrews, who first propose a subject generally,
and then unfold it more in detail. This is obvious from the
very connection of the words; for he says, “When they heard
this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. And
when Paul had laid his hands on them, the Holy Ghost came
on them.” The latter clause describes the kind of baptism
intended in the former. If ignorance vitiate a first baptism, so
that it requires to be corrected by a second, the first persons
who ought to have been rebaptized were the apostles themselves,
who for three years after their baptism had scarcely any
knowledge of the least particle of pure doctrine. And among
us, what rivers would be sufficient for the repetition of ablutions
as numerous as the errors which are daily corrected in us
by the mercy of the Lord!
XIX. The virtue, dignity, utility, and end of this mystery,
have now, if I mistake not, been sufficiently explained. With
respect to the external symbol, I sincerely wish that the genuine
institution of Christ had the influence it ought to have, to repress
the audacity of man. For, as though it were a contemptible
thing to be baptized in water, according to the precept of
Christ, men have invented a benediction, or rather incantation,
to pollute the true consecration of the water. They afterwards
added a wax taper with chrism; exorcism seemed to open the
gate to baptism. Now, though I am not ignorant of the ancient
origin of this adventitious medley, yet it is lawful for me
and for all believers to reject every thing that men have presumed
to add to the institution of Christ. Now, Satan, seeing
that from the very first introduction of the gospel, his impostures
had been easily received by the foolish credulity of the
world, proceeded to grosser illusions; hence spittle, salt, and
other fooleries, which were publicly introduced with an unlimited
license, to the reproach of baptism. From these experiments
we may learn that there is nothing holier, or better,
or safer, than to content ourselves with the authority of Christ
alone. How much better was it, therefore, omitting all theatrical
pomps which dazzle the eyes and stupefy the minds of
the simple, whenever any one was to be baptized, that he
should be presented to the congregation of believers, and
be offered to God in the presence and with the prayers of the
whole Church; that the confession of faith, in which the catechumen
was to be instructed, should be recited; that the promises
which are included in baptism should be declared; that
the catechumen should be baptized in the name of the Father,
of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; and lastly, that he should
be dismissed with prayers and thanksgivings! Thus nothing
material would be omitted; and that one ceremony, which was
491instituted by God, would shine with the greatest lustre, unencumbered
with any extraneous corruptions. But whether the
person who is baptized be wholly immersed, and whether
thrice or once, or whether water be only poured or sprinkled
upon him, is of no importance; Churches ought to be left at
liberty, in this respect, to act according to the difference of
countries. The very word baptize, however, signifies to immerse;
and it is certain that immersion was the practice of the
ancient Church.
XX. It is also necessary to state, that it is not right for
private persons to take upon themselves the administration of
baptism; for this, as well as the administration of the Lord’s
supper, is a part of the public ministry of the Church. Christ
never commanded women, or men in general, to baptize; he
gave this charge to those whom he had appointed to be apostles.
And when he enjoined his disciples, in the celebration
of the supper, to do as they had seen done by him when he
executed the office of a legitimate dispenser, he intended, without
doubt, that they should imitate his example. The custom,
which has been received and practised for many ages past, and
almost from the primitive times of the Church, for baptism to
be performed by laymen, in cases where death was apprehended,
and no minister was present in time, it appears to me impossible
to defend by any good reason. Indeed, the ancients
themselves, who either observed or tolerated this custom, were
not certain whether it was right or not. Augustine betrays
this uncertainty, when he says, “And if a layman, compelled
by necessity, has given baptism, I know not whether any one
may piously affirm that it ought to be repeated. For if it be
done without the constraint of necessity, it is a usurpation of
an office which belongs to another; but if necessity obliges, it
is either no offence, or a venial one.” Respecting women, it
was decreed without any exception, in the Council of Carthage,
that they should not presume to baptize at all, on pain of excommunication.
But it is alleged, there is danger, lest a child,
who is sick and dies without baptism, should be deprived
of the grace of regeneration. This I can by no means admit.
God pronounces that he adopts our infants as his children,
before they are born, when he promises that he will be a God
to us, and to our seed after us. This promise includes their
salvation. Nor will any dare to offer such an insult to God as
to deny the sufficiency of his promise to insure its own accomplishment.
The mischievous consequences of that ill-stated
notion, that baptism is necessary to salvation, are overlooked
by persons in general, and therefore they are less cautious; for
the reception of an opinion, that all who happen to die without
baptism are lost, makes our condition worse than that of the
492ancient people, as though the grace of God were more restricted
now than it was under the law; it leads to the conclusion
that Christ came not to fulfil the promises, but to abolish
them; since the promise, which at that time was of itself sufficiently
efficacious to insure salvation before the eighth day,
would have no validity now without the assistance of the sign.
XXI. What was the custom of the Church before Augustine
was born, may be collected from the ancient fathers. In the
first place, Tertullian says, “That it is not permitted for a
woman to speak in the Church, neither to teach, nor to baptize,
nor to offer, that she may not claim to herself the functions
of any office belonging to men, and especially to priests.”
The same thing is fully attested by Epiphanius, when he
censures Marcion for having given women liberty to baptize.
I am aware of the answer made to this by persons of opposite
sentiments—that there is a great difference between a common
usage, and an extraordinary remedy employed in cases of urgent
necessity; but when Epiphanius pronounces it to be a
mockery, without making any exception, to give women
liberty to baptize, it is sufficiently evident that he condemns
this corruption, and considers it inexcusable by any pretext
whatever; nor does he add any limitation, in his third book,
where he observes that this liberty was not granted even to
the holy mother of Christ.
XXII. The example of Zipporah is alleged, but is not applicable
to the case. Because the angel of God was appeased after
she had taken a stone and circumcised her son,[1161] it is unreasonable
to infer that her action was approved by God. On the
same principle it might be maintained, that God was pleased
with the worship established by the nations who were transplanted
from Assyria to Samaria. But there are other powerful
reasons to prove the absurdity of setting up the conduct
of that foolish woman as a pattern for imitation. If I should
allege, that this was a single act, which ought not to be considered
as a general example, and especially as we nowhere
find any special command that the rite of circumcision was to
be performed by the priests, the case of circumcision is different
from that of baptism; and this would be sufficient to refute
the advocates of its administration by women. For the
words of Christ are plain: “Go ye, therefore, and teach all
nations, baptizing them.”[1162] Since he constitutes the same
persons preachers of the gospel and administrators of baptism,
“and no man,” according to the testimony of the apostle,
“taketh this honour upon himself, but he that is called of God,
as was Aaron,”[1163] whoever baptizes without a legitimate call,
493intrudes into another person’s office. Even in the minutest
things, as in meat and drink, whatever we do with a doubtful
conscience, Paul expressly declares to be sin.[1164] Female baptism,
therefore, being an open violation of the rule delivered
by Christ, is a still greater sin; for we know that it is impious
to dissever things which God has united. But all this I pass
over; and would only request my readers to consider that
nothing was further from the design of Zipporah, than to perform
a service to God. For seeing her son to be in danger,
she fretted and murmured, and indignantly cast the foreskin on
the ground, reproaching her husband in such a manner as to
betray anger against God. In short, it is plain that all this
proceeded from violence of temper, because she was displeased
with God and her husband that she was constrained to shed
the blood of her son. Besides, if she had conducted herself
with propriety in all other respects, yet it was an act of inexcusable
presumption for her to circumcise her son in the presence
of her husband, and that husband not a private man, but
Moses, the principal prophet of God, who was never succeeded
by a greater in Israel; which was no more lawful for her to
do, than it is for women now to baptize in the presence of a
bishop. But this controversy will easily be decided by the
establishment of this principle—that infants are not excluded
from the kingdom of heaven, who happen to die before they
have had the privilege of baptism. But we have seen that it
is no small injustice to the covenant of God, if we do not rely
upon it as sufficient of itself, since its fulfilment depends not
on baptism, or on any thing adventitious. The sacrament is
afterwards added as a seal, not to give efficacy to the promise
of God, as if it wanted validity in itself, but only to confirm it
to us. Whence it follows, that the children of believers are
not baptized, that they may thereby be made the children of
God, as if they had before been strangers to the Church; but,
on the contrary, they are received into the Church by a solemn
sign, because they already belonged to the body of Christ
by virtue of the promise. If the omission of the sign, therefore,
be not occasioned by indolence, or contempt, or negligence,
we are safe from all danger. It is far more consistent
with piety to show this reverence to the institution of God, not
to receive the sacraments from any other hands than those to
which the Lord has committed them. When it is impossible
to receive them from the Church, the grace of God is not so
attached to them, but that we may obtain it by faith from the
word of the Lord.
494
As some turbulent spirits in the present age have raised
fierce disputes, which still continue to agitate the Church, on
the subject of infant baptism, I cannot refrain from adding
some observations with a view to repress their violence. If
any one should think this chapter extended to an immoderate
length, I would request him to consider, that purity of doctrine
in a capital point, and the peace of the Church, ought to
be of too much importance in our estimation for us to feel
any thing tedious which may conduce to the restoration of
both. I shall also study to make this discussion of as much
use as possible to a further elucidation of the mystery of baptism.
They attack infant baptism with an argument which
carries with it an appearance of great plausibility, asserting
that it is not founded on any institution of Christ, but was
first introduced by the presumption and corrupt curiosity of man,
and afterwards received with foolish and inconsiderate facility.
For a sacrament rests on no authority, unless it stands on the
certain foundation of the word of God. But what if, on a full
examination of the subject, it shall appear that this is a false
and groundless calumny on the holy ordinance of the Lord?
Let us, therefore, inquire into its first origin. And if it shall
be found to have been a mere invention of human presumption,
we ought to renounce it, and regulate the true observance
of baptism solely by the will of God. But if it shall be proved
to be sanctioned by his undoubted authority, it behoves us to
beware lest, by opposing the holy institutions of God, we
offer an insult to their Author himself.
II. In the first place, it is a principle sufficiently known,
and acknowledged by all believers, that the right consideration
of sacramental signs consists not merely in the external ceremonies,
but that it chiefly depends on the promise and the
spiritual mysteries which the Lord has appointed those ceremonies
to represent. Whoever, therefore, wishes to be fully
informed of the meaning of baptism, and what baptism is,
must not fix his attention on the element and the outward
spectacle, but must rather elevate his thoughts to the promises
of God which are offered to us in it, and to those internal and
spiritual things which it represents to us. He who discovers
these things, has attained the solid truth and all the substance
495of baptism, and thence he will also learn the reason and use
of the external sprinkling. On the other hand, he who contemptuously
disregards these things, and confines his attention
entirely to the visible ceremony, will understand neither the
force nor propriety of baptism, nor even the meaning or use of
the water. This sentiment is established by testimonies of
Scripture too numerous and clear to leave the least necessity
for pursuing it any further at present. It remains, therefore,
that from the promises given in baptism, we endeavour to deduce
its nature and meaning. The Scripture shows, that the
first thing represented in it, is the remission and purgation of
sins, which we obtain in the blood of Christ; and the second
the mortification of the flesh, which consists in the participation
of his death, by which believers are regenerated to newness
of life, and so into communion with him. This is the
sum to which we may refer every thing delivered in the Scriptures
concerning baptism, except that it is also a sign by
which we testify our religion before men.
III. As the people of God, before the institution of baptism,
had circumcision instead of it, let us examine the similarity
and difference between these two signs, in order to discover
how far we may argue from one to the other. When the
Lord gave Abraham the command of circumcision, he prefaced
it by saying, “I will be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after
thee;” at the same time declaring himself to be “Almighty,”
having an abundance of all things at his disposal, that Abraham
might expect to find his hand the source of every blessing.[1165]
These words contain the promise of eternal life, according to
the interpretation of Christ, who deduces from this declaration
an argument to evince the immortality and resurrection of believers.
“For God,” says he, “is not the God of the dead,
but of the living.”[1166] Wherefore also Paul, in showing the
Ephesians from what misery the Lord had delivered them,
concludes, from their not having been admitted to the covenant
of circumcision, that “at that time” they “were without
Christ, strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope
and without God;”[1167] all these things being comprehended in
that covenant. But the first access to God, the first entrance
into immortal life, is the remission of sins. Whence it follows
that this promise corresponds with the promise of baptism respecting
our purgation. The Lord afterwards stipulated with
Abraham, that he should walk before him in sincerity and
purity of heart: this belongs to mortification, or regeneration.
And to preclude any doubt that circumcision is a sign of mortification,
496Moses more expressly declares it in another place,
when he exhorts the Israelites to circumcise their hearts, because
the Lord had chosen them for himself above all the
nations of the earth. As God, when he adopts the posterity
of Abraham to be his people, commands them to be circumcised,
so Moses pronounces it to be necessary to circumcise the heart,
thereby declaring the true signification of that carnal circumcision.[1168]
Then, that no one might attempt this in his own
strength, he teaches that it is the work of Divine grace.[1169] All
these things are so often inculcated by the prophets, that there
is no need to collect here the numerous testimonies which
every where present themselves. We have ascertained, therefore,
that a spiritual promise, the very same which is given to
us in baptism, was given to the fathers in circumcision;
which represented to them the remission of sins and the mortification
of the flesh. Moreover, as we have shown that Christ,
in whom both these things are obtained, is the foundation of
baptism, the same must be evident of circumcision. For he
was promised to Abraham, and in him the blessing of all nations;
and the sign of circumcision was added in confirmation
of this grace.
IV. There is now no difficulty in discovering what similarity
or what difference there is between these two signs. The
promise, in which we have stated the virtue of the signs to
consist, is the same in both; including the paternal favour of
God, remission of sins, and eternal life. In the next place, the
thing signified also is one and the same, namely, regeneration.
The foundation, on which the accomplishment of these things
rests, is the same in both. Wherefore there is no difference in
the internal mystery, by which all the force and peculiar nature
of sacraments must be determined. All the difference lies
in the external ceremony, which is the smallest portion of it;
whereas the principal part depends on the promise and the
thing signified. We may conclude, therefore, that whatever
belongs to circumcision, except the difference of the visible
ceremony, belongs also to baptism. To this inference and comparison
we are led by the apostle’s rule, which directs us to
examine every interpretation of Scripture by the proportion of
faith.[1170] And, indeed, the truth on this subject is obvious to
the slightest observation. For as circumcision was a pledge to
the Jews, by which they were assured of their adoption as the
people and family of God, and on their parts professed their
entire subjection to him, and therefore was their first entrance
into the Church, so now we are initiated into the Church of
God by baptism, are numbered among his people, and profess
497to devote ourselves to his service. Hence it is evident, beyond
all controversy, that baptism has succeeded in the place of circumcision.
V. Now, if it be inquired, whether baptism may rightly be
administered to infants, shall we not pronounce it an excess of
folly, and even madness, in any one who resolves to dwell
entirely on the element of water and the external observance,
and cannot bear to direct his thoughts to the spiritual mystery;
a due consideration of which will prove, beyond all doubt, that
baptism is justly administered to infants, as that to which they
are fully entitled? For the Lord, in former ages, did not favour
them with circumcision without making them partakers of all
those things which were then signified by circumcision. Otherwise,
he must have deluded his people with mere impostures,
if he deceived them by fallacious symbols; which it is dreadful
even to hear. For he expressly pronounces that the circumcision
of a little infant should serve as a seal for the confirmation
of the covenant. But if the covenant remains firm and
unmoved, it belongs to the children of Christians now, as much
as it did to the infants of the Jews under the Old Testament.
But if they are partakers of the thing signified, why shall they
be excluded from the sign? If they obtain the truth, why
shall they be debarred from the figure? Though the external
sign in the sacrament is so connected with the word, as not to
be separated from it, yet if it be distinguished, which shall
we esteem of the greater importance? Certainly, when we
see that the sign is subservient to the word, we shall pronounce
it to be inferior to it, and assign it the subordinate
place. While the word of baptism, then, is directed to infants,
why shall the sign, which is an appendix to the word, be prohibited
to them? This one reason, if there were no others,
would be abundantly sufficient for the refutation of all opposers.
The objection that there was a particular day fixed for
circumcision, is a mere evasion. We admit that we are not
now bound to certain days, like the Jews; but when the Lord,
though he prescribes no particular day, yet declares it to be
his pleasure that infants shall be received into his covenant by a
solemn rite, what do we want more?
VI. The Scripture, however, still affords a more certain
knowledge of the truth. For it is most evident that the covenant
which the Lord once made with Abraham continues as
much in force with Christians in the present day, as it did
formerly with the Jews; and consequently that that word is
no less applicable to Christians than it was to the Jews. Unless
we suppose that Christ by his advent diminished or curtailed
the grace of the Father; which is execrable blasphemy.
Wherefore the children of the Jews, because they were made
498heirs of that covenant, and distinguished from the children of
the impious, were called a holy seed; and for the same reason,
the children of Christians, even when only one of the parents
is pious, are accounted holy, and according to the testimony
of the apostle, differ from the impure seed of idolaters. Now,
as the Lord, immediately after having made the covenant with
Abraham, commanded it to be sealed in infants by an external
sacrament, what cause will Christians assign why they should
not also at this day testify and seal the same in their children?
Nor let it be objected, that the Lord commanded not his covenant
to be confirmed by any other symbol than that of circumcision,
which has long ago been abolished. For it is easy
to reply, that during the time of the Old Testament he appointed
circumcision for the confirmation of his covenant; but
that since the abrogation of circumcision, there always remains
the same reason for confirming it, which we have in common
with the Jews. It is necessary, therefore, to be careful in observing
what we have in common with them, and what they
had different from us. The covenant is common, the reason
for confirming it is common. Only the mode of confirmation
is different; for to them it was confirmed by circumcision,
which among us has been succeeded by baptism. Otherwise,
if the testimony by which the Jews were assured of the salvation
of their seed be taken away from us, the effect of the advent
of Christ has been to render the grace of God more obscure
and less attested to us than it was to the Jews. If this cannot
be affirmed without great dishonour to Christ, by whom the
infinite goodness of God has been diffused over the earth, and
manifested to men in a more conspicuous and liberal manner
than at any former period, we must be obliged to confess, that
at least it ought not to be more concealed or less attested than
under the obscure shadows of the law.
VII. Wherefore the Lord Jesus, to exhibit a specimen from
which the world might understand that he was come to extend
rather than to limit the mercy of the Father, kindly received the
infants that were presented to him, and embraced them in his
arms, chiding his disciples who endeavoured to forbid their approach
to him, because they would keep those, of whom was the
kingdom of heaven, at a distance from him who is the only way
of entrance into it. But some will object, What resemblance
does this embrace of Christ bear to baptism? for he is not said
to have baptized them, but to have received them, taken them
in his arms, and blessed them; therefore, if we desire to imitate
his example, let us assist infants with our prayers, but let us
not baptize them. But it is necessary to consider the conduct
of Christ with more attention than it receives from persons of
this class. For it is not to be passed over as a thing of little
499importance, that Christ commanded infants to be brought to
him, and added, as a reason for this command, “For of such is
the kingdom of heaven;” and afterwards gave a practical testimony
of his will, when, embracing them in his arms, he
commended them to his Father by his prayers and benedictions.
If it be reasonable for infants to be brought to Christ,
why is it not allowable to admit them to baptism, the symbol
of our communion and fellowship with Christ? If of them is
the kingdom of heaven, why shall they be denied the sign,
which opens, as it were, an entrance into the Church, that,
being received into it, they may be enrolled among the heirs of
the heavenly kingdom? How unjust shall we be, if we drive
away from Christ those whom he invites to him; if we deprive
them of the gifts with which he adorns them; if we exclude
those whom he freely admits! But if we examine how far
what Christ did on that occasion differs from baptism, how
much greater importance shall we attach to baptism, by which
we testify that infants are included in the covenant of God,
than to the reception, the embrace, the imposition of hands,
and the prayers by which Jesus Christ himself acknowledged
them as his, and declared them to be sanctified by him!
The other cavils by which our opponents endeavour to elude
the force of this passage, only betray their ignorance. For
they argue that as Christ said, “Suffer little children to come,”
they must have been grown to such an age and stature as to
be capable of walking. But they are called by the evangelists
Βρεφη; and παιδια, two words used by the Greeks to signify little
infants hanging on the breast. The word “come,” therefore,
is merely used to denote “access.” To such evasions are
persons obliged to have recourse, who resist the truth. Nor is
there any more solidity in the objection, that the kingdom of
heaven is not said to belong to infants, but to those who resemble
them, because the expression is, not of them, but “of such
is the kingdom of heaven.” For if this be admitted, what
kind of reason would it be that Christ assigns, with a view to
show that infants in age ought not to be prevented from approaching
him, when he says, “Suffer little children to come
unto me?” Nothing can be plainer than that he intends those
who are in a state of real infancy. And to prevent this from
being thought unreasonable, he adds, “Of such is the kingdom
of heaven.” And if infants be necessarily comprehended, it
is beyond all doubt that the word “such” designates both
infants themselves and those who resemble them.[1171]
VIII. Now, every one must perceive, that the baptism of
infants, which is so strongly supported by the authority of
Scripture, is very far from being an invention of men. Nor
500is there much plausibility in the objection, that it is nowhere
stated that even a single infant was baptized by the hands of
the apostles. For though no such circumstance is expressly
mentioned by the evangelists, yet, on the other hand, as they
are never excluded when mention happens to be made of the
baptism of any family, who can rationally conclude from this,
that they were not baptized? If there were any force in such
arguments, women might as well be interdicted from the
Lord’s supper, because we have no account of their having
been admitted to it in the days of the apostles. But in this
we are content with the rule of faith. For when we consider
the design of the institution of the Lord’s supper, the conclusion
is easy respecting the persons who ought to be admitted
to a participation of it. We observe the same rule also in the
case of baptism. For when we consider the end of its institution,
we evidently perceive that it belongs to infants as well
as to adults. Therefore they cannot be deprived of it without
a manifest evasion of the will of the Divine Author. What
they circulate among the uninformed multitude, that after the
resurrection of Christ, a long series of years passed, in which
infant baptism was unknown, is shamefully contrary to truth;
for there is no ancient writer who does not refer its origin, as
a matter of certainty, to the age of the apostles.
IX. It remains for us briefly to show what advantage results
from this ceremony, both to believers who present their children
to the Church to be baptized, and to the infants themselves
who are washed in the holy water; to guard it from being
despised as useless or unimportant. But if any man takes it
into his head to ridicule infant baptism on this pretext, he holds
the command of circumcision, which was given by the Lord, in
equal contempt. For what will they allege to impugn the baptism
of infants, which may not be retorted against circumcision?
Thus the Lord avenges the arrogance of those, who
forthwith condemn what their carnal sense does not comprehend.
But God furnishes us with other weapons to repel their folly;
nor does this sacred ordinance of his appointment, which we
experience to be a source of peculiar support and consolation to
our faith, deserve to be called unnecessary. For this sign of
God, communicated to a child, like the impress of a seal,
ratifies and confirms the promise given to the pious parent,
declaring that the Lord will be a God, not only to him, but
also to his seed, and that he is determined to exercise his
goodness and grace, not only towards him, but towards his
posterity even to a thousand generations. The manifestation
here given of the mercy of God, in the first place, furnishes the
most abundant matter for the celebration of his glory; and in
the second place, fills pious breasts with more than common
joy, by which they are excited to a more ardent return of
501affection to such an indulgent Father, in whom they discover
such care of their posterity on their account. Nor shall I regard
an objection, if it should be urged, that the mere promise of
God ought to be sufficient to assure us of the salvation of our
children; since God, who knows our weakness, and has been
pleased in this instance to indulge it, has decided otherwise.
Let those, therefore, who embrace the promise of God that he
will perpetuate his mercy to their offspring, consider it their
duty to present them to the Church to be signed with the
symbol of mercy, and thereby to animate their minds to
stronger confidence, when they actually see the covenant of
the Lord engraven on the bodies of their children. The
children also receive some advantage from their baptism, their
ingrafting into the body of the Church being a more peculiar
recommendation of them to the other members; and afterwards,
when they grow to years of maturity, it operates upon them as
a powerful stimulus to a serious attention to the worship of
God, by whom they were accepted as his children by the
solemn symbol of adoption, before they were capable of
knowing him as their Father. Finally, we ought to be alarmed
by the vengeance which God threatens to inflict, if any one
disdains to mark his son with the symbol of the covenant; for
the contempt of that symbol involves the rejection and abjuration
of the grace which it presents.
X. Let us now discuss the arguments with which some
violent disputants continue to impugn this holy institution of
God. In the first place, finding themselves very hardly pressed
and exceedingly embarrassed by the similarity of baptism and
circumcision, they labour to establish a considerable difference
between these two signs, that one may appear to have nothing
in common with the other. For they affirm, first, that different
things are signified; secondly, that the covenant is entirely
different; and thirdly, that the children are mentioned
in a different manner. But when they endeavour to prove the
first point, they allege that circumcision was a figure of mortification,
and not of baptism; which we most readily grant,
for it is an excellent argument in our favour. We urge no
other proof of our sentiment, than that baptism and circumcision
are equally signs of mortification. Hence we conclude,
that baptism was introduced in the place of circumcision, and
represents to us the very same thing which that formerly did
to the Jews. In asserting a difference of the covenant, with
what presumption and absurdity do they corrupt the Scripture,
and that not in a single passage, but without leaving any part of
it secure from their perversions. For they represent the carnality
of the Jews to be such, as to give them a greater resemblance
to brutes than to rational beings; contending that the
502covenant made with them was limited to a temporary life,
and that the promises given to them were all confined to
present and corporeal enjoyments. If this notion be admitted,
what remains but to consider the Jewish people as pampered
for a season by the Divine bounty, (like a herd of swine,
fattened in a sty,) to perish at length in eternal ruin? For
whenever we adduce circumcision and the promises annexed
to it, they reply, that circumcision was a literal sign, and
that the promises connected with it were all carnal.
XI. Certainly, if circumcision was a literal sign, the same
opinion must be formed of baptism; for the apostle makes
one no more spiritual than the other. He says to the Colossians,
“In Christ ye are circumcised with the circumcision
made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the
flesh;” and this he calls “the circumcision of Christ.” In
explication of this sentiment, he adds, that they were “buried
with Christ in baptism.”[1172] What is the meaning of this
language, but that the accomplishment and truth of baptism
is the same with the accomplishment and truth of circumcision,
since they both represent the same thing? For his design is
to show that baptism was to Christians the same that circumcision
had before been to the Jews. But as we have now
clearly evinced that the promises of these two signs, and the
mysteries represented by them, are precisely the same, we
shall insist no longer on this point at present. I will only recommend
believers to consider, whether that sign ought to be
accounted earthly and literal, which contains nothing but what
is spiritual and heavenly. But to guard the simple against
their fallacies, we shall briefly reply by the way to one objection,
by which they endeavour to support this shameful misrepresentation.
It is very certain that the principal promises
of the covenant, which God made with the Israelites under the
Old Testament, were spiritual, and had reference to eternal
life; and that they were also understood by the fathers, as they
ought to be, in a spiritual sense, and inspired them with confident
hopes of the life to come, towards which they aspired
with all the powers of their souls. At the same time, we are
far from denying that he testified his benevolence to them by
terrestrial and carnal advantages, by which we also maintain
that their hopes of spiritual promises were confirmed. Thus,
when he promised eternal blessedness to his servant Abraham,
he added, in order to set a manifest token of his favour before
his eyes, another promise respecting the possession of the land
of Canaan. In this manner we ought to understand all the
terrestrial promises which were given to the Jewish nation; so
that the spiritual promise may always be considered as a source
503and foundation, to which the others may be referred. But
having treated these points more at large in discussing the difference
of the Old and New Testaments, I touch the more
slightly upon them here.
XII. In the mention of the children they find this variety;
that under the Old Testament, those were called the children
of Abraham, who derived their natural descent from him; but
that now this appellation is given to those who imitate his
faith; and that, therefore, that carnal infancy, which was
ingrafted into the fellowship of the Church by circumcision,
prefigured those spiritual infants of the New Testament, who
by the word of God are regenerated to an immortal life.
In this language we discover, indeed, a small spark of truth;
but it is a great error of these persons, that while they
lay hold of whatever first comes to their hands, when they
ought to pursue it much further, and to compare many things
together, they pertinaciously insist on a single word; hence
it necessarily happens that they are often deceived, because
they acquire no solid knowledge of any thing. We
confess that the natural seed of Abraham did for a time hold
the place of those spiritual children which are incorporated
with him by faith. For we are called his children, notwithstanding
there is no natural relationship between him and us.
But if they understand, as they certainly do, that no spiritual
blessing was ever promised by God to the carnal seed of
Abraham, they are greatly deceived. It behoves us to aim at
a more correct sentiment, to which we are directed by the certain
guidance of the Scripture. The Lord, therefore, promised
to Abraham, that he should have a Seed, in whom all the nations
of the earth were to be blessed, and accompanied this promise
with an assurance that he would be a God to him, and to his
seed. All those, who by faith receive Christ, the Author of
the blessing, are heirs of this promise, and are therefore denominated
“children of Abraham.”
XIII. Though, after the resurrection of Christ, the boundaries
of the kingdom of God began to be extended far and wide
into all nations, without any distinction, that, according to the
declaration of Christ, believers might be collected “from the east,
and from the west, and from the north, and from the south,” to
“sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob,”[1173] in the glory
of heaven, yet he had embraced the Jews with this great mercy
for many ages before; and because he had passed by all others,
and selected this one nation, to be for a season the exclusive objects
of his grace, he called them his “peculiar treasure” and
“special people.”[1174] In attestation of this beneficence, the Lord
504gave them circumcision, which was a sign to teach the Jews that
he would be their defence and salvation; and the knowledge of
this inspired their hearts with the hope of eternal life. For what
can be wanting to them whom God has taken into his charge?
Wherefore the apostle, with a view to prove that the Gentiles
are children of Abraham as well as the Jews, expresses himself
in the following manner: “Faith was reckoned to Abraham
for righteousness in uncircumcision. And he received the
sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith
which he had yet being uncircumcised; that he might be the
father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised;
that righteousness might be imputed unto them also; and the
father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision
only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father
Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised.”[1175] Do
not we see that equal dignity is attributed to Jews and Gentiles?
For during the time fixed by the decree of God, Abraham
was the father of circumcision. When the “middle wall
of partition between” them was “broken down,”[1176] as the
apostle says in another place, to give the Gentiles an entrance
into the kingdom of God, he became also their father, and that
without the sign of circumcision; for instead of circumcision,
they have baptism. The express intimation, that Abraham
was not a father to them who were of the circumcision only,
was introduced by the apostle, to repress the vain confidence
of some who neglected all concern about piety, and prided
themselves in mere ceremonies. In the same manner, we may
now refute the vanity of those who in baptism never carry
their thoughts beyond the water.
XIV. But in objection to this, another passage is adduced
from the same apostle, in which he states, “that they which
are the children of the flesh” are not “the children of Abraham,”
but that only “the children of the promise are counted for the
seed.”[1177] For this passage seems to imply, that carnal descent
from Abraham is nothing, though we attribute some importance
to it. But it is requisite to pay more particular attention
to the subject which the apostle is here discussing. For in
order to show to the Jews, that the goodness of God was not
confined to the seed of Abraham, and even that carnal descent
from him was of no value in itself, he alleges, in proof of it,
the cases of Ishmael and Esau; who, notwithstanding they
were the true offspring of Abraham according to the flesh,
were rejected as if they had been strangers, and the blessing
remained with Isaac and Jacob. Hence follows what he afterwards
affirms—that salvation depends on the mercy of God,
505which he imparts to whom he pleases; but that the Jews
have no reason for satisfaction, or glorying in the name of
the covenant, unless they observe the law of the covenant;
that is, obey the Divine word. Yet, after having demolished
their vain confidence in their descent, knowing, on the other
hand, that the covenant which God had once made with the
posterity of Abraham could by no means be invalidated, he
argues, that the natural descendants are not to be deprived of
their dignity; by virtue of which he shows that the Jews
were the first and natural heirs of the gospel, only that they
had been rejected as unworthy, on account of their ingratitude,
yet that the heavenly benediction had not entirely departed
from their nation. For which reason, though they were rebels
and violators of the covenant, yet he calls them holy;
such high honours does he give to the holy generation, which
God honoured with his sacred covenant; but he considers us,
in comparison with them, as the posthumous, and even abortive
children of Abraham, and that not by nature, but by
adoption; as if a branch broken off from its native tree were
ingrafted on another stock. That they might not be defrauded
of their prerogative, therefore, it was necessary for the
gospel to be first announced to them; for they are, as it were,
the first-born in the family of God. Wherefore this honour
was to be given to them, till they rejected the offer of it, and
by their ingratitude caused it to be transferred to the Gentiles.
Nor, whatever be the obstinacy with which they persist in
opposing the gospel, ought they, on that account, to be despised
by us, if we consider that, for the sake of the promise,
the blessing of God still remains among them; as the apostle
clearly testifies that it will never entirely depart from them;
“for the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.”[1178]
XV. See, now, the importance and the estimate to be formed
of the promise given to the posterity of Abraham. Therefore,
though we have no doubt that the distinction of the heirs of
the kingdom from those who have no share in it, is the free
act of the sovereign election of God, yet, at the same time, we
perceive that he has been pleased to display his mercy in a
peculiar manner on the seed of Abraham, and to testify and
seal it by circumcision. The same reason is applicable to
the Christian Church. For as Paul, in that passage, argues
that the children of the Jews were sanctified by their
parents, so, in another place,[1179] he teaches that the children
of Christians derive the same sanctification from their
parents; whence it is inferred, that they who, on the contrary,
are condemned as impure, are deservedly separated from others.
506Now, who can doubt the falsehood of the consequence attempted
to be established, that the infants who were circumcised in
former ages, only prefigured those who are infants in a spiritual
sense, being regenerated by the word of God? Paul does
not reason in this manner, when he says, “that Jesus Christ
was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to
confirm the promises made unto the fathers;”[1180] as if he had
said, Since the covenant made with Abraham relates to his
seed, Jesus Christ, in order to execute and discharge the
promise once pledged by the Father, came to save the people
of the Jews. We see how, even after the resurrection of Christ,
Paul understands that the promise of the covenant is to be fulfilled,
not only in an allegorical sense, but, according to the
literal import of the words, to the natural seed of Abraham.
To the same effect is the declaration of Peter to the Jews,
“The promise is unto you and to your children,”[1181] and the
appellation under which he addresses them, “Ye are the children
of the covenant,”[1182] and if children, then heirs. A similar
sentiment is conveyed in another passage of the apostle,
which we have already quoted, where he represents the circumcision
performed on infants as a testimony of the communion
which they have with Christ.[1183] And, on the contrary
principle, what will become of that promise, by which the
Lord, in the second precept of his law, declares to his servants,
that he will be merciful to their seed, even to a thousand
generations?[1184] Shall we here have recourse to allegories?
That would be a frivolous evasion. Shall we say that this
promise is cancelled? That would be subversive of the law,
which, on the contrary, Christ came to establish, as a rule, for
a holy life. It ought to be admitted, therefore, beyond all
controversy, that God is so kind and liberal to his servants, as,
for their sakes, to appoint even the children who shall descend
from them to be enrolled among his people.
XVI. The other differences which they endeavour to establish
between baptism and circumcision, are not only ridiculous,
and destitute of every appearance of reason, but are even repugnant
to each other. For after they have affirmed that baptism
belongs to the first day of the spiritual conflict, but
circumcision to the eighth, when the mortification is already
completed,—immediately forgetting this, they change their
story, and call circumcision a sign of the mortification of the
flesh, and baptism a symbol of a burial, to which none are to be
consigned but those who are already dead. Where can we find
another instance of such levity of self-contradiction? For, according
507to the first proposition, baptism ought to precede circumcision;
according to the second, it ought to follow it. Yet it is
not a new thing for the minds of men to run into such inconsistencies,
when they prefer their own dreams to the unerring
word of God. We say, therefore, that the first of these differences
is a mere dream. If they wished to allegorize on the
eighth day, yet there was no propriety in this manner of doing
it. It would have been much better to follow the ancients,
and refer the number of the day either to the resurrection of
Christ, which took place on the eighth day, and on which we
know that newness of life depends; or to the whole course of
the present life, which ought to be a course of progressive mortification,
till, at the termination of life, the mortification also
should be completed. It is probable, however, that God deferred
circumcision to the eighth day on account of the tenderness
of young infants, whose lives might be endangered by the
performance of that rite immediately on their birth. Nor
is there much more solidity in the second position, that, after
being dead, we are buried by baptism; since the Scripture
expressly teaches, that “we are buried by baptism into
death,”[1185] in order to our entrance on a course of mortification,
and continuance in it from that time forward! Nor is
there any more propriety in the objection, that, if it be necessary
to conform baptism to circumcision, women ought not to
be baptized. For if it be evident, that the sign of circumcision
testified the sanctification of the seed of Israel, there can
be no doubt that it was given equally for the sanctification of
males and females. And though only the males were circumcised,
they alone being capable of it, the females were in a
certain sense partakers of their circumcision. Dismissing such
follies, therefore, let us never forget the similarity of baptism
and circumcision, between which we discover a complete
agreement in the internal mystery, the promises, the use, and
the efficacy.
XVII. They consider themselves as advancing a most powerful
argument for excluding infants from baptism, when they
allege, that by reason of their age they are not yet capable of
understanding the mystery signified in it; that is, spiritual regeneration,
which cannot take place in early infancy. Therefore
they conclude, they are to be considered in no other view
than as children of Adam, till they have attained an age which
admits of a second birth. But all these things are uniformly
contradicted by the truth of God. For if they must be left
among the children of Adam, they are left in death; for in
Adam we can only die. On the contrary, Christ commands
them to be brought to him. Why? Because he is life. To
508give them life, therefore, he makes them partakers of himself;
while these men, by driving them away from him, adjudge
them to death. For if they pretend that infants do not perish,
even though they are considered as children of Adam, their
error is abundantly refuted by the testimony of Scripture.
For when it pronounces that “in Adam all die,”[1186] it follows
that there remains no hope of life but in Christ. In order to
become heirs of life, therefore, it is necessary for us to be partakers
of him. So, when it is said, in other places, that we
are “by nature the children of wrath,”[1187] and “conceived in
sin,”[1188] with which condemnation is always connected, it
follows, that we must depart from our own nature, to have any
admission to the kingdom of God. And what can be more
explicit than this declaration, “that flesh and blood cannot inherit
the kingdom of God?”[1189] Let every thing of our own,
therefore, be destroyed, which will not be effected without regeneration,
and then we shall see this possession of the kingdom.
Lastly, if Christ speaks the truth, when he declares himself to
be “life,”[1190] it is necessary for us to be ingrafted into him,
that we may be rescued from the bondage of death. But how,
it is inquired, are infants regenerated, who have no knowledge
either of good or evil? We reply, that the work of God is
not yet without existence, because it is not observed or understood
by us. Now, it is certain that some infants are saved;
and that they are previously regenerated by the Lord, is beyond
all doubt. For if they are born in a state of corruption,
it is necessary for them to be purified before they are admitted
into the kingdom of God, into which “there shall in no wise
enter any thing that defileth.”[1191] If they are born sinners,
as both David and Paul affirm, either they must remain unacceptable
and hateful to God, or it is necessary for them to be
justified. And what do we require more, when the Judge
himself declares that there is no entrance into the heavenly
life, except for those who are born again?[1192] And, to silence
all objectors, by sanctifying John the Baptist in his mother’s
womb, he exhibited an example of what he was able to do for
others. Nor can they gain any advantage by their frivolous
evasion, that this was only a single case, which does not justify
the conclusion that the Lord generally acts in this manner
with infants. For we use no such argument. We only mean
to show, that they unjustly confine the power of God within
those narrow limits to which it does not suffer itself to be
restricted. Their other subterfuge is equally weak. They
allege that, according to the usage of the Scripture, the phrase
509from the womb denotes from childhood. But it is easy to see
that, in the declaration of the angel to Zacharias, it was used
in a different sense, and that John was to be filled with the
Holy Spirit, even before he was born.[1193] Let us not attempt,
therefore, to impose laws upon God, whose power has sustained
no diminution, but who is able to sanctify whom he pleases,
as he sanctified this child.
XVIII. And for this reason, Christ was sanctified from his
earliest infancy, that he might sanctify in himself all his elect,
of every age, without any difference. For as, in order to obliterate
the guilt of the transgression which had been perpetrated
in our flesh, he assumed to himself that very flesh, that
he might perform a perfect obedience in it, on our account,
and in our stead, so he was conceived of the Holy Spirit,
that, having the whole body which he assumed, fully endued
with the sanctity of the Spirit, he might communicate the
same to us. If Christ exhibits a perfect exemplar of all the
graces which God bestows upon his children, he will also
furnish us with a proof, that the age of infancy is not altogether
incompatible with sanctification. But, however this
may be, we consider it as clear, beyond all controversy, that
not one of the elect is called out of the present life, without
having been previously regenerated and sanctified by the
Spirit of God. Their objection, that the Holy Spirit, in the
Scriptures, acknowledges no regeneration, except from “the
incorruptible seed,” that is, “the word of God,”[1194] is a misinterpretation
of that passage of Peter, which merely comprehends
believers who had been taught by the preaching of the
gospel. To such persons, indeed, we grant that the word of
the Lord is the only seed of spiritual regeneration; but we
deny that it ought to be concluded from this, that infants cannot
be regenerated by the power of God, which is as easy to
him as it is wonderful and mysterious to us. Besides, it would
not be safe to affirm, that the Lord cannot reveal himself in
any way so as to make himself known to them.
XIX. But our opponents say, “Faith cometh by hearing,”[1195]
of which they have not yet acquired the use, and
they cannot be capable of knowing God; for Moses declares
them to “have no knowledge between good and evil.”[1196]
But they do not consider, that when the apostle makes hearing
the source of faith, he only describes the ordinary economy
and dispensation of the Lord, which he generally observes in
the calling of his people; but does not prescribe a perpetual
rule for him, precluding his employment of any other method;
which he has certainly employed in the calling of many, to
510whom he has given the true knowledge of himself in an internal
manner, by the illumination of his Spirit, without the
intervention of any preaching. But as they think it would be
such a great absurdity for any knowledge of God to be given
to infants, to whom Moses denies the knowledge of good and
evil, I would beg them to inform me, what danger can result from
our affirming that they already receive some portion of that
grace, of which they will ere long enjoy the full abundance.
For if the plenitude of life consists in the perfect knowledge
of God,—when some of them, whom death removes from the
present state in their earliest infancy, pass into eternal life,
they are certainly admitted to the immediate contemplation of
the presence of God. As the Lord, therefore, will illuminate
them with the full splendour of his countenance in heaven,
why may he not also, if such be his pleasure, irradiate them
with some faint rays of it in the present life; especially if he
does not deliver them from all ignorance before he liberates
them from the prison of the body? Not that I would hastily
affirm them to be endued with the same faith which we experience
in ourselves, or at all to possess a similar knowledge of
faith, which I would prefer leaving in suspense; my design is
only to check their foolish arrogance, who presumptuously assert
or deny whatever they please.
XX. To strengthen their cause still further, our opponents
proceed to allege, that baptism is a sacrament of repentance
and faith; and that, therefore, as neither of these can be exercised
in infancy, infants ought not to be admitted to a participation
of baptism, the signification of which would thereby
be rendered vain. But these arguments are directed against
God, more than against us. For it is very evident, from many
testimonies of Scripture, that circumcision also was a sign of
repentance, and Paul calls it “a seal of the righteousness of
faith.”[1197] Let the reason, then, be demanded of God himself,
why he commanded it to be impressed on the bodies of infants.
For, as baptism and circumcision both stand on the same
ground, they can attribute nothing to the latter which they
must not also grant to the former. If they recur to their
favourite subterfuge, that the age of infancy then prefigured
spiritual infants, it has been already answered. We say, therefore,
that since God formerly communicated to infants the rite
of circumcision, which was a sacrament of repentance and
faith, it appears to be no absurdity for them now to be admitted
to a participation of baptism; unless these men wish to offer a
direct insult to the institution of God. But in this, as well as
in all the proceedings of God, his wisdom and righteousness
511are sufficiently conspicuous to repress the opposition and detraction
of the impious. For though infants, at the time of
their circumcision, did not understand the meaning of that
sign, they were nevertheless truly circumcised into the mortification
of their corrupt and polluted nature, which they were
to pursue in mature years. In short, this objection may be
answered without any difficulty, by saying that they are baptized
into future repentance and faith; for though these
graces have not yet been formed in them, the seeds of both
are nevertheless implanted in their hearts by the secret operation
of the Spirit. This answer at once overturns every
argument they urge against us, derived from the signification of
baptism; as when they allege the designation given it by Paul,
where he calls it “the washing of regeneration and renewing;”[1198]
whence they argue that it ought to be given only to
such as are capable of being regenerated and renewed. But
we may reply, on the other hand, neither was circumcision,
which was a sign of regeneration, to be given to any but such
as were already regenerated; and this, in their apprehension,
will be to condemn the ordinance of God. Therefore, as we
have suggested several times before, whatever arguments tend
equally to invalidate circumcision, can have no force in the
controversy against baptism. Nor can they escape from any
difficulty, by saying, that whatever clearly rests on the authority
of God, we ought to consider as fixed and determined,
though we can discover no reason for it; but that this reverence
is not due to infant baptism, or to other similar things,
which are not enjoined upon us by the express word of God;
for they will always be held fast by this dilemma. Either the
command of God, respecting the circumcision of infants, was
legitimate and liable to no objections, or it was deserving of
censure. If there was no absurdity in that command, neither
can any absurdity be detected in the practice of infant baptism.
XXI. The charge of absurdity, with which they endeavour
to stigmatize it, we thus refute: If any of those who are the
objects of divine election, after having received the sign of regeneration,
depart out of this life before they have attained
years of discretion, the Lord renovates them by the power of
his Spirit, incomprehensible to us, in such a manner as he
alone foresees will be necessary. If they happen to live to an
age at which they are capable of being instructed in the true
signification of baptism, they will hence be the more inflamed
to the pursuit of that renovation, with the token of which they
find themselves to have been favoured in their earliest infancy,
that it might be the object of their constant attention all their
512lifetime. In the same sense must be understood what Paul
states in two places, that we are “buried with Christ by baptism.”[1199]
For he does not mean that he who is to be baptized,
must previously be buried with Christ, but simply declares
the doctrine which is contained in baptism, and that to
persons already baptized; so that it would be unreasonable to
argue from those passages, that such burial with Christ must
precede baptism. In this manner Moses and the prophets
reminded the people what was the meaning of circumcision,
though they had received that rite when they were infants.
To the same effect is what Paul writes to the Galatians, that “as
many as have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ.”[1200]
For what purpose? Why, that they might thenceforward live
to Christ, who had never lived to him before. And though in
adults a knowledge of the mystery ought to precede the reception
of the sign, yet a different rule is to be applied to infants,
as we shall presently show. Nor can any other conclusion be
drawn from that passage of Peter, which they consider as decisive
in their favour—that baptism is “not the putting away
of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience
toward God, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.”[1201] They
contend that this passage leaves not the least room for the
baptism of infants, who are not capable of that in which the
truth of baptism is here stated to consist. But they frequently
fall into this error, of maintaining that the thing signified
should always precede the sign. For the truth of circumcision
also consisted in the same answer of a good conscience;
but if it ought of necessity to precede it, infants would never
have been circumcised by the command of God. But by
showing us that the answer of a good conscience is comprehended
in the truth of circumcision, and at the same time
commanding infants to be circumcised, he sufficiently indicates
that it is administered with a view to something future.
Wherefore, all the present efficacy to be required in the baptism
of infants, is to ratify and confirm the covenant made
with them by the Lord. The remaining signification of this
sacrament will follow afterwards, at the time foreseen and appointed
by the Lord.
XXII. It must now, I think, be evident to every person, that
all arguments of this kind are mere perversions of Scripture.
Those which remain, and are nearly allied to these, we shall
run over in a cursory manner. They object, that baptism is
given for the remission of sins: this we admit, and it is completely
in favour of our opinion. For being born sinners, we
need pardon and remission even from our birth. Now, as the
513Lord does not exclude infants from the hope of mercy, but
rather assures them of it, why shall we refuse them the sign,
which is so far inferior to the thing signified? Wherefore, the
argument which they urge against us, we retort upon themselves;
infants are favoured with remission of sins,—therefore
they ought not to be deprived of the sign. They also adduce
that passage where the Lord is said to “cleanse the Church
with the washing of water by the word.”[1202] But no text
could be quoted more conclusive against their error; it furnishes
an obvious confirmation of our sentiment. If it be the will of
Christ that the ablution, with which he cleanses his Church, be
testified by baptism, it appears unreasonable that its testimony
should be wanting in infants, who are justly considered as part
of the Church, since they are called heirs of the kingdom of
heaven. For Paul speaks of the whole Church, when he describes
it as cleansed with the washing of water. And, on the
same principle, from that passage where he says that we are all
baptized into the body of Christ,[1203] we conclude that infants,
whom he numbers among his members, ought to be baptized,
that they may not be separated from his body. See with what
violence, and with what variety of weapons, they attack the
bulwarks of our faith!
XXIII. They proceed, in the next place, to the practice of
the apostolic age, in which no one is found to have been admitted
to baptism without a previous profession of faith and
repentance. For in answer to those who “were pricked in
their heart, and said, What shall we do? Peter said unto them,”
first, “repent,” and then “be baptized for the remission of
sins.”[1204] In like manner Philip, when the eunuch requested
to be baptized, replied, “If thou believest with all thine heart,
thou mayest.”[1205] Hence they think themselves justified in
concluding, that baptism ought never to be administered to any
person without being preceded by faith and repentance. But
if we adopt this reasoning, the first of these passages, which
makes no mention of faith, will evince the sufficiency of repentance
alone: the second, where repentance is not required,
will prove that faith alone is sufficient. I suppose they will
reply that one passage is elucidated by the other, and that
therefore they ought to be connected together. I also contend
that other places ought to be consulted, which may contribute
to the solution of this difficulty. For there are many passages
of Scripture, the sense of which depends on the circumstances
connected with them. This is exemplified in the cases now
under consideration. For the persons addressed by Peter and
514Philip were of an age capable of exercising repentance and
faith. We strenuously deny that such persons ought to be
baptized, without a knowledge of their repentance and faith, as
far, at least, as they are capable of being ascertained by the
judgment of men. But that infants ought to be ranked in a
different class, is sufficiently evident; for, under the former
dispensation, if any person connected himself with the Israelites
in religious communion, it was necessary for him to be
taught the covenant of the Lord, and instructed in the law,
before he received circumcision, because he was an alien by
birth, not one of the Israelitish people, with whom the covenant,
which was confirmed by circumcision, had been made.
XXIV. So the Lord himself, when he adopts Abraham,
does not begin with circumcision, concealing for a time what
was intended by that sign; but he first announces the covenant
which he designs to make with him, and then, after he
has received that promise in faith, makes him a partaker of that
sacrament. Why does the sacrament follow faith in the case
of Abraham, and in Isaac, his son, precede all exercise of understanding?
Because it is reasonable that a person, who at an
adult age is admitted to the fellowship of a covenant, to which
he had hitherto been a stranger, should first learn the conditions
of it; but this is not necessary in the case of an infant, who, by
hereditary right, according to the form of the promise, is already
included in the covenant from its very birth. Or, to express it
with greater clearness and brevity, if the children of believers,
without the aid of understanding, are partakers of the covenant,
there is no reason why they should be excluded from the sign
because they are not capable of expressing their consent to the
stipulation of the covenant. This is evidently the reason why
God sometimes declares the children descended from the Israelites
to be born to himself;[1206] for he undoubtedly considers
as his children, the children of those to whose seed he has
promised to be a Father. But he who is an unbeliever, descended
from impious parents, is accounted an alien from the
communion of the covenant, till he be united to God by faith.
It is no wonder, therefore, if he be not a partaker of the sign,
the signification of which in him would be delusive and vain.
In this sense Paul tells the Ephesians, that as long as they
were immersed in idolatry, they were “strangers from the
covenant.”[1207] The whole of the subject, if I mistake not,
may be clearly and summarily stated in the following position;
that persons of adult age, who embrace the Christian religion,
having been hitherto aliens from the covenant, are not to
receive the sign of baptism without the intervention of faith
515and repentance, which alone can give them an admission to the
fellowship of the covenant; but that the infant children of
Christian parents, being admitted by God to the inheritance of
the covenant as soon as they are born, are also to be admitted
to baptism. To this must be referred what is related by the
evangelists, that the people “were baptized of John, confessing
their sins”[1208]—an example which we think ought to be
followed in the present day. For if a Turk or heathen were
to offer himself to baptism, we would not hastily admit him to
that sacrament, without his having first made a confession to
the satisfaction of the Church.
XXV. Moreover, they adduce the language of Christ, which
is recorded by John, and which they suppose to represent a
present regeneration as requisite to baptism; “Except a man
be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom
of God.”[1209] See, they say, how baptism is called regeneration
by the mouth of the Lord. When it is evident, then,
that infants are utterly incapable of regeneration, on what
pretence do we admit them to baptism, to which regeneration
is indispensably necessary? In the first place, they are deceived
in supposing that this passage refers to baptism, because
it mentions water. For, after Christ had declared to Nicodemus
the corruption of nature, and shown him the necessity of being
born again,—because Nicodemus was dreaming of a second
corporeal birth, he here indicates the manner in which God
regenerates us, namely, by water and by the Spirit; as if he
had said, by the Spirit who, in the ablution and purification of
the souls of believers, performs the office of water. I therefore
understand by “water and the Spirit,” simply, the Spirit who
is water. Nor is this a novel mode of expression; for it perfectly
corresponds with that declaration of John the Baptist,
“He that cometh after me shall baptize with the Holy Ghost
and with fire.”[1210] As to baptize with the Holy Spirit and
with fire, therefore, is to confer the Holy Spirit, who, in regeneration,
has the office and nature of fire, so to be born of
water and of the Spirit is no other than to receive that influence
of the Spirit, which does in the soul what water does on
the body. I know that others give a different interpretation,
but I have no doubt that this is the genuine sense; because
the intention of Christ is simply to teach that all must be divested
of their own nature, who aspire to the kingdom of heaven.
However, if we were desirous of imitating their cavils,
it would be easy for us, granting what they require, to retort
upon them, that baptism is prior to faith and repentance, because,
in the words of Christ, water is mentioned before the
Spirit. It is certain that this phrase denotes spiritual gifts;
516and, if these follow baptism, I have established what I wish.
But, leaving all subterfuges, let us adhere to the simple interpretation
which I have proposed—that no one, till he is
renewed by living water, that is, by the Spirit, can enter into
the kingdom of God.
XXVI. It is further evident that their notion ought to be
exploded, because it adjudges all unbaptized persons to eternal
death. Let us suppose their tenet to be admitted, and baptism
to be administered to adults alone; what will they say will
become of a youth who is rightly instructed in the first principles
of piety, if he desires to be baptized, but, contrary to the
expectation of all around, happens to be snatched away by sudden
death? The Lord’s promise is clear: “Whosoever believeth
on the Son, shall not come into condemnation;” but “is
passed from death unto life.”[1211] We are nowhere informed
of his having condemned one who had yet not been baptized.
By this I would not be understood as implying that baptism
may be despised with impunity; for, so far from attempting to
excuse such contempt, I affirm it to be a violation of the
covenant of the Lord; I only mean to evince that it is not so
necessary, as that a person, who is deprived of the opportunity
of embracing it, must immediately be considered as lost.
But if we assent to their notion, we shall condemn all, without
exception, whom any circumstance whatever prevents from
being baptized, whatever faith they may otherwise have, even
that faith by which Christ himself is enjoyed. Moreover, they
sentence all infants to eternal death, by denying them baptism,
which, according to their own confession, is necessary to
salvation. Let them see, now, how well they agree with the
language of Christ, which adjudges the kingdom of heaven to
little children. But though we should grant them every thing
they contend for relative to the sense of this passage, still they
will gain no advantage from it, unless they first overturn the
doctrine which we have already established respecting the regeneration
of infants.
XXVII. But the strongest argument of all in favour of their
opinion, they boast, is contained in the original institution of
baptism, which they quote from the last chapter of Matthew,
where Christ, sending forth his disciples to all nations, gave
them a commission, first to teach, and then to baptize. “Go
ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name
of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; teaching
them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded
you.”[1212] Then, from the last chapter of Mark, they add,
“He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.”[1213]
What more do we require, say they, when the language of our
517Lord clearly expresses that teaching ought to precede baptism,
and represents baptism as subsequent to faith? Of this order,
an example was furnished even by the Lord Jesus himself
who was not baptized till he was “about thirty years of
age.”[1214] In what various ways do they embarrass themselves,
and betray their ignorance! For it is a mistake, worse than
childish, to consider that commission as the original institution
of baptism, which Christ had commanded his apostles to administer
from the commencement of his preaching. They
have no reason to contend, therefore, that the law and rule of
baptism ought to be derived from those two passages, as if they
contained the first institution of it. Though we should indulge
them by admitting this error, yet what force is there in
their reasoning? Indeed, if we wanted to evade the force of
their arguments, we need not have recourse to any little subterfuge;
a most ample field presents itself before us. For
while they so violently insist on the order of the words, as to
argue, that, when it is said, “Go teach and baptize,” and
“he that believeth and is baptized,” the meaning is, that
preaching ought to precede baptism, and that faith ought to
precede the reception of baptism,—why may not we, on the
other hand, reply, that baptizing ought to precede teaching the
observance of those things which Christ has commanded, because
it is said, “Baptize, teaching them to observe all things
whatsoever I have commanded you.” We have remarked the
same thing on the declaration of Christ, which has just been
quoted, respecting the regeneration of water and of the Spirit;
for if it be understood according to their interpretation, it will
appear from that passage that baptism is prior to regeneration,
because it is mentioned first: Christ teaches that we must be
born again, not of the Spirit and of water, but of water and of
the Spirit.
XXVIII. Their invincible bulwark, in which they place
such great confidence, seems already somewhat shaken; but
as the truth may be sufficiently defended by simplicity, I have
no inclination to escape with such sophistical and trivial arguments;
they shall therefore have a solid reply. The principal
command which Christ here gives to his apostles, is to preach
the gospel, to which he subjoins the administration of baptism
as an appendage. Besides, he says nothing of baptism, any
otherwise than as its administration is subordinate to the office
of teaching. For Christ sends his apostles to promulgate the
gospel to all the nations of the world, that by the doctrine of
salvation they may collect, from every land, men who before
were lost, and introduce them into his kingdom. But what
518men, or men of what description? It is certain that there is
no mention of any, but those who are capable of receiving instruction.
He afterwards adds, that such persons, when they
have been instructed, are to be baptized, and subjoins a promise:
“He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.”
Is there even a single syllable in the whole discourse respecting
infants? What kind of argumentation, then, is that with
which they assail us? Persons of adult age are to be instructed,
in order that they may believe before they are to be baptized;
therefore it is unlawful to administer baptism to infants.
It will be impossible for them, with all their ingenuity, to
prove any thing from this passage, except that the gospel is
first to be preached to those who are capable of hearing it, before
they are baptized; for it relates to no others. Let them
raise an obstacle from this, if they can, to exclude infants from
baptism.
XXIX. But to render their fallacies still more palpable, I
will show the absurdity of them by a very plain similitude.
The apostle says, “that if any would not work, neither should
he eat.”[1215] Now, if any man should pretend to infer from this,
that infants ought to be deprived of food, would he not deserve
universal contempt? Why so? Because it would be a perverse
application to all men, indiscriminately, of what was spoken
of men of a certain class and a certain age. Nor is there
any greater propriety in their reasoning in the present case.
For what every one sees to belong exclusively to persons of
adult age, they apply to infants, in order to make them subject
to a rule, which was only prescribed for persons of riper years.
The example of Christ is far from affording any support to
their cause. He was not baptized till he was “about thirty
years of age.” That is true indeed; but the reason is obvious;
because he then intended to lay a solid foundation for baptism
by his preaching, or rather to establish that which had a little
before been laid by John. Intending, therefore, to institute
baptism in his doctrine, in order to conciliate the greater authority
to his institution, he sanctified it in his own body, and
that at the point of time which he knew to be most proper,
namely, when he was about to commence his ministry. In
short, they can prove nothing else from this circumstance, except
that baptism derived its origin and commencement from
the preaching of the gospel. If they approve of fixing the
thirtieth year, why do they not observe it, but admit every
one to baptism as soon as he is, in their judgment, sufficiently
qualified for it? And even Servetus, one of their leaders,
though he pertinaciously insisted on this age, yet began to
519boast of being a prophet himself when he had only attained
his twenty-first year. As though it ought to be tolerated for a
man to arrogate the office of a teacher in the Church before he
is a member of it.
XXX. At length they object, that there is no more reason
why infants should be admitted to baptism than to the Lord’s
supper, which, however, is not administered to them. As
though the Scriptures did not make a considerable difference
between the two cases in every respect. Infant communion
was practised, indeed, in the ancient Church, as appears from
Cyprian and Augustine; but the custom has very properly been
discontinued. For if we consider the nature and property of
baptism, we find it to be an entrance or initiation into the
Church, by which we are enrolled among the people of God—a
sign of our spiritual regeneration, by which we are born again
as the children of God; whereas, on the contrary, the supper
is appointed for those of riper years, who, having passed the
tender state of infancy, are capable of bearing solid meat.
This difference is very evidently marked in the Scripture;
in which, as far as relates to baptism, the Lord makes no distinction
of age, whereas he does not present the supper to
the participation of all alike, but only to those who are capable
of discerning the body and blood of the Lord, of examining
their own consciences, of showing forth the Lord’s death, and
considering the power of it. Do we wish for any thing plainer
than what the apostle inculcates in the following exhortation?
“Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread,
and drink of that cup.”[1216] It must, therefore, be preceded by
examination, which would in vain be expected from infants.
Again: “He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and
drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s
body.”[1217] If no persons can be worthy partakers of it,
except those who can truly distinguish the holiness of the
body of Christ, why should we give to our tender infants
poison instead of salutary food? What is that precept of the
Lord, “This do in remembrance of me?”[1218] What is the
inference which the apostle deduces from it? “As often as
ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord’s
death till he come.”[1219] What remembrance, I ask, shall we
require from infants of that event, of which they have never
attained any knowledge? What preaching of the cross of
Christ, the virtue and benefit of which their minds are not yet
capable of comprehending? Not one of these things is prescribed
in baptism. Between these two signs, therefore, there
520is a considerable difference; such as we observe, also, between
similar signs under the Old Testament. Circumcision, which
is known to correspond to our baptism, was destined for infants.
The passover, which has now been succeeded by the sacred
supper, did not admit guests of all descriptions promiscuously,
but was rightly eaten only by those who were of sufficient age
to be able to inquire into its signification. If our opponents
had a grain of sound sense, would they shut their eyes against
a thing so clear and obvious?
XXXI. Though I am sorry to burden my readers with
such an accumulation of reveries, yet it will be worth while to
refute the specious arguments adduced in this controversy by
Servetus, one of the most eminent of the Anabaptists, and
even the chief glory of that sect. 1. He pretends that the
symbols appointed by Christ, as they are perfect, require also
those who receive them to be perfect, or persons capable of
perfection. But the answer is easy—that the perfection of
baptism reaches even unto death, and cannot with propriety
be restricted to one instant of time. I observe, also, that it is
foolish to expect a man on the first day to attain perfection,
towards which baptism invites us to proceed, by continual
advances, as long as we live. 2. He objects, that the symbols
of Christ were instituted as memorials, that every one may
remember that he has been buried with Christ. I answer,
that what he has framed from his own head requires no refutation;
and that he applies to baptism what the language of
Paul shows to be peculiar to the sacred supper, namely, that
every one should examine himself; but that nothing like this
is any where said of baptism; from which we conclude, that
though, by reason of their age, infants are not capable of examination,
it is nevertheless right to baptize them. 3. He adduces
the declaration of Christ, that “he that believeth not
the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on
him;”[1220] and concludes that infants, who are incapable of
believing, remain in their condemnation. I answer, that in this
passage Christ is not speaking of the general guilt in which all
the descendants of Adam are involved, but only threatening the
despisers of the gospel, who proudly and obstinately reject the
grace which is offered to them; and this has nothing to do
with infants. I likewise oppose a contrary argument; all
those whom Christ blesses are exempted from the curse of
Adam and the wrath of God; and as it is known that infants
were blessed by him, it follows that they are exempted from
death. He falsely alleges, as a passage of Scripture, that
“whosoever is born of the Spirit heareth the voice of the
521Spirit;” which, though we were to admit as a genuine text,
yet he could infer nothing more from it, than that believers are
formed to obedience as the Spirit operates within them. But
that which is affirmed of a certain number, it is wrong to apply
equally to all. 4. He objects, that because “that is first
which is natural,”[1221] we ought to wait the proper time for
baptism, which is spiritual. Now, though I grant that all the
descendants of Adam, being carnal, bring their condemnation
into the world with them, yet I deny that this is any impediment
to the communication of a remedy, as soon as ever
God is pleased to impart it. For Servetus can show no
Divine appointment, that many years shall elapse before the
newness of spiritual life can begin; for according to the testimony
of Paul, though the infant children of believers are in a
ruined condition by nature, yet they are sanctified by supernatural
grace.[1222] 5. He next produces an allegory, that when
David went up to the fortress of Zion, he took with him
neither the blind nor the lame, but hardy soldiers.[1223] And
what if I oppose him with a parable, in which God invites
the blind and the lame to the celestial feast?[1224] how will he
extricate himself from this difficulty? I ask, also, whether
the blind and the lame had not previously served as soldiers
with David. But it is useless to insist longer on this argument,
which the readers will discover from the sacred history
to be founded on mere falsehood. 6. Then follows another
allegory, that the apostles were “fishers of men,”[1225] not of
infants. I ask, what is the meaning of that declaration of
Christ, that “the kingdom of heaven is like unto a net, that
was cast into the sea, and gathered of every kind?”[1226] But
as I am not fond of allegorical trifling, I answer, that when the
apostles were appointed to the office of teaching, they were not
forbidden to baptize infants. I would further wish to be
informed, since the evangelist uses the word ανθρωπους, (a word
which comprehends all the human race, without any exception,)
why infants should be denied to be ανθρωπους, (human beings.)
7. He pretends, that as spiritual things belong to spiritual
persons,[1227] infants who are not spiritual are not fit subjects
of baptism. But here it is evident that he is guilty of a gross
perversion of that passage of Paul, the subject of which relates
to doctrine. When the Corinthians discovered too much complacency
in a vain subtlety, the apostle reproved their stupidity,
because they still required to be taught the first principles
of Christian doctrine. Who can infer from this, that baptism
ought to be denied to infants, whom, though they are born of
the flesh, yet God consecrates to himself by gratuitous adoption?
5228. He objects, that if they are new men, they ought to be
fed with spiritual food. The answer is easy—that they are
admitted into the flock of Christ by baptism, and that the
symbol of that adoption is sufficient for them, till they grow to
an age capable of bearing solid food; and that it is therefore
necessary to wait for the time of that examination, which God
expressly requires in the sacred supper. 9. He next objects,
that Christ invites all his people to the sacred supper. I
answer, it is sufficiently clear that he admits none but such
as are already prepared to celebrate the remembrance of his
death. Whence it follows, that infants, whom he condescended
to take into his arms, remain in a distinct and peculiar class,
till they grow to riper years, and yet that they are not strangers
to the Church. To this he objects, that it is a monstrous thing
for a person that is born, not to eat. I reply, that the external
participation of the supper is not the only way in which souls
are fed; and therefore that Christ is food to infants, notwithstanding
they abstain from the sign; but that the case of baptism
is different, by which alone they are admitted into the
Church. He further objects, that “a faithful and wise servant,
whom his lord hath made ruler over his household, giveth them
meat in due season.”[1228] This I readily grant; but by what
authority will he determine the time of baptism for us, so as
to prove that it is not administered to infants at a proper time?
10. He likewise adduces the command of Christ to his apostles,
to hasten to the harvest, while the fields are whitening.[1229]
The sole design of Christ on that occasion was to stimulate the
apostles, that, seeing the present fruit of their labours, they
might exert themselves in their ministry with the greater cheerfulness.
Who can infer from this that the time of harvest is
the only time proper for baptism? 11. His next argument is,
that in the primitive Church Christians and disciples were the
same persons.[1230] But here we see that he injudiciously
reasons from a part to the whole. The appellation of disciples
was given to persons of adult age, who had been already instructed,
and had made a profession of Christianity; just as the
Jews under the law were the disciples of Moses; yet no one can
justly infer from this, that infants were strangers, God having
declared them to be part of his family. 12. Moreover he
alleges, that all Christians are brethren, but that we treat infants
as not of that number, as long as we exclude them from the
Lord’s supper. But I return to that principle, that none are
heirs of the kingdom of heaven, except those who are members
of Christ; and that the embrace with which he honoured
infants was a true pledge of the adoption, by which they are
united with adults, and that their temporary abstinence from
523the supper does not prevent them from belonging to the body of
the Church. The thief who was converted on the cross was a
brother of believers, though he never partook of the Lord’s
supper at all. 13. He proceeds to assert, that no person
becomes our brother but by the spirit of adoption communicated
“by the hearing of faith.”[1231] I reply, that he is constantly
reverting to the same false reasoning, by a preposterous
application to infants of that which is spoken exclusively of
adults. Paul is there showing that the ordinary method which
God uses in calling his elect, and bringing them to the faith,
is to raise them up faithful teachers, by whose labours and instructions
he extends his assistance to them. But who will
dare to impose a law to prevent his ingrafting infants into
Christ by some other secret method? 14. He objects, that
Cornelius was baptized after he had received the Holy Ghost.[1232]
But the absurdity of attempting to extract a general rule from
this one example, is evident from the cases of the eunuch and
the Samaritans,[1233] in whom the Lord observed a different order,
for their baptism preceded their reception of the gifts of the
Spirit. 15. His next argument is worse than absurd; he says,
that by regeneration we are made gods;[1234] but that they are
gods to whom the word of God comes,[1235] which is not applicable
to infants. The ascription of deity to believers is one
of his reveries, which it is irrelevant to our present subject to
discuss; but to pervert that quotation from the Psalms to a sense
so remote from its genuine meaning, betrays the most monstrous
impudence. Christ says that the appellation of gods is given
by the prophet to kings and magistrates, because they sustain
an office of Divine appointment. But that which is directed to
certain individuals respecting the particular charge of governors,
this dexterous interpreter applies to the doctrine of the
gospel, in order to exclude infants from the Church. 16. He
objects, again, that infants cannot be accounted new creatures,
because they are not begotten by the word. I must
again repeat, what I have so often remarked, that the doctrine
of the gospel is the incorruptible seed, to regenerate those who
are capable of understanding it; but that where, by reason of
age, there is not yet any capacity of learning, God has his
different degrees of regenerating those whom he has adopted.
17. Then he returns to his allegories, and alleges that sheep and
goats were not offered in sacrifice immediately after they were
brought forth.[1236] If I approved of the application of figures to
this subject, I might easily retort, that all the first born immediately
on their birth are consecrated to the Lord,[1237] and that a
524lamb was to be sacrificed in its first year; whence it should
follow, that it is not at all necessary to wait for many years, but
that our children ought to be dedicated to God in their earliest
infancy. 18. He further contends, that none can come to Christ
but those who have been prepared by John; as though the office
of John had not been a temporary one. But to pass over
this; the children whom Christ took up in his arms and blessed,
had certainly no such preparation. Wherefore let him depart
with his false principle. 19. At length he calls in the assistance
of Trismegistus and the Sibyls, to show that sacred
ablutions are not suitable to any but adults. See what honourable
sentiments he entertains respecting the baptism of Christ,
which he would conform to the profane rites of the heathen,
that its administration might be regulated by the pleasure of
Trismegistus. But we have more reverence for the authority
of God, who has been pleased to consecrate infants to himself,
and to initiate them by a sacred sign, the meaning of which
they were too young to be able to understand. Nor do we
esteem it lawful to borrow from the ablutions of the heathen
any thing that may introduce into our baptism the least change
of that eternal and inviolable law which God has established
respecting circumcision. 20. In the last place, he argues, that
if it be lawful to baptize infants without understanding, baptism
may be, in mimicry and jest, administered by boys in play.
But he must contest this subject with God, by whose command
circumcision was performed upon infants, before they had attained
any understanding. Was it a ludicrous ceremony, then,
or a fit subject for the sports of children, that they could overturn
the sacred institution of God? But it is no wonder that
these reprobate spirits, as if transported with frenzy, bring
forward the most enormous absurdities in defence of their
errors; for such delusion is the just judgment of God upon
their pride and obstinacy. And I trust I have clearly shown
the futility of all the arguments with which Servetus has endeavoured
to assist the cause of his Anabaptist brethren.
XXXII. No doubt, I conceive, can now remain in the mind
of any sober man, that those who raise controversies and contentions
on the subject of infant baptism are presumptuous disturbers
of the Church of Christ. But it is worth while to notice
the object which Satan aims at promoting by so much
subtlety; which is, to deprive us of the peculiar benefit of
confidence and spiritual joy, which is to be derived from this
source, and in the same degree also to diminish the glory of
the Divine goodness. For how delightful is it to pious minds,
not only to have verbal assurances, but even ocular proof, of
their standing so high in the favour of their heavenly Father,
that their posterity are also the objects of his care! For here
525we see how he sustains the character of a most provident Father
to us, since he discontinues not his solicitude for us even
after our death, but regards and provides for our children.
Ought we not, then, after the example of David, to exult in
praise and thanksgiving to God with our whole heart, that his
name may be glorified by such an expression of his goodness?
This is evidently the reason why Satan makes such great exertions
in opposition to infant baptism; that the removal of
this testimony of the grace of God may cause the promise
which it exhibits before our eyes gradually to disappear, and
at length to be forgotten. The consequence of this would be,
an impious ingratitude to the mercy of God, and negligence
of the instruction of our children in the principles of piety.
For it is no small stimulus to our education of them in the
serious fear of God, and the observance of his law, to reflect,
that they are considered and acknowledged by him as his
children as soon as they are born. Wherefore, unless we are
obstinately determined to obscure the goodness of God, let us
present to him our children, to whom he assigns a place in his
family, that is, among the members of his Church.
After God has once received us into his family, and not
only so as to admit us among his servants, but to number us
with his children,—in order to fulfil the part of a most excellent
father, solicitous for his offspring, he also undertakes to
sustain and nourish us as long as we live; and not content
with this, he has been pleased to give us a pledge, as a further
assurance of this never-ceasing liberality. For this purpose,
therefore, by the hand of his only begotten Son, he has favoured
his Church with another sacrament, a spiritual banquet,
in which Christ testifies himself to be the bread of life,
to feed our souls for a true and blessed immortality. Now, as
the knowledge of so great a mystery is highly necessary, and
on account of its importance, requires an accurate explication;
and, on the other hand, as Satan, in order to deprive the Church
of this inestimable treasure, long ago endeavoured, first by
mists, and afterwards by thicker shades, to obscure its lustre,
and then raised disputes and contentions to alienate the minds
of the simple from a relish for this sacred food, and in our time
526also has attempted the same artifice; after having exhibited a
summary of what relates to the subject, adapted to the capacity
of the unlearned, I will disentangle it from those sophistries
with which Satan has been labouring to deceive the
world. In the first place, the signs are bread and wine, which
represent to us the invisible nourishment which we receive
from the body and blood of Christ. For as in baptism God
regenerates us, incorporates us into the society of his Church,
and makes us his children by adoption, so we have said, that
he acts towards us the part of a provident father of a family, in
constantly supplying us with food, to sustain and preserve us
in that life to which he has begotten us by his word. Now,
the only food of our souls is Christ; and to him, therefore, our
heavenly Father invites us, that being refreshed by a participation
of him, we may gain fresh vigour from day to day, till
we arrive at the heavenly immortality. And because this
mystery of the secret union of Christ with believers is incomprehensible
by nature, he exhibits a figure and image of it in
visible signs, peculiarly adapted to our feeble capacity; and, as
it were, by giving tokens and pledges, renders it equally as
certain to us as if we beheld it with our eyes; for the dullest
minds understand this very familiar similitude, that our souls
are nourished by Christ, just as the life of the body is supported
by bread and wine. We see, then, for what end this mystical
benediction is designed; namely, to assure us that the body of
the Lord was once offered as a sacrifice for us, so that we may
now feed upon it, and, feeding on it, may experience within us
the efficacy of that one sacrifice; and that his blood was once
shed for us, so that it is our perpetual drink. And this is the
import of the words of the promise annexed to it: “Take,
eat; this is my body, which is given for you.” The body,
therefore, which was once offered for our salvation, we are
commanded to take and eat; that seeing ourselves made partakers
of it, we may certainly conclude, that the virtue of that
life-giving death will be efficacious within us. Hence, also,
he calls the cup “the new testament,” or rather covenant, in
his blood.[1238] For the covenant which he once ratified with
his blood, he in some measure renews, or rather continues, as
far as relates to the confirmation of our faith, whenever he presents
us that sacred blood to drink.
II. From this sacrament pious souls may derive the benefit
of considerable satisfaction and confidence; because it affords
us a testimony that we are incorporated into one body with
Christ, so that whatever is his, we are at liberty to call ours.
The consequence of this is, that we venture to assure ourselves
527of our interest in eternal life, of which he is the heir, and that
the kingdom of heaven, into which he has already entered, can
no more be lost by us than by him; and, on the other hand,
that we cannot be condemned by our sins, from the guilt of
which he absolved us, when he wished them to be imputed to
himself, as if they were his own. This is the wonderful exchange
which, in his infinite goodness, he has made with us. Submitting
to our poverty, he has transferred to us his riches; assuming
our weakness, he has strengthened us by his power; accepting
our mortality, he has conferred on us his immortality;
taking on himself the load of iniquity with which we were
oppressed, he has clothed us with his righteousness; descending
to the earth, he has prepared a way for our ascending to
heaven; becoming with us the Son of man, he has made us,
with himself, the sons of God.
III. Of all these things we have such a complete attestation
in this sacrament, that we may confidently consider them as
truly exhibited to us, as if Christ himself were presented to
our eyes, and touched by our hands. For there can be no
falsehood or illusion in this word, “Take, eat, drink; this is
my body which is given for you; this is my blood which is
shed for the remission of sins.” By commanding us to take,
he signifies that he is ours; by commanding us to eat and
drink, he signifies that he is become one substance with us.
In saying that his body is given for us, and his blood shed for
us, he shows that both are not so much his as ours, because he
assumed and laid down both, not for his own advantage, but
for our salvation. And it ought to be carefully observed, that
the principal and almost entire energy of the sacrament lies in
these words, “which is given for you;” “which is shed for
you;” for otherwise it would avail us but little, that the body
and blood of the Lord are distributed to us now, if they had
not been once delivered for our redemption and salvation.
Therefore they are represented to us by bread and wine, to
teach us that they are not only ours, but are destined for the
support of our spiritual life. This is what we have already
suggested—that by the corporeal objects which are presented
in the sacrament, we are conducted, by a kind of analogy, to
those which are spiritual. So, when bread is given to us as a
symbol of the body of Christ, we ought immediately to conceive
of this comparison, that, as bread nourishes, sustains, and
preserves the life of the body, so the body of Christ is the
only food to animate and support the life of the soul. When
we see wine presented as a symbol of his blood, we ought to
think of the uses of wine to the human body, that we may
contemplate the same advantages conferred upon us in a spiritual
manner by the blood of Christ; which are these—that it
528nourishes, refreshes, strengthens, and exhilarates. For if we
duly consider the benefits resulting to us from the oblation of
his sacred body, and the effusion of his blood, we shall clearly
perceive that these properties of bread and wine, according to
this analogy, are most justly attributed to those symbols, as
administered to us in the Lord’s supper.
IV. The principal object of the sacrament, therefore, is not
to present us the body of Christ, simply, and without any ulterior
consideration, but rather to seal and confirm that promise,
where he declares that his “flesh is meat indeed, and” his
“blood drink indeed,” by which we are nourished to eternal
life; where he affirms that he is “the bread of life,” and that
“he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever;”[1239] to seal
and confirm that promise, I say; and, in order to do this, it
sends us to the cross of Christ, where the promise has been
fully verified, and entirely accomplished. For we never
rightly and advantageously feed on Christ, except as crucified,
and when we have a lively apprehension of the efficacy of his
death. And, indeed, when Christ called himself “the bread
of life,” he did not use that appellation on account of the sacrament,
as some persons erroneously imagine, but because he
had been given to us as such by the Father, and showed himself
to be such, when, becoming a partaker of our human mortality,
he made us partakers of his Divine immortality; when,
offering himself a sacrifice, he sustained our curse, to fill us
with his blessing; when, by his death, he destroyed and
swallowed up death; when, in his resurrection, this corruptible
flesh of ours, which he had assumed, was raised up by him,
in a state of incorruption and glory.
V. It remains for all this to be applied to us; which is
done in the first place by the gospel, but in a more illustrious
manner by the sacred supper, in which Christ offers himself to
us with all his benefits, and we receive him by faith. The
sacrament, therefore, does not first constitute Christ the bread
of life; but, by recalling to our remembrance that he has been
made the bread of life, upon which we may constantly feed,
and by giving us a taste and relish for that bread, it causes us to
experience the support which it is adapted to afford. For it
assures us, in the first place, that whatever Christ has done or
suffered, was for the purpose of giving life to us; and, in the
next place, that this life will never end. For as Christ would
never have been the bread of life to us, if he had not been born,
and died, and risen again for us, so now he would by no means
continue so, if the efficacy and benefit of his nativity, death, and
resurrection, were not permanent and immortal. All this Christ
has beautifully expressed in these words: “The bread that I
529will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the
world;”[1240] in which he clearly signifies, that his body
would be as bread to us, for the spiritual life of the soul, because
it was to be exposed to death for our salvation; and
that it is given to us to feed upon it, when he makes us partakers
of it by faith. He gave it once, therefore, to be made
bread, when he surrendered it to be crucified for the redemption
of the world; he gives it daily, when, by the word of the
gospel, he presents it to us, that we may partake of it as crucified;
when he confirms that presentation by the sacred mystery
of the supper; when he accomplishes within that which he
signifies without. Here it behoves us to guard against two
errors; that, on the one hand, we may not, by undervaluing
the signs, disjoin them from the mysteries with which they
are connected; nor, on the other hand, by extolling them
beyond measure, obscure the glory of the mysteries themselves.
That Christ is the bread of life, by which believers are nourished
to eternal salvation, there is no man, not entirely destitute
of religion, who hesitates to acknowledge; but all are not
equally agreed respecting the manner of partaking of him.
For there are some who define in a word, that to eat the flesh
of Christ, and to drink his blood, is no other than to believe in
Christ himself. But I conceive that, in that remarkable discourse,
in which Christ recommends us to feed upon his body,
he intended to teach us something more striking and sublime;
namely, that we are quickened by a real participation
of him, which he designates by the terms of eating and
drinking, that no person might suppose the life which we
receive from him to consist in simple knowledge. For as it
is not seeing, but eating bread, that administers nourishment
to the body, so it is necessary for the soul to have a true and
complete participation of Christ, that by his power it may
be quickened to spiritual life. At the same time, we confess
that there is no other eating than by faith, as it is impossible
to imagine any other; but the difference between me and the
persons whose sentiment I am opposing, is this; they consider
eating to be the very same as believing; I say, that in believing
we eat the flesh of Christ, because he is actually made ours by
faith, and that this eating is the fruit and effect of faith; or, to
express it more plainly, they consider the eating to be faith
itself; but I apprehend it to be rather a consequence of faith.
The difference is small in words, but in the thing itself it is
considerable. For though the apostle teaches that “Christ
dwelleth in our hearts by faith,”[1241] yet no one will explain
this inhabitation to be faith itself. Every one must perceive
530that the apostle intended to express a peculiar advantage arising
from faith, of which the residence of Christ in the hearts of
believers is one of the effects. In the same manner, when the
Lord called himself “the bread of life,”[1242] he intended not
only to teach that salvation is laid up for us in the faith of his
death and resurrection, but also that, by our real participation of
him, his life is transferred to us, and becomes ours; just as bread,
when it is taken for food, communicates vigour to the body.
VI. When Augustine, whom they bring forward as their
advocate, said that we eat the body of Christ by believing in
him, it was with no other meaning than to show that this
eating is not of a corporeal nature, but solely by faith. This
I admit; but at the same time I add, that we embrace Christ
by faith, not as appearing at a distance, but as uniting himself
with us, to become our head, and to make us his members.
I do not altogether disapprove, however, such a mode of expression,
but if they mean to define what it is to eat the flesh of
Christ, I deny this to be a complete explanation. Otherwise,
I see that Augustine has frequently used this phrase; as when
he says, “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, ye have
no life in you;[1243] this is a figure which enjoins a participation
of the sufferings of our Lord, and a sweet and useful recollection
in the memory, that his flesh was wounded and crucified for us:”
and again, when he says, “That the three thousand, who were
converted by the preaching of Peter,[1244] drank the blood of Christ
by believing in him, which they had shed in persecuting him.”
But in many other passages he highly celebrates that beneficial
consequence of faith, and states our souls to be as much refreshed
by the communion of the body of Christ, as our bodies are
by the bread which we eat. And the very same idea is conveyed
by Chrysostom, when he says, “That Christ makes us
his body, not only by faith, but also in reality.” For he does
not mean that this benefit is obtained any otherwise than by
faith; he only intends to preclude a supposition from being
entertained by any one, that this faith is nothing more than a
speculative apprehension. I say nothing at present of those
who maintain the Lord’s supper to be a mere mark of external
profession, because I think I have sufficiently refuted their
error, when treating of the sacraments in general. Only let it
be observed, that when Christ says, “This cup is the new
testament, or covenant, in my blood,”[1245] this is the expression
of a promise calculated for the confirmation of faith; whence
it follows, that unless we direct our views to God, and embrace
what he offers us, we never properly celebrate the sacred supper.
VII. Nor am I satisfied with those persons, who, after having
acknowledged that we have some communion with Christ,
531when they mean to describe it, represent us merely as partakers
of his Spirit, but make no mention of his flesh and blood;
as though there were no meaning in these and other similar
expressions: “That his flesh is meat indeed; that his blood is
drink indeed; that except we eat his flesh, and drink his blood,
we have no life in us.” Wherefore, if it be evident that the
full communion of Christ goes beyond their too confined description
of it, I will endeavour to state, in few words, how far
it extends, before I speak of the contrary error of carrying it to
excess. For I shall have a longer controversy with the hyperbolical
doctors, who, while in their folly they imagine an absurd
and extravagant way of eating the flesh of Christ, and drinking
his blood, deprive him of his real body, and metamorphose
him into a mere phantom; if, however, it be possible, in any
words, to unfold so great a mystery, which I find myself incapable
of properly comprehending, even in my mind; and this
I am ready to acknowledge, that no person may measure the
sublimity of the subject by my inadequate representation of it.
On the contrary, I exhort my readers not to confine their thoughts
within such narrow and insufficient limits, but to endeavour to rise
much higher than I am able to conduct them; for as to myself,
whenever I handle this subject, after having endeavoured to say
every thing, I am conscious of having said but very little, in
comparison of its excellence. And though the conceptions of
the mind can far exceed the expressions of the tongue, yet,
with the magnitude of the subject, the mind itself is oppressed
and overwhelmed. Nothing remains for me, therefore, but to
break forth in admiration of that mystery, which the mind is
unable clearly to understand, or the tongue to express. I will
nevertheless state the substance of my opinion, which, as I
have no doubt of its truth, I trust will also be received with
approbation by godly minds.
VIII. In the first place, we learn from the Scriptures, that
Christ was from the beginning that life-giving Word of the
Father, the fountain and origin of life, from which all things
have ever derived their existence. Therefore John in one
place calls him “The Word of life,” and in another says, that
“in him was life;”[1246] signifying, that even then he diffused
his energy over all the creatures, and endued them with life
and breath. Yet the same apostle immediately adds, that
“the life was manifested” then, and not before, when the Son
of God, by assuming our flesh, rendered himself visible to the
eyes, and palpable to the hands of men. For though he diffused
his influence over all the creatures before that period,
yet, because man was alienated from God by sin, had lost the
532participation of life, and saw nothing on every side but impending
death, it was necessary to his recovery of any hope of
immortality, that he should be received into the communion
of that word. For what slender hopes shall we form, if we
hear that the Word of God contains in himself all the plenitude
of life, while we are at an infinite distance from him,
and, withersoever we turn our eyes, see nothing but death
presenting itself on every side? But since he who is the
fountain of life has taken up his residence in our flesh, he
remains no longer concealed at a distance from us, but openly
exhibits himself to our participation. He also makes the very
flesh in which he resides the means of giving life to us, that,
by a participation of it, we may be nourished to immortality.
“I am the living bread,” says he, “which came down from
heaven. And the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I
will give for the life of the world.”[1247] In these words, he
shows, not only that he is life, as he is the eternal Word who
descended from heaven to us, but that in descending he imparted
that power to the flesh which he assumed, in order that
it might communicate life to us. Hence follow these declarations:
“That his flesh is meat indeed, and that his blood is
drink indeed;”[1248] meat and drink by which believers are
nourished to eternal life. Here, then, we enjoy peculiar consolation,
that we find life in our own flesh. For in this manner
we not only have an easy access to it, but it freely discovers
and offers itself to our acceptance; we have only to open our
hearts to its reception, and we shall obtain it.
IX. Now, though the power of giving life to us is not an
essential attribute of the body of Christ, which, in its original
condition, was subject to mortality, and now lives by an immortality
not its own, yet it is justly represented as the source
of life, because it is endued with a plenitude of life to communicate
to us. In this I agree with Cyril, in understanding that
declaration of Christ, “As the Father hath life in himself,
so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself.”[1249] For
in this passage, he is not speaking of the attributes which he
possessed with the Father from the beginning, but of the gifts
with which he was adorned in the flesh in which he appeared;
therefore he showed that the fulness of life dwelt in his humanity,
that whoever partook of his flesh and blood might, at
the same time, enjoy a participation of life. For, as the water
of a fountain is sometimes drunk, sometimes drawn, and sometimes
conveyed in furrows for the irrigation of lands, yet the
fountain does not derive such an abundance for so many uses
from itself, but from the spring which is perpetually flowing
533to furnish it with fresh supplies, so the flesh of Christ is like
a rich and inexhaustible fountain, which receives the life flowing
from the Divinity, and conveys it to us. Now, who does
not see that a participation of the body and blood of Christ is
necessary to all who aspire to heavenly life? This is implied
in those passages of the apostle, that the Church is the body
of Christ, and his fulness;[1250] that he is “the head, from whom
the whole body, joined together and compacted by that which
every joint supplieth, maketh increase of the body;”[1251] that
our bodies are “the members of Christ;”[1252] things which we
know can no otherwise be effected than by his entire union
both of body and spirit with us. But that most intimate fellowship,
by which we are united with his flesh, the apostle has
illustrated in a still more striking representation, when he says,
“We are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.”[1253]
At length, to declare the subject to be above all description, he
concludes his discourse by exclaiming, “This is a great mystery.”[1254]
It would be extreme stupidity, therefore, to acknowledge
no communion of believers with the body and
blood of the Lord, which the apostle declares to be so great,
that he would rather admire than express it.
X. We conclude, that our souls are fed by the flesh and
blood of Christ, just as our corporeal life is preserved and sustained
by bread and wine. For otherwise there would be no
suitableness in the analogy of the sign, if our souls did not find
their food in Christ; which cannot be the case unless Christ
truly becomes one with us, and refreshes us by the eating of
his flesh and the drinking of his blood. Though it appears
incredible for the flesh of Christ, from such an immense local
distance, to reach us, so as to become our food, we should remember
how much the secret power of the Holy Spirit transcends
all our senses, and what folly it is to apply any measure
of ours to his immensity. Let our faith receive, therefore,
what our understanding is not able to comprehend, that the
Spirit really unites things which are separated by local distance.
Now, that holy participation of his flesh and blood, by
which Christ communicates his life to us, just as if he actually
penetrated every part of our frame, in the sacred supper he also
testifies and seals; and that not by the exhibition of a vain or
ineffectual sign, but by the exertion of the energy of his Spirit,
by which he accomplishes that which he promises. And the
thing signified he exhibits and offers to all who come to that
spiritual banquet; though it is advantageously enjoyed by believers
alone, who receive such great goodness with true faith
534and gratitude of mind. For which reason the apostle said,
“The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion
of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not
the communion of the body of Christ?”[1255] Nor is there any
cause to object, that it is a figurative expression, by which the
name of the thing signified is given to the sign. I grant, indeed,
that the breaking of the bread is symbolical, and not the
substance itself: yet, this being admitted, from the exhibition
of the symbol we may justly infer the exhibition of the substance;
for, unless any one would call God a deceiver, he can
never presume to affirm that he sets before us an empty sign.
Therefore, if, by the breaking of the bread, the Lord truly represents
the participation of his body, it ought not to be doubted
that he truly presents and communicates it. And it must always
be a rule with believers, whenever they see the signs
instituted by the Lord, to assure and persuade themselves that
they are also accompanied with the truth of the thing signified.
For to what end would the Lord deliver into our hands the
symbol of his body, except to assure us of a real participation
of it? If it be true that the visible sign is given to us to seal
the donation of the invisible substance, we ought to entertain
a confident assurance, that in receiving the symbol of his body,
we at the same time truly receive the body itself.
XI. In harmony, therefore, with the doctrine which has
always been received in the Church, and which is maintained
in the present day by all who hold right sentiments, I say, that
the sacred mystery of the supper consists of two parts: the
corporeal signs, which, being placed before our eyes, represent
to us invisible things in a manner adapted to the weakness of
our capacities; and the spiritual truth, which is at the same
time typified and exhibited by those symbols. When I intend
to give a familiar view of this truth, I am accustomed to state
three particulars which it includes: the signification; the matter,
or substance, which depends on the signification; and the
virtue, or effect, which follows from both. The signification
consists in the promises which are interwoven with the sign.
What I call the matter or substance, is Christ, with his death
and resurrection. By the effect, I mean redemption, righteousness,
sanctification, eternal life, and all the other benefits
which Christ confers upon us. Now, though all these things
are connected with faith, yet I leave no room for this cavil;
as though, when I say that Christ is received by faith, I intended
that he is received merely in the understanding and
imagination; for the promises present him to us, not that we
may rest in mere contemplation and simple knowledge, but
535that we may enjoy a real participation of him. And, in fact,
I see not how any man can attain a solid confidence that he
has redemption and righteousness in the cross of Christ, and
life in his death, unless he first has a real communion with
Christ himself; for those blessings would never be imparted to
us, if Christ did not first make himself ours. I say, therefore,
that in the mystery of the supper, under the symbols of bread
and wine, Christ is truly exhibited to us, even his body and
blood, in which he has fulfilled all obedience to procure our
justification. And the design of this exhibition is, first, that
we may be united into one body with him, and, secondly,
that being made partakers of his substance, we may experience
his power in the communication of all blessings.
XII. I now proceed to the hyperbolical additions which superstition
has made to this sacrament. For here Satan has
exerted amazing subtlety to withdraw the minds of men from
heaven, and involve them in a preposterous error, by persuading
them that Christ is attached to the element of bread. In the
first place, we must be careful not to dream of such a presence
of Christ in the sacrament as the ingenuity of the Romanists
has invented; as if the body of Christ were exhibited, by a
local presence, to be felt by the hand, bruised by the teeth, and
swallowed by the throat. For this was the form of recantation
which Pope Nicolas directed to Berengarius as a declaration of
his repentance; the language of which is so monstrous, that
the scholiast exclaims, that there is danger, unless the readers
be very prudent and cautious, of their imbibing from it a worse
heresy than that of Berengarius; and Peter Lombard, though
he takes great pains to defend it from the charge of absurdity,
yet rather inclines to a different opinion. For, as we have not
the least doubt that Christ’s body is finite, according to the
invariable condition of a human body, and is contained in
heaven, where it was once received, till it shall return to judgment,
so we esteem it utterly unlawful to bring it back under
these corruptible elements, or to imagine it to be present every
where. Nor is there any need of this, in order to our enjoying
the participation of it; since the Lord by his Spirit gives us the
privilege of being united with himself in body, soul, and spirit.
The bond of this union, therefore, is the Spirit of Christ, by
whom we are conjoined, and who is, as it were, the channel
by which all that Christ himself is and has is conveyed to us.
For, if we behold the sun darting his rays and transmitting his
substance, as it were, in them, to generate, nourish, and mature
the roots of the earth, why should the irradiation of the Spirit
of Christ be less effectual to convey to us the communication
of his body and blood? Wherefore, the Scripture, when it
speaks of our participation of Christ, attributes all the power of
536it to the Spirit. One passage shall suffice instead of many.
In the eighth chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, Paul
represents Christ as dwelling in us no otherwise than by his
Spirit.[1256] By this representation, the apostle does not destroy
that communion of the body and blood of Christ of which
we are now treating, but teaches that it is solely owing to the
agency of the Spirit that we possess Christ with all his benefits,
and have him dwelling within us.
XIII. Deterred by a horror of such barbarous impiety, the
schoolmen have expressed themselves in more modest language,
yet they only trifle with equal fallacy and greater subtlety.
They admit that Christ is not contained in the bread and
wine in a local or corporeal manner; but they afterwards invent
a manner which they neither understand themselves nor can
explain to others; which, however, amounts to this, that Christ
is to be sought, as they express it, in the form of bread.
When they say that the substance of bread is transmuted into
Christ, do they not attach his substance to the whiteness,
which they pretend is all that remains of the bread? But,
they say, he is so contained in the sacrament, that he remains
in heaven, and we maintain no other presence than that of
habitude. But whatever words they employ to gloss over
their notions, they all terminate in this, that, by the consecration,
that which was before bread becomes Christ, so that
the substance of Christ is concealed under the colour of bread.
This they are not ashamed to express in plain terms; for
Lombard says, “That the body of Christ, which is visible in
itself, is hidden and concealed, after the consecration, under the
form of bread.” Thus the figure of the bread is nothing but a
veil, which prevents the flesh from being seen. Nor is there
any need of many conjectures, to discover what snares they
intended to lay in these words, which the thing itself plainly
evinces. For it is evident in what profound superstition not
only the people in general, but even the principal men, have
now for several ages been involved, and are involved, at the
present day, in the Papal churches. True faith, which is the
sole medium of our union and communion with Christ, being
an object of little solicitude to them, provided they have
that carnal presence which they have fabricated without any
authority from the Divine word, they consider him as sufficiently
present with them. The consequence of this ingenious
subtlety, therefore, we find to be this, that bread has been
taken for God.
XIV. Hence proceeded that pretended transubstantiation,
for which they now contend with more earnestness than for all
537the other articles of their faith. For the first inventors of the
local presence were unable to explain how the body of Christ
could be mixed with the substance of the bread, without being
immediately embarrassed by many absurdities. Therefore
they found it necessary to have recourse to this fiction, that
the bread is transmuted into the body of Christ; not that his
body is properly made of the bread, but that Christ annihilates
the substance of the bread, and conceals himself under its form.
It is astonishing that they could fall into such ignorance, and
even stupidity, as to promulgate such a monstrous notion, in
direct opposition to the Scripture and to the doctrine of the
primitive Church. I confess, indeed, that some of the ancient
writers sometimes used the word conversion, not with a view
to destroy the substance of the external signs, but to signify
that the bread dedicated to that sacrament is unlike common
bread, and different from what it was before. But they all
constantly and expressly declare, that the sacred supper consists
of two parts, earthly and heavenly; and the earthly part
they explain, without the least hesitation, to be bread and
wine. Whatever the Romanists may pretend, it is very clear
that the authority of the ancients, which they frequently presume
to oppose to the plain word of God, affords them no
assistance in the support of this dogma; and, indeed, it is
comparatively but of recent invention, for it was not only
unknown to those better times, when the doctrine of religion
still flourished in its purity, but even when that purity had
already been much corrupted. There is not one of the ancient
writers who does not acknowledge in express terms that the
consecrated symbols of the supper are bread and wine; though,
as we have observed, they sometimes distinguish them with
various titles, to celebrate the dignity of the mystery. For
when they say, that a secret conversion takes place in the
consecration, so that they are something different from bread
and wine, I have already stated their meaning to be, not that
the bread and wine are annihilated, but that they are to be
considered in a different light from common aliments, which are
merely designed for the nourishment of the body; because, in
those elements, we are presented with the spiritual meat and
drink of the soul. In this we also coincide. But, say our
opponents, if there be a conversion, one thing must be changed
into another. If they mean that something is made what it
was not before, I agree with them. If they wish to apply this
to their absurd notion, let them tell me what change they think
takes place in baptism. For in that also the fathers state a
wonderful conversion, when they say, that from the corruptible
element proceeds a spiritual ablution of the soul, yet not
one of them denies that it retains the substance of water. But
538there is no such declaration, they say, respecting baptism as
there is respecting the supper: “This is my body.” As though
the question related to those words, which have a meaning obvious
enough, and not rather to the conversion or change spoken
of, which ought to signify no more in the supper than in baptism.
Let them cease their verbal subtleties, therefore, which only
betray their own absurdity. Indeed, there would be no consistency
in the signification, if the external sign were not a living
image of the truth which is represented in it. By the external
sign, Christ intended to declare that his flesh is meat. If he
were to set before us a mere spectre of bread, and not real
bread, where would be the analogy or similitude, which ought
to lead us from the visible emblem to the invisible substance?
For, to preserve the correspondence complete, the signification
would extend no further than that we should be fed with an
appearance of the flesh of Christ. As in baptism, if there were
nothing but an appearance of water to deceive our eyes, we
should have no certain pledge of our ablution; and such an
illusive representation we should find a source of painful uncertainty.
The nature of the sacrament, therefore, is subverted,
unless the earthly sign correspond in its signification to the
heavenly substance; and, consequently, we lose the truth of
this mystery, unless the true body of Christ be represented
by real bread. I repeat it again; since the sacred supper is
nothing but a visible attestation of the promise, that Christ is
“the bread of life which cometh down from heaven,”[1257] it
requires the use of visible and material bread to represent that
which is spiritual; unless we are determined that the means
which God kindly affords to support our weakness shall be
altogether unavailing to us. With what reason could Paul conclude
that “we, being many, are one bread, for we are all partakers
of that one bread,”[1258] if there were nothing but a mere
phantom of bread, and not the true and real substance of it?
XV. They would never have been so shamefully deluded
by the fallacies of Satan, if they had not been previously fascinated
with this error—that the body of Christ contained in
the bread was received in a corporeal manner into the mouth,
and actually swallowed. The cause of such a stupid notion
was, that they considered the consecration as a kind of magical
incantation. But they were unacquainted with this principle,
that the bread is a sacrament only to those to whom the word
is addressed; as the water of baptism is not changed in itself,
but on the annexation of the promise, begins to be to us that
which it was not before. This will be further elucidated by
the example of a similar sacrament. The water which flowed
from the rock in the wilderness, was to the fathers a token and
539sign of the same thing which is represented to us by the wine
in the sacred supper; for Paul says, “They did drink the same
spiritual drink.”[1259] But the same water served also for their
flocks and herds. Hence it is easily inferred, that when earthly
elements are applied to a spiritual use, no other change takes
place in them than with regard to men, to whom they become
seals of the promises. Besides, since the design of God is, as
I have often repeated, by suitable vehicles to elevate us to
himself, this object is impiously frustrated by the obstinacy of
those who invite us to Christ indeed, but invisibly concealed
under the form of bread. It is not possible for the human
mind to overcome the immensity of local distance, and to penetrate
to Christ in the highest heavens. What nature denied
them, they attempted to correct by a remedy yet more pernicious,
that while remaining on the earth, they might attain
a proximity to Christ without any need of ascending to heaven.
This is all the necessity which constrained them to metamorphose
the body of Christ. In the time of Bernard, though a
harsh mode of expression had been adopted, still transubstantiation
was yet unknown; and in all preceding ages it was a
common similitude, in the mouths of all, that in this sacrament
the body and blood of Christ were spiritually united
with the bread and wine. They argue respecting the terms,
in their own apprehension, with great acuteness, but without
adducing any thing applicable to the present subject. The
rod of Moses, they say, though it took the form of a serpent,
still retained its original name, and was called a rod.[1260] So
they think it equally probable, that though the bread be
changed into another substance, yet it may by a catachresis,
without any violation of propriety, be denominated according
to its visible appearance. But what similitude or connection
can they discover between that illustrious miracle and their
fictitious illusion, which no eye on earth witnesses? The
magicians had practised their sorceries, so that the Egyptians
believed them to possess a Divine power to effect changes
in the creatures above the order of nature. Moses confronted
them, and defeating all their enchantments, showed the invincible
power of God to be on his side; because his one rod
swallowed up all the rest. But that being a transmutation
visible to the eye, makes nothing to the present argument, as we
have already observed; and the rod soon after visibly returned to
its original form. Moreover, it is not known whether that was
in reality a temporary transmutation of substance or not. The
allusion to the rods of the magicians deserves also to be observed;
for Moses says, that “Aaron’s rod swallowed up their
540rods:” he would not call them serpents, lest he might appear
to imply a transmutation which did not exist; for those impostors
had done nothing but dazzle the eyes of the spectators.
What resemblance has this to the following and other similar
expressions: “The bread which we break;”[1261] “As often
as ye eat this bread;”[1262] “They continued in breaking of
bread?”[1263] It is certain that their eyes were only deceived
by the incantations of the magicians. There is greater uncertainty
with respect to Moses, by whose hand it was no more
difficult for God to make a rod into a serpent, and afterwards
to make the serpent into a rod again, than to invest angels
with material bodies, and soon after to disembody them again.
If the nature of this sacrament were the same, or bore any
affinity to the case we have mentioned, our opponents would
have some colour for their solution. We must, therefore, consider
it as a fixed principle, that the flesh of Christ is not truly
promised to us for food in the sacred supper, unless the true
substance of the external symbol corresponds to it. And as
one error gives birth to another, a passage of Jeremiah is so
stupidly perverted, in order to prove transubstantiation, that I
am ashamed to recite it. The prophet complains that wood
was put into his bread;[1264] signifying that his enemies by their
cruelty had taken away all the relish of his food; as David in
a similar figure utters the following complaint: “They gave
me also gall for my meat, and in my thirst they gave me vinegar
to drink.”[1265] These disputants explain it as an allegory,
that the body of Christ was affixed to the wood of the cross;
and this, they say, was the opinion of some of the fathers.
I reply, we ought rather to pardon their ignorance, and bury
their disgrace in oblivion, than to add the effrontery of constraining
them continually to combat the genuine meaning of
the prophet.
XVI. Others, who perceive it to be impossible to destroy
the analogy of the sign and the thing signified, without subverting
the truth of the mystery, acknowledge that the bread
in the sacred supper is the true substance of that earthly and
corruptible element, and undergoes no change in itself; but
they maintain that it has the body of Christ included under it.
If they explained their meaning to be, that when the bread is
presented in the sacrament, it is attended with an exhibition
of the body of Christ, because the truth represented is inseparable
from its sign, I should make little objection; but as, by
placing the body itself in the bread, they attribute ubiquity to
it, which is incompatible with its nature, and by stating it to
541be under the bread, represent it as lying concealed in it; it is
necessary to unmask such subtleties: not that it is my intention
to enter on a professed examination of the whole of this
subject at present; I shall only lay the foundations of the discussion,
which will follow in its proper place. They maintain
the body of Christ, therefore, to be invisible and infinite, that
it may be concealed under the bread; because they suppose it
to be impossible for them to partake of him, any otherwise
than by his descending into the bread; but they know nothing
of that descent of which we have spoken, by which he elevates
us to himself. They bring forward every plausible pretext that
they can; but when they have said all, it is evident that they
are contending for a local presence of Christ. And what is the
reason of it? It is because they cannot conceive of any other
participation of his flesh and blood, except what would consist
in local conjunction and contact, or in some gross enclosure.
XVII. And to defend with obstinacy the error which they
have once embraced, some of them hesitate not to affirm that
the body of Christ never had any other dimensions than the
whole extent of heaven and earth. His birth as an infant, his
growth to maturity, his extension on the cross, his incarceration
in the sepulchre,—all this, they say, took place in consequence
of a kind of dispensation, that he might as a man accomplish
every thing necessary to our salvation. His appearance in
the same corporeal form after his resurrection, his ascension
to heaven, his subsequent appearances to Stephen and to Paul,—all
this also resulted from a similar dispensation, that he
might manifest himself to the view of man as appointed King in
heaven. Now, what is this but to raise Marcion from the dead?
For if such were the condition of Christ’s body, every one
must perceive it to have been a mere phantom or visionary form,
without any real substance. Some plead, with a little more subtlety,
that the body of Christ, which is given in the sacrament, is
glorious and immortal, and that therefore it involves no absurdity,
if it be contained under the sacrament in various places, or in no
place, or without any form. But I ask what kind of body did
Jesus Christ give to his disciples, the night before he suffered?
Do not the words imply, that he gave them the same mortal
body which was just about to be betrayed? They reply, that
he had already manifested his glory in the eyes of three of his
disciples, on the mount. That is true; but his design was, in
that splendour, to give them a transient glimpse of his immortality.
They will not find there a twofold body, but the very same
which Christ was accustomed to carry about with him, adorned
with unusual glory, from which it speedily returned to its
natural condition. When he distributed his body at the institution
542of the sacred supper, the hour was approaching, in
which, “stricken and smitten of God,” he was to lie down like
a leper “without form or comeliness:”[1266] he was then far
from intending to display the glory of his resurrection. What
a door does this open to the error of Marcion, if the body of
Christ appeared in one place mortal and mean, and in another
was received as immortal and glorious? On their principle,
however, this happens every day; for they are constrained to
confess that the body of Christ is visible in itself, while at the
same time they say that it is invisibly concealed under the
symbol of bread. And yet the promulgators of such monstrous
absurdities are so far from being ashamed of their disgrace,
that they stigmatize us with unprovoked and enormous calumnies,
because we refuse to subscribe to them.
XVIII. If they are determined to fasten the body and blood
of the Lord to the bread and wine, one must of necessity be
severed from the other. For as the bread is presented separately
from the cup, the body, being united to the bread, must
consequently be divided from the blood contained in the cup.
For when they affirm that the body is in the bread, and the
blood in the cup, while the bread and the wine are at some
distance from each other, no sophistry will enable them to evade
this conclusion—that the body is separated from the blood.
Their usual pretence, that the blood is in the body, and the
body in the blood, by what they call concomitance, is perfectly
frivolous, while the symbols in which they are contained are
so divided. But if we elevate our views and thoughts towards
heaven, to seek Christ there in the glory of his kingdom, as
the symbols invite us to him entire, under the symbol of
bread we shall eat his body, under the symbol of wine we
shall distinctly drink his blood, so that we shall thus enjoy
him entire. For though he has removed his flesh from us,
and in his body is ascended to heaven, yet he sits at the
Father’s right hand, that is, he reigns in the power, and
majesty, and glory of the Father. This kingdom is neither
limited to any local space, nor circumscribed by any dimensions;
Christ exerts his power wherever he pleases in heaven
and earth, exhibits himself present in his energetic influence,
is constantly with his people, inspiring his life into them, lives
in them, sustains them, strengthens and invigorates them, just
as if he were corporeally present; in short, he feeds them with
his own body, of which he gives them a participation by the
influence of his Spirit. This is the way in which the body
and blood of Christ are exhibited to us in the sacrament.
XIX. It is necessary for us to establish such a presence of
543Christ in the sacred supper, as neither, on the one hand, to
fasten him to the element of bread, or to enclose him in it, or
in any way to circumscribe him, which would derogate from
his celestial glory; nor, on the other hand, to deprive him of his
corporeal dimensions, or to represent his body as in different
places at once, or to assign it an immensity diffused through
heaven and earth, which would be clearly inconsistent with the
reality of his human nature. Let us never suffer ourselves to
be driven from these two exceptions; that nothing be maintained
derogatory to Christ’s celestial glory; which is the case
when he is represented as brought under the corruptible elements
of this world, or fastened to any earthly objects; and
that nothing be attributed to his body incompatible with the
human nature; which is the case when it is represented as
infinite, or is said to be in more places than one at the same
time. These absurdities being disclaimed, I readily admit
whatever may serve to express the true and substantial communication
of the body and blood of the Lord, which is given
to believers under the sacred symbols of the supper; and to
express it in a manner implying not a mere reception of it in
the imagination or apprehension of their mind, but a real enjoyment
of it as the food of eternal life. Nor can any cause be
assigned, why this opinion is so odious to the world, and the
minds of multitudes are so unjustly prejudiced against any
defence of it, but that they have been awfully infatuated with
the delusions of Satan. It is certain that the doctrine we advance
is in all respects in perfect harmony with the Scriptures;
it contains nothing absurd, ambiguous, or obscure; it is not
at all inimical to true piety, or solid edification; in short, it
includes nothing that can offend, except that for several ages,
while the ignorance and barbarism of the sophists prevailed
over the Church, this very clear light and obvious truth was
shamefully suppressed. Yet, as, in the present age also, Satan
is making the most powerful exertions to oppose it, and is employing
turbulent spirits to endeavour to blacken it by every
possible calumny and reproach, it is necessary to be the more
diligent in asserting and defending it.
XX. Now, before we proceed any further, it is requisite to discuss
the institution itself; because the most plausible objection
of our adversaries is, that we depart from the words of Christ.
To exonerate ourselves from the false charge which they bring
against us, it is highly proper, therefore, to begin with an exposition
of the words. The account given by three of the evangelists,
and by Paul, informs us, that “Jesus took bread, and gave
thanks, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples,
and said, Take, eat; this is my body, which is given or broken
for you. And he took the cup, and said, This cup is my blood
544of the new testament, or the new testament in my blood, which
is shed for you, and for many, for the remission of sins.”[1267]
The advocates of transubstantiation contend that the pronoun
this denotes the appearance of the bread, because the consecration
is made by the whole of the sentence, and there is no
visible substance, according to them, which can be indicated
by it. But if they are guided by a scrupulous attention to the
words, because Christ declared that which he gave into the
hands of his disciples to be his body, nothing can be more at
variance with a just interpretation of them, than the notion that
what before was bread had now become the body of Christ.
For it was that which Christ took into his hands to deliver to his
disciples, that he asserts to be his body; but he took “bread.”
Who does not perceive, then, that that to which this pronoun
referred was bread still? and therefore nothing would be more
absurd than to transfer to a mere appearance or visionary form
that which was spoken of real bread. Others, when they explain
the word is to denote transubstantiation, have recourse to
an interpretation still more violently perverted and unnatural.
They have not the least colour, therefore, for a pretence that
they are influenced by a scrupulous reverence for the words of
Christ. For to use the word is to signify a transmutation into
another substance, is a thing never heard of, in any country or
in any language. Those who acknowledge the continuance of
bread in the supper, and affirm that it is accompanied with
the real body of Christ, differ considerably among themselves.
Those of them who express themselves more modestly, though
they strenuously insist on the literal meaning of these words,
“This is my body,” yet afterwards depart from their literal
precision, and explain them to import that the body of Christ
is with the bread, in the bread, and under the bread. Of the
opinion maintained by them, we have already spoken, and shall
soon have occasion to take further notice; at present I am only
arguing respecting the words, by which they consider themselves
bound, so that they cannot admit the bread to be called
his body, because it is a sign of it. But if they object to every
trope, and insist on taking the words in a sense strictly literal,
why do they forsake the language of Christ, and adopt a phraseology
of their own so very dissimilar? For there is a wide
difference between these two assertions, that “the bread is the
body,” and that “the body is with the bread.” But because
they perceived the impossibility of supporting this simple proposition,
“that the bread is the body,” they have endeavoured
to escape from their embarrassment by those evasions. Others,
more daring, hesitate not to assert, that, in strict propriety of
545speech, the bread is the body; and thereby prove themselves
to be advocates for a truly literal interpretation. If it be objected,
that then the bread is Christ, and Christ is God, they will
deny this, because it is not expressed in the words of Christ.
But they will gain nothing by their denial of it, for it is universally
admitted that the whole person of Christ is offered to us
in the sacrament. Now, it would be intolerable blasphemy to
affirm of a frail and corruptible element, without any figure, that
it is Christ. I ask them whether these two propositions are
equivalent to each other—Christ is the Son of God, and
Bread is the body of Christ. If they confess them to be different,—a
confession which, if they hesitated, it would be easy to
extort from them,—let them say wherein the difference consists.
I suppose they will adduce no other point of difference, than that
the bread is called the body in a sacramental sense. Whence it
follows, that the words of Christ are not subject to any common
rule, and ought not to be examined on the principles of grammar.
I would likewise inquire of the inflexible champions of a literal
interpretation, whether the words attributed to Christ, by Luke
and Paul, “This cup is the new testament in my blood,” do
not express the same idea as the former clause, in which the
bread is called his body. Surely the same reverence ought to
be shown to one part of the sacrament as to the other; and
because brevity is obscure, the sense is elucidated by a fuller
statement. Whenever, therefore, they shall argue, from that one
word, that the bread is the body of Christ, I shall adduce the
interpretation furnished by the fuller account, that it is the
testament in his body. For shall we seek for an expositor
of greater fidelity or accuracy than Paul and Luke? Nor is it
my design to diminish in the smallest degree that participation
of the body of Christ, which I have acknowledged is enjoyed;
my only object is, to silence that foolish obstinacy which displays
itself in violent contentions about words. From the
authority of Paul and Luke, I understand the bread to be the
body of Christ, because it is the covenant in his body. If they
resist this, their contention is not with me, but with the Spirit
of God. Notwithstanding they profess to be influenced by
such reverence for the words of Christ, that they dare not understand
an explicit declaration of his in a figurative sense, yet
this pretext is not sufficient to justify their pertinacious rejection
of all the reasons which we allege to the contrary. At the
same time, as I have already suggested, it is necessary to understand
what is meant by “the testament in the body and
blood of Christ;” because we should derive no benefit from
the covenant ratified by the sacrifice of his death, if it were
not followed by that secret communication by which we become
one with him.
546XXI. It remains for us, therefore, to acknowledge that, on
account of the affinity which the things signified have with
their symbols, the name of the substance has been given to the
sign, in a figurative sense indeed, but by a most apt analogy.
I forbear to introduce any thing of allegories and parables, lest
any one should accuse me of having recourse to subterfuges,
and travelling out of the present subject. I observe that this
is a metonymical form of expression, which is commonly used
in the Scripture in reference to sacraments. For in no other
sense is it possible to understand such passages as these; when
of circumcision it is said, “This is my covenant;”[1268] of the
paschal lamb, “It is the Lord’s passover;”[1269] of the legal
sacrifices, that they were expiations, or atonements;[1270] of the
rock, from which the water issued in the desert, “That Rock
was Christ.”[1271] And not only is the name of something superior
transferred to that which is inferior, but, on the contrary,
the name of the visible sign is likewise given to the thing signified;
as when God is said to have appeared to Moses in the
bush,[1272] when the ark of the covenant is called God,[1273] and
the Holy Spirit, a dove.[1274] For, though there is an essential
difference between the symbol and the thing signified, the
former being corporeal, terrestrial, and visible, and the latter
spiritual, celestial, and invisible, yet, as the symbol is not a
vain and useless memorial, a mere adumbration of the thing
which it has been consecrated to represent, but also a true and
real exhibition of it, why may not the name of that which it
signifies be justly applied to it? If symbols invented by man,
which are rather emblems of things absent, than tokens of
things present, of which also they very frequently give a delusive
representation, are, nevertheless, sometimes distinguished
by the names of the things which they signify, there is far
greater reason why the symbols instituted by God should borrow
the names of those things of which they always exhibit a
correct and faithful representation, and by the truth of which
they are always accompanied. So great, therefore, is the similitude
and affinity of the one to the other, that there is nothing
at all unnatural in such a mutual interchange of appellations.
Let our adversaries cease, then, to assail us with their ridiculous
wit, by calling us Tropologists, because we explain the
sacramental phraseology according to the common usage of the
Scripture. For as there is a great similarity in many respects
between the various sacraments, so this metonymical transfer
of names is common to them all. As the apostle, therefore,
states, that “the Rock” from which flowed “spiritual drink”
for the Israelites, “was Christ,”[1275] because it was a visible
547symbol, under which “that spiritual drink” was received,
though not in a manner discernible by the corporeal eye, so
bread is now called the body of Christ, because it is the symbol
under which the Lord truly offers us his body to eat. And
that no one may despise this as a novel sentiment, we shall
show that the same was entertained by Augustine. He says,
“If the sacraments had not some similitude to those things of
which they are sacraments, they would be no sacraments at all.
On account of this similitude, they frequently take the names
even of the things which they represent. Therefore, as the
sacrament of the body of Christ is in some sense that body itself,
and the sacrament of the blood of Christ, is that blood itself,
so the sacrament of faith is called faith.” His works contain
many similar passages, which it would be useless to collect, as
this one is sufficient; only the reader ought to be apprized that
this holy father repeats and confirms the same observation in
an epistle to Euodius. It is a frivolous subterfuge to plead, that
when Augustine speaks of metonymical expressions, as frequently
and commonly used respecting the sacraments, he
makes no mention of the Lord’s supper; for, if this were admitted,
we could no longer reason from the genus to the species,
or from the whole to a part; it would not be a good argument
to say, that every animal is endued with the power of motion,
therefore oxen and horses are endued with the power of motion.
All further dispute on this point, however, is precluded by the
language of the same writer on another occasion—“that Christ
did not hesitate to call it his body, when he gave it as the sign
of his body.” Again: “It was wonderful patience in Christ,
to admit Judas to the feast, in which he instituted and gave to
his disciples the emblem of his body and of his blood.”
XXII. But if some obstinate man, shutting his eyes against
every other consideration, should insist on this single expression,
“This is my body,” as though it made a distinction between
the supper and all other sacraments, the answer is easy. They
allege that the verb substantive is too emphatical to admit of
any figure. If we grant this, the verb substantive is also used
by Paul, where he says, “The bread which we break, is it not
the communion of the body of Christ?”[1276] But the communion
of the body is something different from the body itself.
In almost all cases of sacraments, we find the same word used—“This
is my covenant.” “It is the Lord’s passover.”[1277]
And to mention no more, when Paul says, “That Rock was
Christ,”[1278] why do they consider the verb substantive less
emphatical in that passage than in the speech of Christ? Let
them also explain the force of the verb substantive in that place
548where John says, “The Holy Ghost was not yet, because that
Jesus was not yet glorified.”[1279] For if they obstinately adhere
to their rule, they will destroy the eternal existence of the
Spirit, as if it commenced at the ascension of Christ. Let them
answer, in the last place, what is the meaning of Paul, when
he calls baptism “the washing of regeneration, and renewing,”[1280]
though it is evidently useless to many. But nothing
is more conclusive against them than that passage where Paul
says, that the Church is Christ. For having drawn a similitude
from the human body, he adds, “So also is Christ;”[1281] by
which he means not the only begotten Son of God, in himself,
but in his members. I think I have so far succeeded, that all
men of sense and integrity must be disgusted with the foul
calumnies of our adversaries, when they charge us with giving
no credit to the words of Christ, which we receive with as
much submission as themselves, and consider with greater reverence.
Indeed, their supine negligence is a proof that it is a
subject of little concern to them, what was the will or meaning
of Christ, provided they can use him as a shield to defend their
obstinacy; as our diligence in inquiring into Christ’s true
meaning is a sufficient proof of our high regard to his authority.
They maliciously represent, that human reason prevents
us from believing what Christ himself has declared with his
sacred mouth; but how unjustly they stigmatize us with this
reproach, I have explained, in a great measure, already, and
shall presently make still more evident. Nothing prevents us,
therefore, from believing Christ when he speaks, and immediately
acquiescing in every word he utters. The only question
is, whether it be criminal to inquire into his genuine meaning.
XXIII. To show themselves men of letters, these good
doctors prohibit even the least departure from the literal signification.
I reply, When the Scripture calls God “a man of
war,” because this language would be too harsh, unless it be
explained in a figurative sense, I hesitate not to consider it as a
comparison borrowed from men. And indeed it was upon no
other pretext that the ancient Anthropomorphites molested the
orthodox fathers, than by laying hold of such expressions as
these: “The eyes of the Lord behold; It entereth into the
ears of the Lord; His hand is stretched out; The earth is his
footstool;” and accusing them of depriving God of his body,
which the Scripture ascribes to him. If this canon of interpretation
be admitted, all the light of faith will be overwhelmed
in the crudest barbarism. For what monstrous absurdities will
not fanatics be able to elicit from the Scripture, if they are permitted
to allege every detached and ill-understood word and
549syllable in confirmation of their notions? The objection which
they urge, from the improbability that Christ, when he was preparing
peculiar consolation for his disciples in seasons of adversity,
should express himself in enigmatical or obscure language,
is completely in our favour. For if it had not been understood
by the apostles, that the bread was called his body in a figurative
sense, because it was a symbol of his body, they would
undoubtedly have been disturbed about so monstrous a declaration.
Almost at the same moment, John states that they were
embarrassed and perplexed with every minute difficulty. They
who debated among themselves how Christ was to go to the
Father, and were at a loss to know how he would depart from
this world; who could understand nothing that was said of
a heavenly Father, because they had not seen him; how could
they have been so ready to believe any thing so entirely repugnant
to every dictate of reason, as that Christ was sitting at the
table before their eyes, and yet was invisibly enclosed in the
bread? By eating the bread without any hesitation, they testified
their consent, and hence it appears that they understood the
words of Christ in the same sense that we do, considering that it
is common in all sacraments for the name of the sign to be transferred
to the thing signified. To the disciples, therefore, it was,
as it is to us, a certain and clear consolation, involved in no
enigma; nor is there any other cause to be assigned why some
reject our interpretation, except that the devil has blinded them
by his delusions, in consequence of which they imagine enigmatical
obscurities, where a beautiful figure furnishes such an
obvious and natural meaning. Besides, if we rigidly adhere to
the letter, what Christ said of the bread would be inconsistent
with what he said of the cup. He calls the bread his body, he
calls the wine his blood: either this must be a vain repetition,
or a distinction which separates the body from the blood. It
might be said of the cup, This is my body, as truly as of the
bread; and the converse of this proposition would be equally
correct, that the bread is his blood. If they reply, that we
ought to consider for what end or use the symbols were instituted,—this
I acknowledge; but it is impossible to free their
error from this absurd consequence, that the bread is the blood,
and the wine the body. Now I am at a loss how to understand
them, when they admit the bread and the body to be different
things, and yet assert that the bread is properly and without
any figure called the body; as if any one should say that a
garment is different from a man, and yet that it is properly
called a man. At the same time, as if their victory consisted
in obstinacy and calumny, they charge us with accusing Christ
of falsehood, if we inquire into the true meaning of his words.
Now it will be easy for the readers to judge how unjustly we
550are treated by these syllable-hunters, when they persuade the
simple to believe that we derogate from the authority due to
the words of Christ, which we have proved to be outrageously
perverted and confounded by them, but to be faithfully and
accurately explained by us.
XXIV. But the infamy of this falsehood cannot be entirely
effaced, without repelling another calumny; for they accuse
us of being so devoted to human reason, as to limit the power
of God by the order of nature, and to allow him no more than
our own understanding teaches us to ascribe to him. Against
such iniquitous aspersions I appeal to the doctrine which I have
maintained; which will sufficiently evince that I am far from
measuring this mystery by the capacity of human reason, or
subjecting it to the laws of nature. Is it from natural philosophy
that we have learned that Christ feeds our souls with his
flesh from heaven, just as our bodies are nourished with bread
and wine? Whence is it that flesh has the power of giving
life to our souls? Every one will pronounce it not to be from
nature. No more will it accord with human reason that the
flesh of Christ descends to us to become nourishment to us.
In short, whoever shall understand our doctrine, will be enraptured
with admiration of the secret power of God. But these
good zealots contrive a miracle, without which God himself,
with all his power, disappears from their view. I would again
request of my readers a diligent consideration of the nature and
tendency of our doctrine, whether it depends on human reason,
or on the wings of faith rises above the world and ascends to
heaven. We say that Christ descends to us both by the external
symbol and by his Spirit, that he may truly vivify our souls
with the substance of his flesh and blood. He who perceives
not that many miracles are comprehended in these few words,
is more than stupid; for there is nothing more preternatural
than for souls to derive spiritual and heavenly life from the
flesh, which had its origin from the earth, and was subject to
death; nothing is more incredible than for things separated
from each other by all the distance of heaven and earth, notwithstanding
that immense local distance, to be not only connected,
but united, so that our souls receive nourishment from
the flesh of Christ. Let these fanatics, then, no longer attempt
to render us odious by such a foul calumny, as though we,
in any respect, limited the infinite power of God; which is
either a most stupid mistake, or an impudent falsehood. For
the question here respects not what God could do, but what he
has chosen to do. We affirm that what pleased him, came to
pass. It pleased him for Christ to become in all respects like
his brethren, sin excepted.[1282] What is the nature of our
551body? Has it not its proper and certain dimensions? is it not
contained in some particular place, and capable of being felt
and seen? And why, say they, may not God cause the same
flesh to occupy many different places, to be contained in no
particular place, and to have no form or dimensions? But how
can they be so senseless as to require the power of God to
cause a body to be a body, and not to be a body, at the same
time? It is like demanding of him to cause light to be at once
both light and darkness. But he wills light to be light, darkness
to be darkness, and flesh to be flesh. Whenever it shall
be his pleasure, indeed, he will turn darkness into light, and
light into darkness; but to require that light and darkness shall
no longer be different, is to aim at perverting the order of
Divine wisdom. Therefore body must be body, spirit must
be spirit, every thing must be subject to that law, and retain
that condition, which was fixed by God at its creation. And
the condition of a body is such, that it must occupy one particular
place, and have its proper form and dimensions. In
this condition did Christ assume a body, to which, as Augustine
observes, “he gave incorruption and glory, but without
depriving it of its nature and reality.” The testimony of the
Scripture is clear—that he ascended to heaven, whence he
will come again, in like manner as he was seen to ascend.[1283]
XXV. They reply, that they have the word in which the
will of God is clearly revealed; that is, if they be allowed to
banish from the Church the gift of interpretation which elucidates
the word. I confess that they have the word and quote
the letter of Scripture; but just as did the Anthropomorphites
in past ages, who represented God to be corporeal; just as did
Marcion and the Manichæans, who attributed to Christ a celestial
or visionary body. For they quoted these texts: “The
first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord
from heaven.”[1284] “Christ made himself of no reputation, and
took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the
likeness of man.”[1285] These groveling souls imagine that
God can have no power, unless the whole order of nature be
reversed by the monster which they have fabricated in their
own brains; but this is an attempt to circumscribe God, and to
measure his power by the fancies of men. For from what
word have they learned that the body of Christ is visible in
heaven, and yet is on earth, concealed in an invisible manner
under innumerable pieces of bread? They will say that necessity
requires this, in order to the body of Christ being given
in the supper. The truth is, that when they had determined
to conclude, from the language of Christ, that his body was
552eaten in a carnal manner, carried away with this prejudice,
they found it necessary to invent that subtlety, which the
whole tenor of the Scripture contradicts. That we derogate
any thing from the power of God, is so far from being true, that
our doctrine peculiarly tends to magnify it. But as they never
cease to accuse us of defrauding God of his due honour, by a
rejection of every thing which natural reason finds it difficult
to believe, though promised by the mouth of Christ himself,
I repeat the answer which I have lately given, that we consult
not natural reason respecting the mysteries of faith, but that,
with the placid docility and gentleness of spirit recommended
by James,[1286] we receive the doctrine which comes down from
heaven. Yet, in a point in which they run into a pernicious
error, I admit that we pursue a useful moderation. On hearing
the words of Christ, “This is my body,” they imagine a miracle
the most distant from his intention. This notion gives birth to
prodigious absurdities; but, having already embarrassed themselves
by their foolish precipitation, they plunge themselves
into the abyss of the Divine omnipotence, in order to extinguish
the light of truth. Hence the haughty presumption, with
which they profess to have no wish to know how Christ is
concealed under the bread, being content with that declaration,
“This is my body.” We, on the contrary, with equal obedience
and care, endeavour to ascertain the true meaning of this
passage, as we do of all others; nor do we, with preposterous
eagerness, temerity, and indiscretion, seize the first thought
which presents itself to our minds, but after diligent meditation
we embrace that sense which the Spirit of God suggests; established
in which, we look down with contempt on every
opposition made to it by the wisdom of this world; we even
impose restraints on our own minds, that they may not dare to
utter a word of cavil, and keep them humble to prevent their
murmuring against the authority of God. Hence has proceeded
that exposition of the words of Christ, which all, who are but
moderately versed in the Scripture, know to be agreeable to its
invariable usage respecting sacraments. Nor do we esteem it
unlawful, in a difficult case, after the example of the holy
virgin, to inquire how it can be.[1287]
XXVI. But as nothing will be more effectual to confirm
the faith of true believers, than a knowledge that the doctrine
which we have advanced is drawn from the pure word of God,
and rests upon its authority, I will demonstrate this with all
possible brevity. It is not from Aristotle, but from the Holy
Spirit, that we have learned that the body of Christ, since its
resurrection, is limited, and received into heaven till the last
553day. I am fully aware that our adversaries contemptuously
elude the passages which are adduced for this purpose.[1288]
Whenever Christ speaks of his approaching departure from the
world, they reply that this departure was nothing more than a
change of his mortal state. But if this were correct, Christ
would not substitute the Holy Spirit to supply the defect of
his absence, as they express it, since the Spirit does not
succeed to his place, nor does Christ himself descend again
from the glory of heaven to assume the condition of this mortal
life. The advent of the Spirit, and the ascension of Christ,
are clearly opposed to each other; and, therefore, it is impossible
for Christ to dwell with us, according to his flesh, in the
same manner in which he sends his Spirit. Besides, he expressly
declares that he shall not always be with his disciples
in the world.[1289] This declaration also they think they have
completely explained away, by saying that Christ merely
intended that he should not always be poor and mean, and
exposed to the necessities of this transitory life. But they are
evidently contradicted by the context, which relates, not to
his poverty, or indigence, or any of the miseries of this life,
but to his reception of respect and honour. The unction performed
by the woman displeased the disciples, because they
thought it an unnecessary and useless expense, bordering on
luxury; and, therefore, they wished that the value of the ointment,
which they considered as improperly lavished, had been
distributed to the poor. Christ said, that he should not always be
present to receive such honour. Augustine has given the same
explanation of this passage, in the following explicit language:—“When
Christ said, Me ye have not always with you,
he spoke of the presence of his body. For according to his
majesty, his providence, and his ineffable and invisible grace,
is accomplished what he said on another occasion—Lo, I am
with you always, even to the end of the world; but, with
respect to the body, which the Word assumed, which was
born of the virgin, which was apprehended by the Jews, which
was affixed to the tree, which was taken down from the cross,
which was wrapped in linen clothes, which was laid in the
sepulchre, which was manifested at the resurrection, this declaration
is fulfilled—Me ye have not always with you. Why?
Because in his corporeal presence he conversed with his disciples
for forty days, and while they were attending him, seen,
but not followed by them, he ascended to heaven. He is not
here; for he sits at the right hand of the Father: and yet he
is here; for he has not withdrawn the presence of his majesty:
otherwise, according to the presence of his majesty, we have
554Christ always with us; but, with respect to his corporeal presence,
he said with truth, Me ye have not always with you.
For the Church had his bodily presence for a few days; now
it retains him by faith, but does not behold him with corporeal
eyes.” Here let us briefly remark, this father represents
Christ as present with us in three respects—in his majesty,
his providence, and his ineffable grace; under the last of
which I comprehend the wonderful communion of his body
and blood; only we must understand this to be effected by
the power of the Holy Spirit, and not by a fictitious enclosure
of his body under the bread. For our Lord has declared that
he has flesh and bones, capable of being felt and seen; and to
go away and to ascend import not a mere appearance of ascent
and departure, but an actual performance of that which the
words express. Shall we, then, it will be said by some, assign
to Christ a particular district of heaven? I reply, with Augustine,
that this question is too curious, and altogether unnecessary;
provided we believe that he is in heaven, that is enough.
XXVII. Does not the term ascension, which is so frequently
repeated, signify a removal from one place to another? This
they deny, because they consider his exaltation as only denoting
the majesty of his empire. But I ask, What was the manner
of his ascent? Was he not carried up on high in the view
of his disciples? Do not the evangelists expressly state that
he was received up into heaven?[1290] These acute sophists
reply that he was concealed from their sight by an interposing
cloud, to teach believers that thenceforward he would not be
visible in the world. As though, to produce a belief of his
invisible presence, he ought not rather to have vanished in a
moment, or to have been enveloped in the cloud without
moving from where he stood. But as he was carried up into
the air, and, by the interposition of a cloud between him and
his disciples, showed that he was no longer to be sought for
on earth, we confidently conclude that his residence is now in
heaven. This also is affirmed by Paul, who teaches us to expect
him from thence.[1291] For this reason the angels admonished
the disciples—“Why stand ye gazing up into heaven?
This same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven,
shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into
heaven.”[1292] Here also the adversaries of sound doctrine
have recourse to what they think an ingenious evasion—that
he will then become visible who has never departed from the
world, but remained invisible with his people. As though the
angels, in that address, insinuated a twofold presence, and did
555not simply make the disciples ocular witnesses of his ascension,
with a view to preclude every doubt; just as if they had said,
Received up into heaven in your sight, he has taken possession
of the celestial empire; it remains for you to wait with patience
till he shall come again as the judge of the world; for
he is now entered into heaven, not to occupy it alone, but to
assemble you and all the godly to enjoy it with him.
XXVIII. As the advocates of this spurious doctrine are not
ashamed to defend it by the suffrages of the fathers, and particularly
of Augustine, I will briefly expose the disingenuousness
of this attempt. Their testimonies having been collected by
learned and pious writers, I have no inclination to go over the
same ground; any one who wishes may consult their writings.
Nor even from Augustine shall I adduce every passage which
would serve the argument; but shall content myself with
showing, by a few extracts, that he is, beyond all doubt, perfectly
in harmony with us. In order to deprive us of him, our
adversaries allege that, in various parts of his works, he states
the flesh and blood of Christ, even the victim once offered on
the cross, to be dispensed in the sacred supper; but this is altogether
frivolous; since he also calls the consecrated symbols
either “the eucharist,” or “the sacrament of Christ’s body and
blood.” But in what sense he uses the words flesh and blood, it
is unnecessary to make any long or circuitous inquiry; for he
explains himself by saying, “that sacraments take their names
from the similitude of those things which they signify, and,
therefore, in some sense, the sacrament of the body is the body.”
With this corresponds another well known passage: “The
Lord hesitated not to say, This is my body, when he delivered
the sign of it.” They object again, that Augustine expressly
says, that the body of Christ falls to the earth, and enters into
the mouth. I reply, that he says this in the same sense in
which he affirms it to be consumed; because he connects both
these things together. Nor does any objection arise from his
saying, that when the mystery is finished, the bread is consumed;
because he had just before said, “As these things are
known to man, being done by man, they may have honour as
holy things, but not as miracles.” And to the same effect is
another expression, which our adversaries, without sufficient
consideration, represent as in their favour; that, “when Christ
presented the mystical bread to his disciples, he, in a certain
sense, held himself in his own hands.” For, by introducing this
qualifying phrase in a certain sense, he sufficiently declares that
the body of Christ was not truly or really enclosed in the bread.
Nor ought this to be thought strange, for in another place he
expressly maintains, “That if bodies be deprived of their local
spaces, they will be nowhere, and consequently will cease to
556have any existence.” It is a poor cavil, to say that this passage
does not relate to the sacred supper, in which God exerts a
special power; because the question had been agitated respecting
the body of Christ, and this holy father, professedly answering
it, says, “Christ has given immortality to his body,
but has not deprived it of its nature. In a corporeal form,
therefore, he is not to be considered as universally diffused;
for we must beware of asserting his Divinity in such a way as
to destroy the truth of his body. It does not follow, that, because
God is every where, all that is in him is every where also.”
The reason is immediately added—“For one person is God and
man, and both constitute one Christ; as God, he is every where;
as man, he is in heaven.” What stupidity would it have betrayed
not to except the mystery of the supper, a thing so serious
and important, if it contained any thing inconsistent with the
doctrine he was maintaining! Yet, if any one will attentively
read what follows, he will find, that under that general doctrine,
the Lord’s supper is also comprehended. He says, that
Christ, who is, in one person, the only begotten Son of God
and the Son of man, is every where present as God; that, as
God, he resides in the temple of God, that is, in the Church; and
yet that he occupies some particular place in heaven, according
to the dimensions of a real body. To unite Christ with his
Church, we see he does not bring down his body from heaven;
which he certainly would have done, if that body could not
become our food without being enclosed under the bread. In
another place, describing how Christ is now possessed by believers,
he says, “You have him by the sign of the cross, by
the sacrament of baptism, by the food and drink of the altar.”
Whether he is correct in placing a superstitious ceremony
among the symbols of Christ’s presence, I am not now discussing;
but in comparing the presence of the flesh to the sign of the
cross, he sufficiently shows that he does not imagine Christ to
have two bodies, one visibly seated in heaven, and the other
invisibly concealed under the bread. If any further explication
be necessary, it is soon after added, “That we always have
Christ, according to the presence of his majesty; but that, according
to the presence of his flesh, it is rightly said, Me ye
have not always.” Our adversaries reply, that it is also observed,
at the same time, “that according to his ineffable and
invisible grace, his declaration is fulfilled—Lo, I am with you
always, even to the end of the world.” But this is nothing in
their favour, because, after all, it is restricted to that majesty
which is always opposed to the body, and his flesh is expressly
distinguished from his power and grace. In another passage
of this author, we find the same antithesis, or contrast, “that
Christ left his disciples in his corporeal presence, that he might
557be with them by his spiritual presence;” which clearly distinguishes
the substance of the flesh from the power of the Spirit,
which conjoins us with Christ, notwithstanding we are widely
separated from him by local distance. He frequently uses the
same mode of expression, as when he says, “Christ will come
again, in his corporeal presence, to judge the living and the
dead, according to the rule of faith and sound doctrine. For
in his spiritual presence, he was to come to his disciples, and to
be with his whole Church on earth, to the end of time. This
discourse, therefore, was addressed to the believers, whom he
had already begun to keep with his corporeal presence, and
whom he was about to leave by his corporeal absence, that
with the Father he might keep them by his spiritual presence.”
To explain corporeal to mean visible, is mere trifling; for he
opposes the body of Christ to his Divine power; and by adding,
“that with the Father he might keep them,” clearly
expresses that the Saviour communicates his grace to us from
heaven by the Holy Spirit.
XXIX. As they place so much confidence in this subterfuge
of an invisible presence, let us see how far it serves their cause.
In the first place, they cannot produce a single syllable from
the Scriptures to prove that Christ is invisible; but they take
for granted, what no man of sound judgment will concede to
them, that the body of Christ cannot be given in the supper,
without being concealed under the form of bread. Now, so far
is this from being an admitted axiom, that it is the very point
in dispute between them and us. And while they talk in this
way, they are constrained to attribute to Christ a double body,
because, upon their principle, he is visible in heaven, and at
the same time, by a special dispensation, is invisible in the
sacred supper. Whether this is correct or not, it is easy to
judge from various passages of Scripture, and particularly from
the testimony of Peter; who says of Christ, that “the heavens
must receive him, until the times of restitution of all
things.”[1293] These men maintain that he is in all places, but
without any form. They object that it is unreasonable to
subject the nature of a glorified body to the laws of common
nature. But this objection leads to the extravagant notion of
Servetus, which justly deserves the detestation of all believers,
that the body of Christ, after his ascension, was absorbed in his
Divinity. I will not assert, that they hold this opinion; but
if it be considered as one of the attributes of the glorified body,
to fill all places in an invisible manner, it is evident that the
corporeal substance must be destroyed, and no difference will
be left between the Divinity and the humanity. Besides, if
558the body of Christ be multiform and variable, so as to appear
in one place, and to be invisible in another, what becomes of
the nature of a body which consists in having its proper dimensions?
and where is its unity? With far greater propriety
Tertullian argues, that the body of Christ was a true and natural
body, because the emblem of it is presented to us in the
mystery of the supper, as a pledge and assurance of spiritual
life. And, indeed, it was of his glorified body, that Christ
said, “Handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and
bones, as ye see me have.”[1294] We see how the truth of his
body is proved by the lips of Christ himself, because it can be
felt and seen; deprive it of these qualities, and it will cease to
be a body. They are always recurring to their subterfuge of
the dispensation which they have invented. But it is our duty
to receive what Christ absolutely declares, in such a manner,
as to admit, without any exception, whatever he is pleased to
affirm. He proved that he was not a phantom, because he
was visible in his flesh. If that be taken away which he
asserts to belong to the nature of his body, will it not be necessary
to frame a new definition of a body? Now, with all their
sophistry, they can extract nothing to support their imaginary
dispensation from that passage of Paul, where he says, that
“From heaven we look for the Saviour, who shall change our
vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious
body.”[1295] For we cannot hope for a conformity to Christ in
those qualities which they attribute to him, which would make
all our bodies invisible and infinite; nor will they find a man
foolish enough to be persuaded to believe so great an absurdity.
Let them, then, no longer ascribe to the glorified body of Christ
the property of being in many places at once, or of being contained
within no particular space. In short, let them either
deny the resurrection of the flesh, or admit that Christ, though
clothed with celestial glory, has not divested himself of his
flesh; for he will make us, in our flesh, partakers of the same
glory, as we shall enjoy a resurrection similar to his. For
what is there more clearly stated in any part of the Scripture,
than that as Christ really assumed our flesh when he was born
of the virgin, and suffered in our flesh to atone for our sins, so
he resumed the same flesh, at his resurrection, and carried it
up into heaven? For all the hope that we have of our resurrection
and ascension to heaven, is founded on the resurrection
and ascension of Christ; who, as Tertullian says, “has taken
the pledge of our resurrection into heaven with him.” Now,
how weak and faint would this hope be, if the real flesh of
Christ had not truly risen from the dead, and entered into the
559kingdom of heaven! But it is essential to a real body, to have
its particular form and dimensions, and to be contained within
some certain space. Let us hear no more, then, of this ridiculous
notion, which fastens the minds of men, and Christ himself,
to the bread. For what is the use of this invisible presence
concealed under the bread, but to lead those who desire
to be united to Christ, to confine their attention to that symbol?
But the Lord intended to withdraw, not only our eyes, but all
our senses, from the earth, when he forbade the woman to
touch him, because he was not yet ascended to his Father.[1296]
When he saw Mary, with pious affection and reverence, hastening
to kiss his feet, there was no reason for his disapprobation
and prohibition of such an act, before his ascension to heaven,
except that heaven was the only place where he chose to be
sought. It is objected, that he was afterwards seen by Stephen;[1297]
but the answer is easy; for, in order to this, no
change of place was necessary to Christ, who could impart to
the eyes of his servant a supernatural perspicacity, capable of
penetrating into heaven. The same observation is applicable
to his appearance to Paul.[1298] They allege that Christ came
out of the sepulchre, while the sepulchre remained closed, and
entered into the room where his disciples were assembled,
while the doors continued shut; but this contributes no support
to their error. For as the water was like a solid pavement,
forming a road for Christ when he walked on the lake, so it
is no wonder if the hardness of the stone gave way, to make
him a passage; though it is more probable that the stone removed
at his command, and after his departure returned to its
place. And to enter while the doors remained shut, does not
imply his penetrating through the solid matter, but his opening
an entrance for himself by his Divine power, so that, in a
miraculous manner, he instantaneously stood in the midst of
his disciples, though the doors were shut. What they adduce
from Luke, that “he vanished out of the sight” of his two
disciples, with whom he had walked to Emmaus,[1299] is of no
service to their cause, but is in favour of ours; for, according
to the testimony of the same evangelist, when he joined these
disciples, he assumed no new appearance in order to conceal
himself; but “their eyes were holden, that they should not
know him.”[1300] Our adversaries, however, not only transform
Christ, to keep him in the world, but they represent him as
unlike himself, and altogether different on earth from what he
is in heaven. By such extravagances, in short, they turn the
body of Christ into a spirit, though not by positive assertion,
560yet by direct implication; and not content with this, they
attribute to it qualities utterly incompatible with each other;
whence it follows, of necessity, that he must have two bodies.
XXX. Though we should grant them what they contend
for, respecting its invisible presence, still this would be no proof
of its infinity, without which it will be a vain attempt to
enclose Christ under the bread. Unless the body of Christ be
capable of being every where at once, without any limitation
of place, it will not be credible that it is concealed under the
bread in the sacred supper. It was this necessity which caused
them to introduce their monstrous notion of its ubiquity. But
it has been shown, by clear and strong testimonies of Scripture,
that the body of Christ was, like other human bodies, circumscribed
by certain dimensions; and its ascension to heaven
made it evident that it was not in all places, but that it left
one place, when it removed to another. Nor is the promise,
“I am with you always, even unto the end of the world,”[1301]
to be applied, as they suppose it should be, to his body. In
the first place, on this supposition, there will be no such perpetual
connection, unless Christ dwells in us in a corporeal
manner, without the use of the sacramental supper; and therefore
they have no sufficient cause for contending so fiercely
respecting the words of Christ, in order to enclose Christ under
the bread. In the next place, the context evinces, that Christ
there has not the most distant reference to his flesh, but promises
his disciples invincible aid to sustain and defend them
against all the assaults of Satan and the world. For having
assigned them a difficult province, to encourage them to undertake
it without hesitation, and to discharge it with undaunted
resolution, he supports them with the assurance of his presence;
as though he had said, they should never want his aid, which
nothing could overcome. Unless these men wished to involve
every thing in confusion, ought they not to distinguish the
nature of this presence? It is evident that some persons would
rather incur the greatest disgrace by betraying their ignorance,
than relinquish even the least particle of their error. I speak
not of the Romanists, whose doctrine is more tolerable, or at
least more modest; but some are so carried away with the
heat of contention, as to affirm that, on account of the union
of the two natures in Christ, wherever his Divinity is, his flesh,
which cannot be separated from it, is there also; as if that union
had mingled the two natures so as to form some intermediate
kind of being, which is neither God nor man. This notion was
maintained by Eutyches, and since his time by Servetus. But
it is clearly ascertained from the Scriptures, that in the one
561person of Christ the two natures are united in such a manner,
that each retains its peculiar properties undiminished. That
Eutyches was justly condemned as a heretic, our adversaries
will not deny; it is surprising that they overlook the cause of
his condemnation, which was, that by taking away the difference
between the two natures, and insisting on the unity of the
person, he made the Divinity human, and deified the humanity.
What absurdity, therefore, is it to mingle heaven and earth
together, rather than not to draw the body down from the
celestial sanctuary! They endeavour to justify themselves by
adducing these texts: “No man hath ascended up to heaven,
but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of
man, which is in heaven;” and, “The only begotten Son,
which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.”[1302]
But it argues the same stupidity to disregard the communication
of properties, a term which was with good reason adopted
by the holy fathers in the early ages. When Paul says that
“The Lord of glory” was “crucified,”[1303] he certainly does
not intend that Christ suffered any thing in his Divinity,
but that the same person, who suffered as an abject and despised
man, was also, as God, the Lord of glory. In the same
sense, the Son of man was in heaven; because the same Christ,
who, according to the flesh, dwelt on earth as the Son of
man, as God, was always in heaven. For this reason, in the
same passage, he represents himself as having descended from
heaven, according to his Divinity; not that his Divinity quitted
heaven to confine itself in the prison of the body; but because,
though it filled all space, yet it dwelt corporeally, or naturally,
and in a certain ineffable manner, in the humanity. It is a distinction
common in the schools, and which I am not ashamed
to repeat, that though Christ is every where entire, yet all that
is in him is not every where. And I sincerely wish that the
schoolmen themselves had duly considered the meaning of
this observation; for then we should never have heard of
their stupid notion of the corporeal presence of Christ in the
sacrament. Therefore, our Mediator, as he is every where entire,
is always near to his people; and in the sacred supper
exhibits himself present in a peculiar manner, yet not with
all that belongs to him; because, as we have stated, his body
has been received into heaven, and remains there till he shall
come to judgment.
XXXI. They are exceedingly deceived, who cannot conceive
of any presence of the flesh of Christ in the supper, except
it be attached to the bread. For on this principle they
leave nothing to the secret operation of the Spirit, which unites
562us to Christ. They suppose Christ not to be present, unless
he descends to us; as though we cannot equally enjoy his
presence, if he elevates us to himself. The only question
between us, therefore, respects the manner of this presence;
because they place Christ in the bread, and we think it unlawful
for us to bring him down from heaven. Let the readers
judge on which side the truth lies. Only let us hear no more
of that calumny, that Christ is excluded from the sacrament,
unless he be concealed under the bread. For as this is a heavenly
mystery, there is no necessity to bring Christ down to
the earth, in order to be united to us.
XXXII. If any one inquire of me respecting the manner, I
shall not be ashamed to acknowledge, that it is a mystery too
sublime for me to be able to express, or even to comprehend;
and, to be still more explicit, I rather experience it, than understand
it. Here, therefore, without any controversy, I embrace
the truth of God, on which I can safely rely. He pronounces
his flesh to be the food, and his blood the drink, of
my soul. I offer him my soul, to be nourished with such aliment.
In his sacred supper, he commands me, under the symbols
of bread and wine, to take, and eat, and drink, his body
and blood. I doubt not that he truly presents, and that I receive
them. Only I reject the absurdities which appear to be
either degrading to his majesty, or inconsistent with the reality
of his human nature, and are at the same time repugnant to
the word of God, which informs us that Christ has been received
into the glory of the celestial kingdom, where he is
exalted above every condition of the world, and which is equally
careful to attribute to his human nature the properties of real
humanity. Nor ought this to seem incredible or unreasonable,
because, as the kingdom of Christ is wholly spiritual, so his
communications with his Church are not at all to be regulated by
the order of the present world; or, to use the words of Augustine,
“This mystery, as well as others, is celebrated by man,
but in a Divine manner; it is administered on earth, but in a
heavenly manner.” The presence of Christ’s body, I say, is
such as the nature of the sacrament requires; where we affirm
that it appears with so much virtue and efficacy, as not only to
afford our minds an undoubted confidence of eternal life, but
also to give us an assurance of the resurrection and immortality
of our bodies. For they are vivified by his immortal flesh,
and in some degree participate his immortality. Those who
go beyond this in their hyperbolical representations, merely
obscure the simple and obvious truth by such intricacies. If
any person be not yet satisfied, I would request him to consider,
that we are now treating of a sacrament, every part of
which ought to be referred to faith. Now, we feed our faith
563by this participation of the body of Christ which we have
mentioned, as fully as they do, who bring him down from
heaven. At the same time, I candidly confess, that I reject
that mixture of the flesh of Christ with our souls, or that transfusion
of it into us, which they teach; because it is sufficient
for us that Christ inspires life into our souls from the substance
of his flesh, and even infuses his own life into us, though his
flesh never actually enters into us. I may also remark, that
the analogy of faith, to which Paul directs us to conform every
interpretation of the Scripture, is in this case, beyond all doubt,
eminently in our favour. Let the adversaries of so clear a
truth examine by what rule of faith they regulate themselves.
“He that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh,
is not of God.”[1304] Such persons, though they may conceal
it, or may not observe it, do, in effect, deny the reality of his
flesh.
XXXIII. The same judgment is to be formed of our participation,
which they suppose not to be enjoyed at all, unless
the flesh of Christ be swallowed in the bread. But we do no
small injury to the Holy Spirit, unless we believe that our
communion with the flesh and blood of Christ is the effect of
his incomprehensible influence. Even if the virtue of this
mystery, such as we have represented it, and as it was understood
by the ancient Church, had received the consideration
justly due to it, for four hundred years past, there would have
been quite enough to satisfy us, and the door would have been
shut against many pernicious errors, which have kindled dreadful
dissensions, by which the Church has been miserably agitated
in the present, as well as past ages. But sophistical men
insist on a hyperbolical kind of presence, which is never taught
in the Scripture; and they contend as eagerly for this foolish
and absurd imagination, as if the whole of religion consisted in
the enclosure of Christ in the bread. It principally concerns
us to know how the body of Christ, which was once delivered
for us, is made ours, and how we are made partakers of his
blood which was shed; for the entire possession of Christ
crucified consists in an enjoyment of all his benefits. Now,
leaving these things, which are of such great importance, and
even neglecting and forgetting them, these sophists take no
pleasure but in this thorny question; how the body of Christ
is concealed under the bread, or under the form of the bread.
They falsely pretend that all that we teach respecting a spiritual
participation, is contrary to what they call the true and
real participation; because we regard nothing but the manner,
which, in their opinion, is corporeal, as they enclose Christ in
the bread, but in ours is spiritual, because the secret influence
564of the Spirit is the bond which unites us to Christ. Nor is
there any more truth in their other objection, that we attend
to nothing but the fruit or effect which believers experience
from feeding on the flesh of Christ. For we have already
said, that Christ himself is the matter or substance of the
sacred supper, and that it is in consequence of this, that we
are absolved from our sins by the sacrifice of his death, are
washed in his blood, and by his resurrection are raised to the
hope of the heavenly life. But the foolish imagination, of
which Lombard was the author, has perverted their minds,
while they have supposed the sacrament to consist in eating
the flesh of Christ. For these are his words: “The sacrament,
without the thing, consists in the forms of bread and
wine; the sacrament and the thing are the flesh and blood of
Christ; the thing, without the sacrament, is his mystical
flesh.” Again, a little after: “The thing signified and contained
is the proper flesh of Christ; the thing signified and
not contained, is his mystical body.” With his distinction
between the flesh of Christ, and the power which it has to
nourish, I fully agree; but his notion, of what is a sacrament,
and as contained under the bread, is an error not to be endured.
Hence proceeded a false idea of sacramental eating, because
they supposed the body of Christ to be eaten by impious and
profane persons, notwithstanding they were strangers to him.
But the flesh of Christ itself, in the mystery of the supper, is
as much a spiritual thing, as our eternal salvation. Whence
we conclude, that persons who are destitute of the Spirit of
Christ, can no more eat the flesh of Christ, than drink wine
which has no taste. It is certainly offering an insult, and
doing violence to Christ, to attribute to him a body all feeble
and dead, which is promiscuously distributed to unbelievers;
and it is expressly contradicted by his own words: “He that
eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I
in him.”[1305] They reply, that the discourse from which this
text is quoted does not treat of sacramental eating; and this I
concede to them; only let them not be perpetually striking on
the same rock, that the flesh of Christ may be eaten without
any benefit. But I would wish them to inform me how long
they retain it after they have eaten it. Here I believe they
will find it impossible to escape. But they object, that the
truth of the promises of God can sustain no diminution or failure
from the ingratitude of men. This I admit; and I also
maintain, that the virtue of this mystery remains unimpaired,
notwithstanding wicked men exert their utmost efforts to destroy
it. It is one thing, however, for the body of Christ to
565be offered, and another for it to be received. Christ presents
this spiritual meat and spiritual drink to all; some receive
them with avidity, others fastidiously reject them; shall their
rejection cause the meat and drink to lose their nature? They
will plead, that their sentiment is supported by this similitude—that
the flesh of Christ, though it be not relished by unbelievers,
nevertheless still continues to be flesh. But I deny that it can
ever be eaten without the taste of faith; or, if the language of
Augustine be preferred, I deny that men carry away from the
sacrament any more than they collect in the vessel of faith.
Thus, nothing is taken from the sacrament, but its truth and
efficacy remain unimpaired, notwithstanding the wicked depart
empty from its external participation. If our adversaries
object again, that it derogates from these words, “This is my
body,” if the wicked receive corruptible bread, and nothing
more, the answer is easy—That God will have his veracity
discovered, not in the reception itself, but in the constancy
of his goodness, since he is ready to impart to the unworthy,
and even liberally offers to them, that which they reject. And
this is the perfection of the sacrament, which the whole world
cannot violate, that the flesh and blood of Christ are as truly
given to the unworthy, as to the elect and faithful people of
God; but it is likewise true, that as rain, falling upon a hard
rock, runs off from it without penetrating into the stone, thus
the wicked, by their obduracy, repel the grace of God, so that
it does not enter into their hearts. Besides, a reception of
Christ, without faith, is as great an absurdity, as for seed to
germinate in the fire. Their inquiry, how Christ came for
condemnation to some, unless they receive him unworthily, is
a groundless cavil; for we nowhere read that the perdition of
man is owing to an unworthy reception of Christ, but rather
to a rejection of him. Nor can they derive any assistance from
the parable in which Christ speaks of some seed springing up
among thorns, and being afterwards choked and destroyed; for
he is there showing what value belongs to that temporary faith,
which our adversaries suppose to be unnecessary to a participation
of the flesh and blood of Christ, placing Judas, in this
respect, on an equality with Peter. Their error is rather refuted
by another part of the same parable, in which Christ
speaks of some seed as having fallen by the way-side, and
some on stony ground, neither of which took any root.[1306]
Whence it follows, that the obduracy of unbelievers is such an
obstacle, that Christ does not reach them. Whoever desires
our salvation to be promoted by this mystery, will find nothing
more proper than that believers, conducted to the fountain
566should derive life from the Son of God. But the dignity of it
is sufficiently magnified, when we remember, that it is a medium
by which we are incorporated into Christ; or by which,
after our incorporation into him, the connection is more and
more strengthened, till he perfectly unites us with himself,
in the heavenly life. They object, that Paul ought not to
have made unbelievers “guilty of the body and blood of the
Lord,”[1307] unless they had been partakers of them. But I
answer, that they are not condemned for having eaten and
drunk his body and blood, but only for having profaned the
mystery, by trampling under foot the pledge of our holy union
with God, which ought to have been received by them with
reverence.
XXXIV. Now, because Augustine is the principal among
the ancient fathers who has asserted this point of doctrine,
that the sacraments sustain no diminution, and that the grace
which they represent is not frustrated by the unbelief or
wickedness of men, it will be useful to adduce his own words,
which will clearly prove that those who expose the body of
Christ to be eaten by dogs,[1308] are chargeable with an injudicious
and culpable perversion of his meaning, in applying it to
the present argument. Sacramental eating, according to them,
is that by which the wicked receive the body and blood of
Christ without any influence of his Spirit, or any effect of his
grace. Augustine, on the contrary, carefully examining these
words, “Whoso eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath
eternal life,”[1309] says, “This is the virtue of the sacrament,
not the mere visible sacrament; and that internally, not externally;
he who eats with his heart, and not with his teeth;”
from which he concludes that the sacrament of the union
which we have with the body and blood of Christ, is presented
in the sacred supper, to some to life, to others to perdition;
but that the thing signified by the sacrament is only given to
life to all who partake of it, and in no case to perdition. To
preclude any cavil here, that the thing signified is not the body,
but the grace of the Spirit, which may be separated from the
body, he obviates such misrepresentations by the use of the
contrasted epithets of visible and invisible; for the body of
Christ cannot be comprehended under the former. Hence it
follows, that unbelievers receive nothing but the visible symbol.
And, for the more complete removal of every doubt, after having
said that this bread requires the hunger of the inner man, he
adds, “Moses, and Aaron, and Phinehas, and many others who
ate the manna, were acceptable to God. Why? Because they
spiritually understood the visible food, they spiritually hungered,
567they spiritually ate, that they might be spiritually satisfied.
For we also, in the present day, have received visible food; but
the sacrament is one thing, and the virtue of the sacrament is
another.” A little after he says, “Therefore he who abides
not in Christ, and in whom Christ does not abide, spiritually
neither eats his flesh nor drinks his blood, though he may
carnally and visibly press the sign of the body and blood
with his teeth.” Here, again, we find the visible sign opposed
to the spiritual eating; which contradicts that error, that the invisible
body of Christ is really eaten sacramentally, though it
be not eaten spiritually. We are informed also that nothing is
granted to the profane and impure, beyond the visible reception
of the sign. Hence that well known observation of his,
that the other disciples ate the bread which was the Lord, but
that Judas merely ate the Lord’s bread; by which he clearly
excludes unbelievers from the participation of the body and
blood. And to the same purpose is what he says in another
place: “Why do you wonder if the bread of Christ was given
to Judas to enslave him to the devil, when you see, on the
other hand, that the messenger of Satan was given to Paul
to make him perfect in Christ?”[1310] He says, indeed, in another
place, “That the sacramental bread was the body of
Christ to those to whom Paul said, He that eateth and drinketh
unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself;[1311] and
that they could not, therefore, be affirmed to have received
nothing, because they had received amiss.” But his meaning
is more fully explained in another passage. For professedly
undertaking to describe how the body of Christ is eaten by
the wicked and profligate, who confess the Christian faith
with their lips while they deny it in their actions, and that in
opposition to the opinion of some who supposed them to eat
not only the sacramental symbol, but the substance itself, he
says, “They must not be considered as eating the body of
Christ, because they are not to be numbered among the members
of Christ. For, to mention nothing else, they cannot,
at the same time, be the members of Christ and the members
of a harlot. And where the Lord himself says, He that eateth
my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in
him;[1312] he shows what it is to eat his body, not merely in
a sacramental way, but in truth; for this is to dwell in
Christ, that Christ may dwell in us. This is the same as
if he had said, Whoever dwelleth not in me, and in whom
I dwell not, let him not say or think he eateth my body or
drinketh my blood.” Let the readers consider the opposition
here stated between eating merely in a sacramental way, and
568in truth, and there will remain no doubt respecting his meaning.
He confirms the same with equal perspicuity in the
following passage: “Prepare not your jaws, but your heart; it
is for this that the supper is enjoined. Behold, we believe in
Christ when we receive him by faith; in receiving him, we
know what we think; we take a bit of bread, and our hearts
are satisfied. We are fed, therefore, not by what we see, but
by what we believe.” Here, also, what the wicked partake
of he restricts to the visible sign, and pronounces that Christ
is only received by faith. So, in another place, he expressly
remarks that the good and the wicked partake of the elements
in common, and excludes the latter from the true participation
of the body of Christ. For, if they had enjoyed the substance
itself, he would not have been entirely silent on that which
would have strengthened his argument. In another place also,
treating of the eating, and the benefit of it, he concludes thus:
“Then will the body and blood of Christ be life to every one, if
that which is visibly received in the sacrament, be, in the truth
which is signified, spiritually eaten and spiritually drunk.”
Let those, therefore, who, in order to agree with Augustine,
make unbelievers partakers of the flesh and blood of Christ,
exhibit to us the body of Christ in a visible manner, since he
pronounces the whole truth of the sacrament to be spiritual.
And the evident conclusion from his language is, that the sacramental
eating is nothing more than eating the visible and
external sign, when unbelief precludes the entrance of the substance.
If the body of Christ could be eaten truly, without
being eaten spiritually, what could be the meaning of Augustine,
when he said, “You are not to eat this body which you
see, and to drink the blood which will be shed by those who
shall crucify me. I have appointed a sacrament for you;
spiritually understood, it shall vivify you.” He certainly did
not mean to deny that the same body which Christ offered in
sacrifice is exhibited in the supper; but he designates the mode
of participating in it—that though it has been received into
celestial glory, it inspires us with life by the secret influence
of the Holy Spirit. I acknowledge that he frequently speaks
of the body of Christ as eaten by unbelievers, but he explains
his meaning by adding that it is done sacramentally; and, in
another place, he describes the spiritual eating as not consisting
in a corporeal swallowing of the grace of God. And that my
adversaries may not charge me with a wish to overwhelm
them by an accumulation of passages, I would request them to
inform me how they can evade that one declaration of his,
where he says, “that the sacraments realize what they represent
in the elect alone.” Surely they will not dare to deny
that the bread represents the body of Christ. Hence it follows,
569that the reprobate are excluded from the participation of it.
The following passage of Cyril also shows him to have been
of the same opinion: “As when any one pours melted wax
upon other wax, the whole will be mingled together into one
mass, so it is necessary to any person’s reception of the body
and blood of Christ, for him to be united with Christ, so
that Christ may be found in him, and he in Christ.” These
words, I think, sufficiently prove, that those who eat the
body of Christ merely in a sacramental way are deprived of
the true and real participation of it, as the body itself cannot
be separated from its efficacious power; and yet that this is no
impeachment of the truth of the promises of God, who still
continues to send us rain from heaven, though rocks and stones
imbibe none of the moisture.
XXXV. This knowledge will also easily dissuade us from
the carnal adoration which has been introduced into the sacrament
by the perverse temerity of some, who reasoned in this
manner: If the body be there, consequently the soul and the
Divinity are there together with the body, for they cannot be
separated from it; therefore Christ ought to be adored there.
In the first place, what will they do, if we refuse to admit what
they call concomitance? For, however they may urge the
absurdity of separating the soul and the Divinity from the body,
what man in his senses can be persuaded that the body of
Christ is Christ? They consider it, indeed, as fully demonstrated
by their arguments. But as Christ speaks distinctly
of his body and blood, without specifying the nature of the
presence, how can they establish what they wish by that
which is itself doubtful? What then? If their consciences
happen to be exercised with any peculiar affliction, will they
not, with all their syllogisms, be confounded and overwhelmed;
when they shall perceive themselves to be destitute of the
certain word of God, which furnishes the only support for our
souls when they are called to give an account, and without
which they sink in a moment; when they shall reflect that the
doctrine and examples of the apostles are against them, and that
they are themselves the sole authors of their error? To such
reflections will be added other sentiments of compunction, and
those by no means inconsiderable. What! was it a thing of
no consequence to adore God in this form, without any such
thing being enjoined upon us? In a case where the true worship
of God was concerned, ought that to have been so lightly
undertaken, which not a word in the Scripture could be found
to sanction? But if, with becoming humility, they had kept
all their thoughts in subjection to the word of God, they would
certainly have listened to what Christ said, “Take, eat, drink,”
and would have obeyed this command, which enjoins the sacrament
570to be taken, not to be adored. Those who, as the Lord
has commanded, receive it without adoration, are assured that
they do not deviate from the Divine command; and such an
assurance is the best satisfaction we can have in any thing in
which we engage. They have the example of the apostles, of
whom we read, not that they prostrated themselves in adoration,
but that, as they were sitting at the table, they took, and
did eat. They have the practice of the apostolic Church, in
which Luke states that the communion of believers consisted,
not in adoration, but in “the breaking of bread.”[1313] They
have the apostolic doctrine with which Paul instructed the
Church of the Corinthians, accompanying it with this declaration:
“I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered
unto you.”[1314]
XXXVI. All these things lead the pious reader to consider
how unsafe it is, in matters of such importance, to leave the
pure word of God for the reveries of our own brains. The
remarks which have already been made, ought to relieve our
minds from every difficulty on this subject. For, in order to
a due reception of Christ in the sacrament, it is necessary for
pious souls to be elevated to heaven. If it be the design of
the sacrament to assist the mind of man, which is otherwise
weak, that it may be enabled to rise to discover the sublimity
of spiritual mysteries,—those who confine themselves to the
external sign, wander from the right way of seeking Christ.
What, then, shall we deny it to be a superstitious worship,
when men prostrate themselves before a piece of bread, to
adore Christ in it? There is no doubt that the Council of Nice
intended to guard against this evil, when it prohibited Christians
from having their attention humbly fixed on the visible signs.
And this was the only reason for that custom in the ancient
Church, that, before the consecration, one of the deacons should,
with an audible voice, admonish the people to have their hearts
above. The Scripture itself, also, in addition to the particular
account which it gives us of the ascension of Christ, by which
he removed his corporeal presence from the view and society of
men, in order to divest us of every carnal idea respecting him,
whenever it mentions him, calls us to lift our minds upwards,
and to seek for him seated “at the right hand of God.”[1315]
According to this rule, it was our duty to adore him spiritually
in the glory of heaven, rather than to invent such a dangerous
kind of adoration, involving such gross and carnal conceptions
of God. Wherefore, those who have invented the adoration of
the sacrament, have not only dreamed it of themselves, without
the sanction of the Scripture, in which not the least mention
571of it can be found, though, if it had been agreeable to God, it
would not have been omitted; but even in direct opposition to
the Scripture, forsaking the living God, they have fabricated a
new deity, according to their own wayward inclinations. For
what is idolatry, if it be not to worship the gifts instead of the
giver himself? In which they have fallen into a double sin; for
the honour has been taken away from God, to be transferred to
the creature; and God himself has also been dishonoured by the
pollution and profanation of his gift, when his holy sacrament
has been made an execrable idol. Let us, on the contrary, lest
we fall into the same danger, fix our ears, our eyes, our minds,
and our tongues, entirely on the sacred doctrine of God. For
that is the school of the Holy Spirit, the best of all teachers;
whose instructions require nothing to be added from any other
quarter, and omit nothing of which we ought not to be willing
to remain in ignorance.
XXXVII. Now, as superstition, when it has once gone beyond
the proper limits, proceeds in sinning without end, they
have wandered still further; they have invented ceremonies
altogether incompatible with the institution of the sacred supper,
for the sole purpose of giving divine honours to the sign.
When we remonstrate with them, they reply, that they pay
this veneration to Christ. In the first place, if this were done
in the supper, I would still say that that is the only legitimate
adoration, which terminates not in the sign, but is directed to
Christ enthroned in heaven. Now, what pretence have they
for alleging that they worship Christ in the bread, when they
have no promise of such a thing? They consecrate their host,
as they call it, to carry it about in procession, to display it in
pomp, and to exhibit it in a box, to be seen, adored, and invoked
by the people. I inquire how they consider it to be
rightly consecrated. They immediately adduce these words:
“This is my body.” I object, that it was said at the same
time. “Take and eat.” And I have sufficient reason for this;
for when a promise is annexed to a precept, it is so included in
the precept, that, separated from it, it ceases to be a promise at
all. This shall be further elucidated by a similar example.
The Lord gave a command, when he said, “Call upon me;”
he added a promise, “I will deliver thee.”[1316] If any one
should invoke Peter or Paul, and boast of this promise, will not
his conduct be universally condemned? And wherein would
this differ from the conduct of those who suppress the command
to eat, and lay hold of the mutilated promise, “This is my
body,” in order to misapply it to ceremonies foreign from the
institution of Christ? Let us remember, then, that this promise
572is given to those who observe the commandment connected
with it, but that they are entirely unsupported by the
word of God, who transfer the sacrament to any other usage.
We have already shown how the mystery of the supper promotes
our faith before God. But as God here not only recalls
to our remembrance the vast exuberance of his goodness, but delivers
it, as it were, into our hands, as we have already declared,
and excites us to acknowledge it, so he also admonishes us
not to be ungrateful for such a profusion of beneficence, but,
on the contrary, to magnify it with the praises it deserves,
and to celebrate it with thanksgivings. Therefore, when he
gave the institution of this sacrament to the apostles, he said
to them, “This do in remembrance of me;”[1317] which Paul
explains to be “showing the Lord’s death;”[1318] that is, publicly,
and all together, as with one mouth, to confess that all
our confidence of life and salvation rests on the death of
the Lord; that we may glorify him by our confession, and by
our example may exhort others to give him the same glory.
Here, again, we see the object to which the sacrament tends,
which is, to exercise us in a remembrance of the death of
Christ. For the command which we have received, to “show
the Lord’s death till he come” to judgment, is no other than
to declare, by the confession of our lips, what our faith has
acknowledged in the sacrament, that the death of Christ is our
life. This is the second use of the sacrament, which relates
to external confession.
XXXVIII. In the third place, the Lord intended it to serve
us as an exhortation, and no other could be better adapted to
animate and influence us in the most powerful manner to purity
and sanctity of life, as well as to charity, peace, and concord.
For there the Lord communicates his body to us in such a
manner that he becomes completely one with us, and we
become one with him. Now, as he has only one body, of
which he makes us all partakers, it follows, of necessity, that,
by such participation, we also are all made one body; and
this union is represented by the bread which is exhibited in
the sacrament. For as it is composed of many grains, mixed
together in such a manner that one cannot be separated or distinguished
from another,—in the same manner we ought, likewise,
to be connected and united together, by such an agreement
of minds, as to admit of no dissension or division between
us. This I prefer expressing in the language of Paul:
“The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion
of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not
the communion of the body of Christ? For we, being many,
573are one bread and one body; for we are all partakers of that
one bread.”[1319] We have derived considerable benefit from
the sacrament, if this thought be impressed and engraven upon
our minds, that it is impossible for us to wound, despise, reject,
injure, or in any way to offend one of our brethren, but
we, at the same time, wound, despise, reject, injure, and offend
Christ in him; that we have no discord with our brethren
without being, at the same time, at variance with Christ; that
we cannot love Christ without loving him in our brethren;
that such care as we take of our own body, we ought to exercise
the same care of our brethren, who are members of our
body; that as no part of our body can be in any pain without
every other part feeling correspondent sensations, so we ought
not to suffer our brother to be afflicted with any calamity without
our sympathizing in the same. Wherefore, it is not without
reason that Augustine so frequently calls this sacrament
“the bond of charity.” For what more powerful stimulus
could be employed to excite mutual charity among us, than
when Christ, giving himself to us, not only invites us by his
example mutually to devote ourselves to the promotion of one
another’s welfare, but also, by making himself common to all,
makes us all to be one with himself?
XXXIX. This furnishes the best confirmation of what I
have stated before, that there is no true administration of the
sacrament without the word. For whatever advantage accrues
to us from the sacred supper requires the word; whether we
are to be confirmed in faith, exercised in confession, or excited
to duty, there is need of preaching. Nothing more preposterous,
therefore, can be done with respect to the supper, than
to convert it into a mute action, as we have seen done under
the tyranny of the pope. For they have maintained that all
the validity of the consecration depends on the intention of
the priests, as if it had nothing to do with the people, to whom
the mystery ought principally to be explained. They fell into
this error, for want of observing that those promises on which
the consecration rests, are not directed to the elements themselves,
but to the persons who receive them. Christ does not
address the bread, to command it to become his body; but
enjoins his disciples to eat, and promises them the communication
of his body and blood. Nor does Paul teach any other
order than that the promises should be offered to believers,
together with the bread and the cup. And this is the truth.
We are not to imagine any magical incantation, or think it sufficient
to have muttered over the words, as if they were heard by
the elements; but we are to understand those words, by which
574the elements are consecrated, to be a lively preaching, which
edifies the hearers, which penetrates their minds, which is
deeply impressed upon their hearts, which exerts its efficacy
in the accomplishment of that which it promises. These considerations
clearly show that the reservation of the sacrament,
insisted upon by many persons, for the purpose of extraordinary
distribution to the sick, is perfectly useless. For either they
will receive it without any recital of the institution of Christ, or
the minister will accompany the sign with a true explication of
the mystery. If nothing be said, it is an abuse and corruption.
If the promises are repeated and the mystery declared, that those
who are about to receive it may communicate with advantage,
we have no reason to doubt that this is the true consecration.
What end will be answered, then, by the former consecration,
which, having been pronounced when the sick persons were
not present, is of no avail to them? But it will be alleged,
that those who adopt this practice have the example of the
ancient Church in their favour. This I confess; but in a
matter of such great importance, and in which any error must
be highly dangerous, there is nothing so safe as to follow the
truth itself.
XL. Now, as we perceive this sacred bread of the Lord’s supper
to be spiritual food, grateful and delicious as well as salutary
to the sincere worshippers of God, who, in the participation of it,
experience Christ to be their life, whom it stimulates to thanksgiving,
whom it exhorts to mutual charity among themselves;
so, on the contrary, it is changed into a most noxious poison to
all whose faith it does not nourish and confirm, and whom it
does not excite to thanksgiving and charity. For as corporeal
food, when it offends a diseased stomach, becoming itself corrupted,
is found rather noxious than nutritious, so this spiritual
food, when it meets with a soul polluted by iniquity, only precipitates
it into a more dreadful ruin; not, indeed, from any
fault in the food, but because “unto them that are defiled and
unbelieving nothing is pure,”[1320] however it may be otherwise
sanctified by the blessing of the Lord. For, as Paul says, “He
that eateth and drinketh unworthily is guilty of the body and
blood of the Lord, and eateth and drinketh judgment to himself,
not discerning the Lord’s body.”[1321] Persons of this description,
who, without one particle of faith, or the least feeling of
charity, intrude themselves, like so many swine, to seize the
supper of the Lord, have no discernment of the Lord’s body.
For, as they do not believe that body to be their life, they treat
it with the utmost dishonour they are capable of casting upon
it, robbing it of its dignity, and receiving it in such a manner
575as to pollute and profane it. And as, amidst their dissension
and alienation from their brethren, they presume to mingle the
sacred symbol of Christ’s body with their discords, it is not
owing to them that the body of Christ is not divided, and every
member severed from the rest. Therefore they are justly
represented as guilty of the body and blood of the Lord,
which they so shamefully pollute with their sacrilegious impiety.
By this unworthy eating they receive their own condemnation.
For though they have no faith fixed on Christ,
yet in their reception of the sacrament they profess that there is
no salvation for them any where except in him, and renounce
every other dependence. Wherefore they are their own accusers;
they give testimony against themselves; they seal their
own condemnation. Moreover, while divided and distracted
from their brethren, that is, from the members of Christ, they
have no part in Christ, yet they testify that the only way of
salvation is to participate of Christ, and to be united to him.
For this reason, Paul gave the following injunction: “Let a
man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink
of that cup;”[1322] by which, I apprehend, he meant that every
man should retire into himself, and consider whether, with sincere
confidence of heart, he relies on the salvation procured by
Christ; whether he acknowledges it by the confession of his
mouth; whether he aspires after an imitation of Christ in the
pursuit of integrity and holiness; whether, after the example of
Christ, he is ready to devote himself to his brethren, and to communicate
himself to them with whom he has a common interest
in Christ; whether, as he himself is acknowledged by Christ, he
in like manner considers all his brethren as members of his
body; whether he desires to cherish, preserve, and assist them
as his own members. Not that these duties of faith and charity
can now be perfect in us; but because this is the point which
we ought to feel the most ardent desires and exert the most
strenuous efforts to attain, that our faith may be more and more
increased, and our charity strengthened from day to day.
XLI. In general, when they have intended to prepare persons
for this worthy participation of the sacrament, they have
dreadfully harassed and tortured miserable consciences, and
yet have not mentioned a single thing which the case required.
They have said that those “eat worthily,” who are in a state
of grace. To be in a state of grace, they have explained to
consist in being pure and cleansed from all sin—a doctrine
which would exclude all the men who now live, or ever have
lived upon earth, from the benefit of this sacrament. For if it
be necessary for us to derive our worthiness from ourselves, we
576are undone; nothing awaits us but ruin, confusion, and despair.
Though we strive with all our powers, we shall gain nothing,
at last, but a discovery that we are most unworthy, after having
laboured to the utmost to find some worthiness. To heal
this wound, they have contrived a method of attaining worthiness;
which is, that having, as far as we can, examined our
consciences, and required from ourselves an account of all our
actions, we should purge ourselves from our unworthiness by
contrition, confession, and satisfaction; but what kind of purgation
this is, we have already stated in a place more suitable
to the discussion of it. As far as relates to the present subject,
I observe that these consolations are too poor and unsubstantial
for consciences disturbed, distressed, dejected, and overwhelmed
with a sense of their sins. For if the Lord, by his
express interdiction, admits none to a participation of the supper,
but those who are righteous and innocent, it requires no
little care in any individual to attain an assurance of his possession
of that righteousness, which he finds to be required by
God. Now, what ground of assurance have we, that God is
satisfied with persons who have done what they could? And
even if this were the case, when shall any man be found who
can venture to declare that he has done all that he could?
Thus, while no certain assurance of our worthiness can be
obtained, the entrance to the sacrament will always remain
closed by that dreadful interdiction, which denounces that
“he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh
judgment to himself.”
XLII. Now, it is easy to judge what kind of doctrine this is
which prevails in the Papacy, and from what author it has proceeded;
which by its extreme austerity deprives and robs miserable
sinners, who are already afflicted with trepidation and
sorrow, of the consolation of this sacrament, in which all the
comforts of the gospel were set before them. It was certainly
impossible for the devil to take a more compendious method
of ruining men, than by infatuating them in such a manner
as to deprive them of all taste and relish for such food which
their heavenly and most merciful Father had intended for their
nourishment. That we may not precipitate ourselves into this
abyss, therefore, let us remember that this sacred banquet is
medicine to the sick, comfort to the sinner, alms to the poor;
but that it would confer no advantage on the healthy, the
righteous, and the rich, if any such could be found. For as
Christ is given to us in it for food, we understand, that without
him we pine, starve, and faint, as the body loses its vigour
from want of sustenance. Moreover, as he is given to us for
life, we understand that without him we are utterly dead in
ourselves. Wherefore the best and only worthiness that we
577can present to God, is to offer him our vileness and unworthiness,
that he may make us worthy of his mercy; to despair in
ourselves, that we may find consolation in him; to humble
ourselves, that we may be exalted by him; to accuse ourselves,
that we may be justified by him; likewise to aspire to that
unity which he enjoins upon us in his supper; and as he
makes us all to be one in himself, so it should be our desire
that we may all have one mind, one heart, and one tongue.
If we have these things well considered and digested in our
minds, though we may be disturbed, we shall never be subverted
by such reflections as this: Needy and destitute of
every good, defiled with the pollution of sin, and half dead,
how could we worthily eat the Lord’s body? We shall rather
consider, that we come as paupers to the liberal Benefactor, as
patients to the Physician, as sinners to the Author of righteousness,
as persons dead to the fountain of life; that the worthiness
which is required by God consists principally in faith,
which attributes every thing to Christ, and places no dependence
on ourselves, and, secondly, in charity, even that
charity which it is enough for us to present to God in an imperfect
state, that he may increase and improve it; for we
cannot produce it in a state of perfection. Others, who have
agreed with us that the worthiness which is enjoined consists
in faith and charity, have nevertheless fallen into a considerable
error respecting the degree of that worthiness, requiring a
perfection of faith to which nothing can ever approach, and a
charity equal to that which Christ has manifested toward us.
But by this requisition they exclude all men from access to
this sacred supper, as much as the persons to whom we adverted
before. For if their opinion were admitted, no person
could receive it, but unworthily; since all, without a single
exception, would be convinced of their imperfection. And
surely it must betray extreme ignorance, not to say stupidity,
to require in the reception of the sacrament, that perfection
which would render the sacrament unnecessary and useless;
for it was not instituted for the perfect, but for the imperfect
and feeble, to awaken, excite, stimulate, and exercise their
graces of faith and charity, and to correct the defects of both.
XLIII. With respect to the external ceremonial, whether
believers take the bread in their hands or not; whether they
divide it between them, or every individual eat that which is
given to him; whether they return the cup into the hand of
the deacon, or deliver it to the person who is next; whether
the bread be leavened or unleavened; whether the wine be red
or white; is not of the least importance. These things are indifferent,
and left to the liberty of the Church. It is certain,
however, that the custom of the ancient Church was, that every
578one should take the bread into his hand. And Christ said
“Divide it among yourselves.”[1323] History informs us, that
leavened and common bread was used before the time of Alexander,
bishop of Rome, who was the first advocate for unleavened
bread; but for what reason I know not, unless it was to
dazzle the eyes of the people with admiration of a new spectacle,
rather than to instruct their minds in pure religion. I appeal
to all who feel the least concern for piety, whether they do
not clearly perceive, how much more conspicuously the glory
of God appears in this use of the sacrament, and how much
greater abundance of spiritual consolation and delight believers
enjoy in it, than in those insignificant and theatrical
fooleries which only tend to deceive the minds of the gazing
multitude. This they call keeping the people in religion, when
they lead them into any thing they please, under the stupefaction
and infatuation of superstition. If any one be inclined to
defend such inventions by the plea of antiquity, I am equally
aware how early chrism and exorcism were used in baptism,
and how soon after the age of the apostles, corruptions were
introduced into the Lord’s supper; but this is the confidence of
human presumption, which can never restrain itself from trifling
with the mysteries of God. But let us remember, that God
holds the obedience of his word in such high estimation, that it
is the standard by which he appoints us to judge even his angels
and the whole world. Now, leaving all this mass of ceremonies,
let us remark, that the Lord’s supper might be most properly
administered, if it were set before the Church very frequently,
and at least once in every week in the following manner: The
service should commence with public prayer; in the next place,
a sermon should be delivered; then, the bread and wine being
placed upon the table, the minister should recite the institution
of the supper, should declare the promises which are left to
us in it, and, at the same time, should excommunicate all those
who are excluded from it by the prohibition of the Lord; after
this, prayer should be offered, that with the same benignity
with which our Lord has given us this sacred food, he would
also teach and enable us to receive it in faith and gratitude of
heart, and that, as of ourselves we are not worthy, he would,
in his mercy, make us worthy of such a feast. Then either
some psalms should be sung, or a portion of Scripture should
be read, and believers, in a becoming order, should participate
of the sacred banquet, the ministers breaking the bread and
distributing it, and presenting the cup, to the people; after the
conclusion of the supper, an exhortation should be given to
sincere faith, and a confession of the same; to charity, and a
579deportment worthy of Christians. Finally, thanksgivings
should be rendered, and praises sung, to God; and to close the
whole, the Church should be dismissed in peace.
XLIV. The observations which we have already made respecting
the sacrament, abundantly show that it was not instituted
for the purpose of being received once in a year, and
that in a careless and formal manner, as is now the general
practice; but in order to be frequently celebrated by all
Christians, that they might often call to mind the sufferings of
Christ; the recollection of which would sustain and strengthen
their faith, would incite them to sing praises to God, and to
confess and celebrate his goodness, and would also cherish in
their hearts, and promote the mutual exercise of that charity,
the bond of which they would see in the unity of the body of
Christ. For whenever we communicate in the symbol of the
Lord’s body, it is like the interchange of a mutual pledge, by
which we reciprocally bind ourselves to all the duties of
charity, that no one among us will do any thing by which he
may injure his brother, or will omit any thing by which he
can assist him, when necessity requires and opportunity admits.
That such was the practice of the apostolic Church, is mentioned
by Luke, when he says that believers “continued steadfastly
in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of
bread, and in prayers.”[1324] The invariable custom, therefore,
was, that no assembly of the Church should be held without
the word being preached, prayers being offered, the Lord’s
supper administered, and alms given. That this was the order
established among the Corinthians, may be fairly concluded
from the Epistles of Paul; and it is well known to have been
followed for many ages after. For hence those ancient canons,
which are attributed to Anacletus and Calixtus, “that, after
the consecration is finished, all shall communicate, on pain of
expulsion from the Church.” And the ancient canons which
are ascribed to the apostles, say, “that those who continue not
to the end, and receive not the sacrament, ought to be corrected
as disturbers of the Church.” In the Council of Antioch,
also, it was decreed, that those who enter into the Church, hear
the sermon, and retire from the communion, be excluded from
the Church till they shall have corrected this fault. And
though in the first Council of Toledo, this decree was either
mitigated, or at least enacted in a milder form, yet there also
it was ordained, that those who shall be found never to communicate
after having heard the sermon, be admonished; and
that, if they obey not the first admonition, they be excommunicated.
580XLV. These decrees were evidently passed by the holy
fathers with a view to retain and perpetuate the frequent celebration
of the communion, which had been transmitted by the
apostles themselves, and which they perceived to be highly
beneficial to believers, but by negligence to be gradually falling
into general disuse. Augustine testifies respecting the
age in which he lived, when he says, “The sacrament of
this thing, that is, of the unity of the body of our Lord, is
prepared on the table of the Lord, in some places daily, in
other places on appointed days, at stated intervals of time;
and is thence received by some to life, by others to destruction.”
And in his first epistle to Januarius: “Some receive the body
and blood of the Lord every day, and others receive them on
certain days; in some Churches, not a day passes without the
administration of the sacrament; in others, it is administered
only on Saturday and Sunday; and in others only on Sunday.”
But the people in general, being, as we have observed, sometimes
too remiss, the holy fathers stimulated them with severe
reproofs, that they might not appear to connive at such negligence.
Of this we have an example in a homily of Chrysostom,
on the Epistle to the Ephesians: “To him who dishonoured
the feast, it is not said, Wherefore didst thou sit down?
but, How camest thou in hither?[1325] Whoever is present here,
and is not a partaker of the mysteries, is wicked and impudent.
I appeal to you, if any one be invited to a feast, and come,
wash his hands, sit down, and apparently make every preparation
for partaking of it, and after all taste nothing,—will he
not offer an insult both to the feast and to him who has provided
it? So you, who appear among them who, by prayer
prepare themselves to receive the sacred food, who by the
very circumstance of not departing, confess yourself to be one
of their number, and after all do not participate with them,
would it not have been better for you not to have made your
appearance among them? You will tell me you are unworthy.
Neither then were you worthy of the communion of prayer,
which is a preparation for the reception of the holy mystery.”
XLVI. Augustine and Ambrose unite in condemning the
practice which in their time had already been adopted in the
Eastern Churches, for the people to attend as spectators of the
celebration of the sacrament, and not to partake of it. And
that custom, which enjoins believers to communicate only
once a year, is unquestionably an invention of the devil, whoever
were the persons by whom it was introduced. It is said
that Zepherinus, bishop of Rome, was the author of that decree;
which there is not the least reason for believing to have
581been such as is now represented. It is probable that the regulation
which he made was not ill calculated for the interest of
the Church under the circumstances of those times. For there
is no doubt that the sacred supper was then set before the
faithful whenever they assembled for worship; nor is there
any more doubt that the principal part of them used to communicate;
but as it would scarcely ever happen that all could
communicate together, and it was necessary that those who
were mixed with unbelievers and idolaters, should testify their
faith by some external sign,—that holy man, for the sake of
order and discipline, appointed that day for all the Christians
at Rome to make a public confession of their faith by a participation
of the Lord’s supper. The regulation of Zepherinus
was good in itself, but was grossly perverted by his successors,
when they made a certain law that there should be one communion
in a year; the consequence of which has been, that
almost all men, when they have communicated once, resign
themselves to lethargic repose, as if they had fairly excused
themselves for all the rest of the year. A very different practice
ought to have been pursued. At least once in every week
the table of the Lord ought to have been spread before each
congregation of Christians, and the promises to have been declared
for their spiritual nourishment; no person ought to have
been compelled to partake, but all ought to have been exhorted
and stimulated, and those who were negligent, to have been
reproved. Then all, like persons famished, would have assembled
in crowds to such a banquet. I have sufficient reason for
complaining that it was the artifice of the devil that introduced
this custom, which, by prescribing one day in a year, renders
men slothful and careless all the rest of the time. We see that
this abuse had already begun to prevail in the time of Chrysostom,
but we see at the same time how greatly it displeased
him. For in the place which I have just quoted, he severely
complains of a great inequality in this matter, that oftentimes
people would not come to the sacrament all the rest of the
year, notwithstanding they were prepared, but that they would
come at Easter even without preparation. Then he exclaims,
“O custom! O presumption! In vain, then, is the daily oblation;
in vain do we stand at the altar. There is no one to
partake with us.” So far is such a practice from being sanctioned
by the authority of Chrysostom.
XLVII. From the same source proceeded another regulation,
which has robbed or deprived the principal part of the people
of God of one half of the sacred supper; I mean the symbol
of the blood, which has been interdicted to the laity and the profane,—for
by these titles they distinguish the Lord’s heritage,—and
has become the peculiar privilege of the few who have received
582ecclesiastical unction and tonsure. The ordinance of
the eternal God is, “Drink ye all of it;” which man has repealed
and abrogated by a new and contrary law, ordaining
that all shall not drink of it. And these legislators, that they
may not appear to resist their God without reason, plead the
dangers which might result if this sacred cup were indiscriminately
presented to all; as though those dangers had not been
foreseen and considered by the eternal wisdom of God. In the
next place, they argue with great subtlety, that one is sufficient
for both. For, if it be the body, they say, it is the whole of
Christ, who cannot now be separated from his body. The
body, therefore, contains the blood. See how human reason
is at variance with God, when it has once been left to its own
vagaries. Exhibiting the bread, our Lord says, “This is my
body;” exhibiting the cup, he says, “This is my blood.”
The audacity of human reason contradicts this, and affirms
that the bread is the blood, and that the wine is the body; as
if the Lord had distinguished his body from his blood, both by
words and by signs, without any cause, and as if it had ever
been heard that the body or blood of Christ was called God
and man. Certainly, if he had intended to designate his
whole person, he might have said, “It is I,” as the Scripture
tells us he did on other occasions; and not, “This is my
body; this is my blood.” But, with a view to aid the weakness
of our faith, he exhibits the bread and the cup separately,
to teach us that he is sufficient for drink as well as for food.
Now, let one of these parts be taken away, and we shall find
only half of our nourishment in him. Though it were true,
then, as they pretend, that the blood is in the bread, and the
body in the cup, yet they defraud the souls of believers of that
confirmation which Christ has delivered as necessary for them.
Therefore, leaving their subtleties, let us hold fast the benefit
which arises from the double pledge which Christ has ordained.
XLVIII. I am aware of the cavils advanced on this subject
by the ministers of Satan, who are accustomed to treat the
Scripture with contempt. In the first place, they plead, that
a simple act affords no sufficient ground from which to deduce
a rule of perpetual obligation on the observance of the Church.
But it is false to call it a simple act; for Christ not only gave
the cup to his apostles, but also commanded them to do the
same in time to come. For it is the language of command,
“Drink ye all of it.” And Paul mentions its having been
practised in such a way as fully implies its being a positive ordinance.
The second subterfuge is, that Christ admitted none
but the apostles to a participation of this supper, whom he had
already chosen and admitted into the order of sacrificing priests.
But I would wish them to give me answers to five questions,
583from which they will not be able to escape, but their misrepresentations
will be easily refuted. First; By what oracle have
they obtained this solution, so inconsistent with the word of God?
The Scripture mentions twelve who sat down with Jesus; but
it does not obscure the dignity of Christ so as to call them
sacrificing priests—a name which I shall notice in the proper
place. Though he then gave the sacrament to the twelve,
yet he commanded that they should do the same; that is, that
they should distribute it among them in a similar manner.
Secondly; why, in that purer period, for almost a thousand
years after the apostles, were all, without exception, admitted
to the participation of both symbols? Was the ancient Church
ignorant what guests Christ had admitted to his supper? Any
hesitation or evasion would betray the most consummate impudence.
Ecclesiastical histories and works of the fathers are
still extant, which furnish clear testimonies of this fact. Tertullian
says, “The flesh is fed with the body and blood of
Christ, that the soul may be nourished by God.” Ambrose
said to Theodosius, “With such hands how will you receive
the sacred body of the Lord? With what audacity will you
drink his sacred blood?” Jerome says, “The priests consecrate
the eucharist and distribute the Lord’s blood to the
people.” Chrysostom says, “It is not as it was under the
ancient law, when the priest ate one part, and the people
another; but to all is presented one body and one cup. Every
thing in the eucharist is common to the priest and to the people.”
And the same is attested in various places by Augustine.
XLIX. But why do I dispute about a thing that is so
evident? Let any one read all the Greek and Latin fathers,
and he will find them abound with such testimonies. Nor did
this custom fall into disuse while a particle of purity remained
in the Church. Gregory, who may be justly called the last
bishop of Rome, shows that it was observed in his time. He
says, “You have now learned what the blood of the Lamb is,
not by hearing, but by drinking. His blood is drunk by the
faithful.” And it even continued for four hundred years after
his death, notwithstanding the universal degeneracy which had
taken place. Nor was it considered merely as a custom, but
as an inviolable law. For the Divine institution was then
reverenced, and no doubt was entertained of the criminality of
separating things which the Lord had united. For Gelasius,
bishop of Rome, speaks in the following manner: “We have
understood that some, only receiving the Lord’s body, abstain
from the cup; who, as they appear to be enslaved by an unaccountable
superstition, should, without doubt, either receive the
sacrament entire, or entirely abstain from it. For no division of
this mystery can be made without great sacrilege.” Attention
584was paid to those reasons of Cyprian, which surely ought to be
sufficient to influence a Christian mind. He says, “How do
we teach or stimulate them to shed their blood in the confession
of Christ, if we refuse his blood to them who are about to
engage in the conflict? Or how do we prepare them for the
cup of martyrdom, if we do not first admit them, by the right
of communion, to drink the cup of the Lord in the Church?”
The canonists restrict the decree of Gelasius to the priests,
but this is too puerile a cavil to need any refutation.
L. Thirdly; Why did Christ, when he presented the bread,
simply say, “Take, eat;” but when he presented the cup,
“Drink ye all of it;” as if he expressly intended to guard
against the subtlety of Satan? Fourthly; If, as our adversaries
pretend, our Lord admitted to his supper none but sacrificing
priests, what man can be found so presumptuous as to
invite to a participation of it strangers whom the Lord has
excluded? and to a participation of that gift, over which they
could have no power, without any command from him who
alone could give it? And with what confidence do they now
take upon them to distribute to the people the symbol of the
body of Christ, if they have neither the command nor example
of the Lord? Fifthly; Did Paul affirm what was false, when
he said to the Corinthians, “I have received of the Lord that
which also I delivered to you?”[1326] For he afterwards declares
what he had delivered, which was, that all, without any
distinction, should communicate in both symbols. If Paul had
“received of the Lord,” that all were to be admitted without
any distinction, let them consider from whom they have received,
who exclude almost all the people of God; for they
cannot now pretend their doctrine to have originated from God,
with whom is “not yea and nay.”[1327] And yet they dare to
shelter such abominations under the name of the Church, and
to defend them under that pretext; as if the Church could
consist of those antichrists, who so easily trample under foot,
mutilate, and abolish the doctrine and institutions of Christ;
or as if the apostolic Church, in which true religion displayed
all its influence, were not the true Church.
585
With these, and similar inventions, Satan has endeavoured
to obscure, corrupt, and adulterate the sacred supper of Christ,
that, at least, its purity might not be preserved in the Church.
But the perfection of the dreadful abomination was his establishment
of a sign, by which it might be not only obscured
and perverted, but altogether obliterated and abolished, so as to
disappear from the view, and to depart from the remembrance
of men. I refer to that most pestilent error with which he has
blinded almost the whole world, persuading it to believe that
the mass is a sacrifice and oblation to procure the remission of
sins. How this dogma was at first understood by the sounder
schoolmen, who did not fall into all the absurdities of their
successors, I shall not stay to inquire, but shall take leave of
them and their thorny subtleties; which, however they may
be defended by subterfuges and cavils, ought to be rejected by
all good men, because they merely serve to obscure the lustre
of the sacred supper. Leaving them, therefore, I wish the
readers to understand that I am now combating that opinion
with which the Roman antichrist and his agents have infected
the whole world; namely, that the mass is an act by which
the priest who offers Christ, and others who participate in the
oblation, merit the favour of God; or that it is an expiatory
victim by which they reconcile God to them. Nor has this
been merely an opinion generally received by the multitude;
but the act itself is so ordered, as to be a kind of expiation,
to make satisfaction to God for the sins of the living and the
dead. This is fully expressed also in the words which they
use; nor can any thing else be concluded from its daily observance.
I know how deeply this pest has stricken its roots,
what a plausible appearance of goodness it assumes, how it
shelters itself under the name of Christ, and how multitudes
believe the whole substance of faith to be comprehended under
the single word mass. But when it shall have been most
clearly demonstrated by the word of God, that this mass, however
it may be varnished and adorned, offers the greatest insult
to Christ, suppresses and conceals his cross, consigns his death
to oblivion, deprives us of the benefit resulting from it, and
invalidates and destroys the sacrament which was left as a
memorial of that death,—will there be any roots too deep for
586this most powerful axe—I mean the word of God—to cut in
pieces and eradicate? Will there be any varnish too specious
for this light to detect the evil which lurks behind it?
II. Let us proceed, therefore, to establish what we have
asserted; in the first place, that the mass offers an intolerable
blasphemy and insult to Christ. For he was constituted by
his Father a priest and a high-priest, not for a limited time, like
those who are recorded to have been consecrated priests under
the Old Testament, who, having a mortal life, could not have an
immortal priesthood; wherefore, there was need of successors,
from time to time, to fill the places of those who died; but Christ,
who is immortal, requires no vicar to be substituted in his place.
Therefore he was designated by the Father as “a priest for ever,
after the order of Melchisedec;” that he might for ever execute
a permanent priesthood. This mystery had long before been
prefigured in Melchisedec, whom the Scripture has introduced
once as “the priest of the Most High God,” but never mentions
him afterwards, as if there had been no end to his life. From
this resemblance Christ is called a priest after his order.[1328]
Now, those who sacrifice every day must necessarily appoint
priests to conduct the oblations, and those priests must be
substituted in the room of Christ, as his successors and vicars.
By this substitution they not only despoil Christ of his due
honour, and rob him of the prerogative of an eternal priesthood,
but endeavour to degrade him from the right hand of the
Father, where he cannot sit in the enjoyment of immortality,
unless he also remain an eternal priest. Nor let them plead
that their sacrificing priests are not substituted in the place of
Christ, as though he were dead, but are merely assistants in
his eternal priesthood, which does not, on this account, cease
to remain; for the language of the apostle is too precise for
them to avail themselves of such an evasion; when he says
that “they truly were many priests, because they were not
suffered to continue by reason of death.”[1329] Christ, therefore,
whose continuance is not prevented by death, is only one, and
needs no companions. Yet they have the effrontery to arm
themselves with the example of Melchisedec in defence of
their impiety. For, because he is said to have “brought forth
bread and wine,” they conclude this to have been a prefiguration
of their mass, as though the resemblance between him
and Christ consisted in the oblation of bread and wine; which
is too unsubstantial and frivolous to need any refutation. Melchisedec
gave bread and wine to Abraham and his companions,
to refresh them when they were fatigued on their return from
587battle. What has this to do with a sacrifice? Moses praises
the humanity and liberality of the pious king; these men
presumptuously fabricate a mystery, of which the Scripture
makes no mention. Yet they varnish their error with another
pretext, because the historian immediately afterwards says,
“And he was the priest of the Most High God.” I answer, that
they misapply to the bread and wine what the apostle refers to
the benediction, “For this Melchisedec, priest of the Most
High God, met Abraham and blessed him;” from which the
same apostle, than whom it is unnecessary to seek for a better
expositor, argues his superior dignity; “for without all contradiction,
the less is blessed of the better.”[1330] But, if the offering
of Melchisedec had been a figure of the sacrifice of the
mass, is it credible that the apostle, who discusses all the
minutest circumstances, would have forgotten a thing of such
high importance? It will be in vain for them, with all their
sophistry, to attempt to overturn the argument which the
apostle himself adduces, that the right and dignity of priesthood
ceases among mortal men, because Christ, who is immortal,
is the alone and perpetual priest.
III. A second property of the mass we have stated to be,
that it suppresses and conceals the cross and passion of Christ.
It is beyond all contradiction, that the cross of Christ is subverted
as soon as ever an altar is erected; for if Christ offered
up himself a sacrifice on the cross, to sanctify us for ever, and
to obtain eternal redemption for us, the virtue and efficacy of
that sacrifice must certainly continue without any end.[1331]
Otherwise, we should have no more honourable ideas of Christ,
than of the animal victims which were sacrificed under the
law, the oblations of which are proved to have been weak and
inefficacious, by the circumstance of their frequent repetition.
Wherefore, it must be acknowledged, either that the sacrifice
which Christ accomplished on the cross wanted the virtue of
eternal purification, or that Christ has offered up one perfect
sacrifice, once for all ages. This is what the apostle says
that this great high-priest, even Christ, “now once in the end
of the world, hath appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice
of himself.” Again: “By the will of God we are sanctified,
through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ, once for all.”
Again: “That by one offering Christ hath perfected for ever
them that are sanctified.” To which he subjoins this remarkable
observation: “That where remission of iniquities is,
there is no more offering for sin.”[1332] This was likewise
signified by the last words of Christ, when, with his expiring
breath he said, “It is finished.”[1333] We are accustomed to
588consider the last words of dying persons as oracular. Christ,
at the moment of his death, declared that by his own sacrifice
every thing necessary to our salvation had been accomplished
and finished. To such a sacrifice, the perfection of which he
so explicitly declares, shall it be lawful for us to make innumerable
additions every day, as though it were imperfect? While
God’s most holy word not only affirms, but proclaims and
protests, that this sacrifice was once perfect, and that its virtue
is eternal,—do not they who require another sacrifice charge
this with imperfection and inefficacy? But what is the tendency
of the mass, which admits of a hundred thousand sacrifices
being offered every day, except it be to obscure and suppress
the passion of Christ, by which he offered himself as the
alone sacrifice to the Father? Who, that is not blind, does
not see that such an opposition to the clear and manifest truth
must have arisen from the audacity of Satan? I am aware of
the fallacies with which that father of falsehood is accustomed
to varnish over this fraud; as, that these are not various or
different sacrifices, but only a repetition of that one sacrifice.
But such illusions are easily dissipated. For, through the
whole argument, the apostle is contending, not only that there
are no other sacrifices, but that that one sacrifice was offered
once, and is never to be repeated. The more artful sophisters
have recourse to a deeper subterfuge; that the mass is not a
repetition of that sacrifice, but an application of it. This sophistry
also may be confuted, without any more difficulty than the
former. For Christ once offered up himself, not that his sacrifice
might be daily ratified by new oblations, but that the
benefit of it might be communicated to us by the preaching
of the gospel, and the administration of the sacred supper.
Thus Paul says that “Christ our passover is sacrificed for us,”
and commands us to feast on him.[1334] This, I say, is the way
in which the sacrifice of the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ is
rightly applied to us, when it is communicated to us for our
enjoyment, and we receive it with true faith.
IV. But it is worth while to hear on what other foundation
they rest the sacrifice of the mass. They apply to this
purpose the prophecy of Malachi, in which the Lord promises,
that “from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of
the same, incense shall be offered unto” his “name, and a pure
offering.”[1335] As though it were a new or unusual thing for
the prophets, when they speak of the calling of the Gentiles,
to designate the spiritual worship of God, to which they exhort
them, by the external ceremonies of the law; in order to show,
in a more familiar manner, to the men of their own times, that
589the Gentiles were to be introduced to a participation of the
true religion; as it is their invariable practice, on all occasions,
to describe the realities which have been exhibited in the
gospel, under the types and figures of the dispensation under
which they lived. Thus, conversion to the Lord they express
by going up to Jerusalem; adoration of God, by oblations of
various gifts; the more extensive knowledge to be bestowed
on believers, in the kingdom of Christ, by dreams and visions.[1336]
The prophecy which they adduce, therefore, is similar to another
prediction of Isaiah, where he foretells the erection of three altars,
in Assyria, Egypt, and Judea.[1337] I ask the Romanists, first,
whether they do not admit this prediction to have been accomplished
in the kingdom of Christ; secondly, where are these
altars, or when were they ever erected; thirdly, whether they
think that those two kingdoms were destined to have their
respective temples, like that at Jerusalem. A due consideration
of these things, I think, will induce them to acknowledge, that
the prophet, under types adapted to his own time, was predicting
the spiritual worship of God, which was to be propagated
all over the world. This is our solution of the passage
which they adduce from Malachi; but as examples of this
mode of expression are of such frequent occurrence, I shall not
employ myself in a further enumeration of them. Here, also,
they are miserably deceived, in acknowledging no sacrifice but
that of the mass; whereas, believers do in reality now sacrifice
to the Lord, and offer a pure oblation, of which we shall
presently treat.
V. I now proceed to the third view of the mass, under
which I am to show how it obliterates and expunges from the
memory of mankind the true and alone death of Jesus Christ.
For as among men the confirmation of a testament depends on
the death of the testator, so also our Lord, by his death, has
confirmed the testament in which he has given us remission
of sins, and everlasting righteousness. Those who dare to
attempt any variation or innovation in this testament, thereby
deny his death, and represent it as of no value. Now, what is
the mass, but a new and totally different testament? For
does not every separate mass promise a new remission of sins,
and a new acquisition of righteousness; so that there are now
as many testaments as masses? Let Christ, therefore, come
again, and by another death ratify this new testament, or rather,
by innumerable deaths, confirm these innumerable testaments
of masses. Have I not truly said, then, at the beginning, that
the true and alone death of Christ is obliterated and consigned
to oblivion by the masses? And is not the direct tendency
590of the mass, to cause Christ, if it were possible, to be put to
death again? “For where a testament is,” says the apostle,
“there must also, of necessity, be the death of the testator.”[1338]
The mass pretends to exhibit a new testament of Christ; therefore
it requires his death. Moreover the victim which is offered
must, of necessity, be slain and immolated. If Christ be
sacrificed in every mass, he must be cruelly murdered in a
thousand separate places at once. This is not my argument;
it is the reasoning of the apostle: “It was not necessary that
he should offer himself often; for then must he often have suffered
since the foundation of the world.”[1339] In reply to this,
I confess, they are ready to charge us with calumny; alleging
that we impute to them sentiments which they never have
held, nor ever can hold. We know, indeed, that the life and
death of Christ are not in their power; and whether they intend
to murder him, we do not inquire; we only mean to show
the absurdities which follow from their impious and abominable
doctrine, and this we have proved from the mouth of the apostle.
They may reply a hundred times, if they please, that this
sacrifice is without blood; but I shall deny that sacrifices can
change their nature, at the caprice of men; for thus the sacred
and inviolable institution of God would fall to the ground.
Hence it follows, that this principle of the apostle can never
be shaken, that “without shedding of blood is no remission.”[1340]
VI. We are now to treat of the fourth property of the mass,
which is, to prevent us from perceiving and reflecting on the
death of Christ, and thereby to deprive us of the benefit resulting
from it. For who can consider himself as redeemed by
the death of Christ, when he sees a new redemption in the
mass? Who can be assured that his sins are remitted, when
he sees another remission? It is not a sufficient answer, to
say, that we obtain remission of sins in the mass, only because
it has been already procured by the death of Christ. For this
is no other than pretending that Christ has redeemed us in
order that we may redeem ourselves. For this is the doctrine
which has been disseminated by the ministers of Satan, and
which they now defend by clamours, and fire, and sword; that
when we offer up Christ to his Father, in the sacrifice of the
mass, we, by that act of oblation, obtain remission of sins, and
become partakers of the passion of Christ. What remains, then,
to the passion of Christ, but to be an example of redemption,
by which we may learn to be our own redeemers? Christ
himself, when he seals the assurance of pardon in the sacred
supper, does not command his disciples to rest in this act, but
refers them to the sacrifice of his death; signifying that the
591supper is a monument, or memorial, appointed to teach us
that the expiatory victim by which God was to be appeased
ought to be offered but once. Nor is it sufficient to know that
Christ is the sole victim, unless we also know that there is only
one oblation, so that our faith may be fixed upon his cross.
VII. I come now to the concluding observation; that the
sacred supper, in which our Lord had left us the memorial of
his passion impressed and engraven, has, by the erection of the
mass, been removed, abolished, and destroyed. For the supper
itself is a gift of God, which ought to be received with
thanksgiving. The sacrifice of the mass is pretended to be a
price given to God, and received by him as a satisfaction. As
far as giving differs from receiving, so far does the sacrifice of
the mass differ from the sacrament of the supper. And this is
the most miserable ingratitude of man, that where the profusion
of the Divine goodness ought to have been acknowledged
with thanksgivings, there he makes God his debtor. The
sacrament promised, that by the death of Christ we are not
only restored to life, but are perpetually vivified, because every
part of our salvation was then accomplished. The sacrifice of
the mass proclaims a very different doctrine; that it is necessary
for Christ to be sacrificed every day, in order to be of any
advantage to us. The supper ought to be distributed in the
public congregation of the Church, to instruct us in the communion
by which we are all connected together in Christ
Jesus. The sacrifice of the mass dissolves and destroys this
communion. For the reception of this error rendered it necessary
that there should be priests to sacrifice for the people;
and the supper, as if it had been resigned to them, ceased to
be administered to the Church of believers, according to the
commandment of the Lord. A way was opened for the admission
of private masses, which represented a kind of excommunication,
rather than that communion which had been instituted
by our Lord, when the mass-priest separates himself
from the whole congregation of believers, to devour his sacrifice
alone. That no person may be deceived, I call it a private
mass, wherever there is no participation of the Lord’s supper
among believers, whatever number of persons may be present
as spectators of it.
VIII. With respect to the word mass itself, I have never
been able certainly to determine whence it originated; only I
think it may probably have been derived from the oblations
which used to be made at the sacrament. Hence the ancient
fathers generally use it in the plural number. But to forbear
all controversy respecting the term, I say that private masses
are diametrically repugnant to the institution of Christ, and are
consequently an impious profanation of the sacred supper. For
592what has the Lord commanded us? Is it not to take and
divide it among us?[1341] What observance of the command
does Paul inculcate? Is it not the breaking of the bread,
which is the communion of the body of Christ?[1342] When
one man takes it, therefore, without any distribution, what
resemblance does this bear to the command? But it is alleged,
that this one man does it in the name of the whole Church. I
ask, by what authority? Is not this an open mockery of God,
when one person does separately, by himself, that which ought
not to have been done but among many? The words of
Christ, and of Paul, are sufficiently clear to authorize the conclusion,
that wherever there is no breaking of the bread for
common distribution among believers, there is not the supper
of the Lord, but a false and preposterous imitation of it. But
a false imitation is a corruption; and the corruption of so great
a mystery cannot take place without impiety. Private masses,
therefore, are an impious abuse. And as one abuse in religion
soon produces another, after the introduction of this custom of
offering without communicating, they began by degrees to have
innumerable masses in all the corners of the temples, and thus
to divide the people from each other, who ought to have united
in one assembly, to celebrate the mystery of their union. Now,
let the Romanists deny, if they can, that they are guilty of
idolatry in exhibiting bread in their masses, to be worshipped
instead of Christ. In vain do they boast of those promises of
the presence of Christ; for however they may be understood,
they certainly were not given in order that impure and profane
men, whenever they please, and for whatever improper use,
may transmute bread into the body of Christ; but in order
that believers, religiously observing the command of Christ, in
celebrating the supper, may enjoy a true participation of him
in it.
IX. In the purer times of the Church, this corruption was
unknown. For, however the more impudent of our adversaries
endeavour to misrepresent this matter, yet it is beyond all
doubt that all antiquity is against them, as we have already
evinced in other points, and may be more fully determined by
a diligent perusal of the ancient fathers. But before I conclude
this subject, I will ask our advocates for masses, since they
know that “the Lord hath” not “as great delight in sacrifices,
as in obeying the voice of the Lord,” and that “to obey is
better than sacrifice,”[1343] how they can believe this kind of
sacrificing to be acceptable to God, for which they have no
command, and which they do not find to be sanctioned by a
single syllable of the Scripture. Moreover, since they hear
593the apostle say, that “no man taketh” the name and “honour”
of the priesthood “unto himself, but he that is called of God,
as was Aaron,” and that even “Christ glorified not himself to
be made a high-priest,” but obeyed the call of his Father;[1344]
either they must prove God to be the author and institutor of
their priesthood, or they must confess the honour not to be of
God, into which they have presumptuously and wickedly obtruded
themselves, without any call. But they cannot produce
a tittle which affords the least support to their priesthood.
What, then, will become of their sacrifices, since no sacrifices
can be offered without a priest?
X. If any one should bring forward mutilated passages, extracted
from different parts of the writings of the fathers, and
contend, on their authority, that the sacrifice which is offered
in the supper ought to be understood in a different manner
from the representation we have given of it, he shall receive
the following brief reply: If the question relate to an approbation
of this notion of a sacrifice which the Papists have invented
in the mass, the ancient fathers are very far from countenancing
such a sacrilege. They do, indeed, use the word
sacrifice, but they at the same time fully declare, that they
mean nothing more than the commemoration of that true and
only sacrifice which Christ, whom they invariably speak of as
our only Priest, completed on the cross. Augustine says, “The
Hebrews, in the animal victims which they offered to God,
celebrated the prophecy of the future victim which Christ has
since offered; Christians, by the holy oblation and participation
of the body of Christ, celebrate the remembrance of the sacrifice
which is already completed.” Here he evidently inculcates
the same sentiment that is expressed more at large in the
Treatise, on Faith, which has been attributed to him, though
it is doubtful who was the author, addressed to Peter the
Deacon; in which we find the following passage: “Hold this
most firmly, and admit not the least doubt, that the only
begotten Son of God himself, being made flesh for us, hath
offered himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a
sweet-smelling savour; to whom, with the Father and the
Holy Spirit, animals were sacrificed in the time of the Old
Testament; and to whom now, with the Father and the Holy
Spirit, (with whom he has one and the same Divinity,) the holy
Church, throughout the world, ceases not to offer the sacrifice of
bread and wine. For in those carnal victims there was a prefiguration
of the flesh of Christ, which he himself was to offer
for our sins, and of his blood, which he was to shed for the remission
of our sins. But in the present sacrifice, there is a
594thanksgiving and commemoration of the flesh of Christ, which
he has offered, and of his blood, which he has shed for us.”
Hence Augustine himself, in various passages, explains it to be
nothing more than a sacrifice of praise. And it is a remark often
found in his writings, that the Lord’s supper is called a sacrifice,
for no other reason than because it is a memorial, image, and
attestation, of that singular, true, and only sacrifice, by which
Christ has redeemed us. There is also a remarkable passage in
his Treatise on the Trinity, where, after having treated of the
only sacrifice, he thus concludes: “In a sacrifice, four things are
to be considered—to whom it is offered, by whom it is offered,
what is offered, and for whom it is offered. The alone and
true Mediator, by a sacrifice of peace, reconciling us to God,
remains one with him to whom he has offered it; makes them
for whom he has offered it one in himself; is the one who
alone has offered it; and is himself the oblation which he has
offered.” Chrysostom also speaks to the same purpose. And
they ascribe the honour of the priesthood so exclusively to
Christ, that Augustine declares, that if any one should set up a
bishop as an intercessor between God and man, it would be the
language of Antichrist.
XI. Yet we do not deny that the oblation of Christ is there
exhibited to us in such a manner, that the view of his cross is
almost placed before our eyes; as the apostle says, that by the
preaching of the cross to the Galatians, “Christ had been evidently
set forth before their eyes, crucified among them.”[1345]
But as I perceive that those ancient fathers misapplied this
memorial to a purpose inconsistent with the institution of the
Lord, because the supper, as celebrated by them, represented I
know not what appearance of a reiterated, or at least renewed
oblation, the safest way for pious minds will be to acquiesce
in the pure and simple ordinance of the Lord, whose supper
this sacrament is called, because it ought to be regulated by
his sole authority. Finding them to have retained orthodox
and pious sentiments of this whole mystery, and not detecting
them of having intended the least derogation from the one and
alone sacrifice of Christ, I dare not condemn them for impiety;
yet I think it impossible to exculpate them from having committed
some error in the external form. For they imitated
the Jewish mode of sacrificing, more than Christ had commanded,
or the nature of the gospel admitted. The censure
which they have deserved, therefore, is for this preposterous
conformity to the Old Testament; that, not content with the
simple and genuine institution of Christ, they have symbolized
too much with the shadows of the law.
595XII. If any person will attentively examine, he will observe
this distinction clearly marked by the word of the Lord, between
the Mosaic sacrifices and our eucharist; that though
those sacrifices represented to the Jewish people the same efficacy
of the death of Christ which is now exhibited to us in the
Lord’s supper, yet the mode of representation was different.
For the Jewish priests were commanded to prefigure the sacrifice
which was to be accomplished by Christ; a victim was
presented in the place of Christ himself; there was an altar on
which it was to be immolated; in short, every thing was conducted
in such a manner as to set before the eyes of the people
a representation of the sacrifice which was to be offered to God
as an atonement for sins. But since that sacrifice has been
accomplished, the Lord has prescribed to us a different method,
in order to communicate to believers the benefit of the sacrifice
which has been offered to him by his Son. Therefore he has
given us a table at which we are to feast, not an altar upon
which any victim is to be offered: he has not consecrated
priests to offer sacrifices, but ministers to distribute the sacred
banquet. In proportion to the superior sublimity and sanctity
of the mystery, with the greater care and reverence it ought to
be treated. The safest course, therefore, is to relinquish all
the presumption of human reason, and to adhere strictly to
what the Scripture enjoins. And surely, if we consider that it
is the supper of the Lord, and not of men, there is no cause
why we should suffer ourselves to be moved a hair’s breadth
from the scriptural rule by any authority of men or prescription
of years. Therefore, when the apostle was desirous of purifying
it from all the faults which had already crept into the
Church at Corinth, he adopted the best and readiest method,
by recalling it to the one original institution, which he shows
ought to be regarded as its perpetual rule.
XIII. That no wrangler may take occasion to oppose us
from the terms sacrifice and priest, I will briefly state what I
have meant by these terms all through this argument. Some
extend the word sacrifice to all religions ceremonies and actions;
but for this I see no reason. We know that, by the
constant usage of the Scripture, the word sacrifice is applied to
what the Greeks call sometimes θυσια, sometimes προσφορα, and
sometimes τελετη, which, taken generally, comprehends whatever
is offered to God. Wherefore it is necessary for us to make a
distinction, but such a distinction as may be consistent with
the sacrifices of the Mosaic law; under the shadows of which
the Lord designed to represent to his people all the truth of
spiritual sacrifices. Though there were various kinds of them,
yet they may all be referred to two classes. For either they
were oblations made for sin in a way of satisfaction, by which
596guilt was expiated before God, or they were symbols of Divine
worship and attestations of devotion. This second class comprehended
three kinds of sacrifices: some were offered in a
way of supplication, to implore the favour of God; some in a
way of thanksgiving, to testify the gratitude of the mind for
benefits received; and some as simple expressions of piety, to
renew the confirmation of the covenant: to this class belonged
burnt-offerings and drink-offerings, first-fruits and peace-offerings.
Therefore let us also divide sacrifices into two kinds,
and for the sake of distinction call one the sacrifice of worship
and piety, because it consists in the veneration and service of
God, which he demands and receives from believers; or it may
be called, if you prefer it, the sacrifice of thanksgiving; for it
is presented to God by none but persons who, loaded with his
immense benefits, devote themselves and all their actions to
him in return. The other may be called the sacrifice of propitiation
or expiation. A sacrifice of expiation is that which is
offered to appease the wrath of God, to satisfy his justice, and
thereby to purify and cleanse from sins, that the sinner, delivered
from the defilement of iniquity, and restored to the purity
of righteousness, may be re-admitted to the favour of God.
This was the designation, under the law, of those victims
which were offered for the expiation of sins; not that they
were sufficient to effect the restoration of the favour of God, or
the obliteration of iniquity, but because they prefigured that
true sacrifice which at length was actually accomplished by
Christ alone; by him alone, because it could be made by no
other; and once for all, because the virtue and efficacy of that
one sacrifice is eternal; as Christ himself declared, when he said,
“It is finished;”[1346] that is to say, whatever was necessary to
reconcile us to the Father, and to obtain remission of sins,
righteousness, and salvation, was all effected and completed by
that one oblation of himself, which was so perfect as to leave
no room for any other sacrifice afterwards.
XIV. Wherefore, I conclude, that it is a most criminal insult,
and intolerable blasphemy, both against Christ himself, and
against the sacrifice which he completed on our behalf by his
death upon the cross, for any man to repeat any oblation with
a view to procure the pardon of sins, propitiate God, and obtain
righteousness. But what is the object of the mass, except it
be that by the merit of a new oblation we may be made partakers
of the passion of Christ? And that there might be no
limits to their folly, they have not been satisfied with affirming
it to be a common sacrifice offered equally for the whole Church,
without adding, that it was in their power to make a peculiar
597application of it to any individual they chose, or rather to every
one who was willing to purchase such a commodity with ready
money. Though they could not reach the price of Judas, yet,
to exemplify some characteristic of their author, they have retained
the resemblance of number. Judas sold Jesus for thirty
pieces of silver; these men, as far as in them lies, sell him, in
French money, for thirty pieces of copper; Judas sold him but
once; they sell him as often as they meet with a purchaser.
In this sense, we deny that they are priests; that they can
intercede with God on behalf of the people by such an oblation;
that they can appease the wrath of God, or obtain the remission
of sins. For Christ is the sole Priest and High-Priest of the
New Testament, to whom all the ancient priesthoods have
been transferred, and in whom they are all terminated and
closed. And even if the Scripture had made no mention of
the eternal priesthood of Christ, yet as God, since the abrogation
of the former priesthoods, has instituted no other, the
argument of the apostle is irrefragable, that “no man taketh
this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God.”[1347]
With what effrontery, then, do these sacrilegious mortals, who
boast of being the executioners of Christ, dare to call themselves
priests of the living God!
XV. There is a beautiful passage in Plato, in which he
treats of the ancient expiations among the heathen, and ridicules
the foolish confidence of wicked and profligate men, who
thought that such disguises would conceal their crimes from
the view of their gods, and, as if they had made a compromise
with their gods, indulged themselves in their vices with the
greater security. This passage almost seems as if it had been
written with a view to the missal expiation as it is now
practised in the world. To defraud and circumvent another
person, every one knows to be unlawful. To injure widows,
to plunder orphans, to harass the poor, to obtain the property
of others by wicked arts, to seize any one’s fortune by perjuries
and frauds, to oppress a neighbour with violence and tyrannical
terror, are universally acknowledged to be enormous crimes.
How, then, do so many persons dare to commit all these sins, as
if they might perpetrate them with impunity? If we duly
consider, we shall find that they derive fresh encouragement
from no other cause than the confidence which they feel that
they shall be able to satisfy God by the sacrifice of the mass,
as a complete discharge of all their obligations to him, or at
least that it affords them an easy mode of compromising with
him. Plato afterwards goes on to ridicule the gross stupidity
of those who expect by such expiations to be delivered from
598the punishments which they would otherwise have to suffer in
hell. And what is the design of the obits, or anniversary
obsequies, and the greater part of the masses, but that those
who all their lifetime have been the most cruel of tyrants, the
most rapacious of robbers, or abandoned to every enormity, as
if redeemed with this price, may escape the fire of purgatory?
XVI. Under the other kind of sacrifices, which we have
called the sacrifice of thanksgiving, are included all the offices
of charity, which when we perform to our brethren, we honour
the Lord himself in his members; and likewise all our prayers,
praises, thanksgivings, and every thing that we do in the service
of God; all which are dependent on a greater sacrifice, by which
we are consecrated in soul and body as holy temples to the
Lord. It is not enough for our external actions to be employed
in his service: it is necessary that first ourselves, and then all
our works, be consecrated and dedicated to him; that whatever
belongs to us may conduce to his glory, and discover a
zeal for its advancement. This kind of sacrifice has no tendency
to appease the wrath of God, to procure remission of
sins, or to obtain righteousness: its sole object is to magnify
and exalt the glory of God. For it cannot be acceptable and
pleasing to God, except from the hands of those whom he has
already favoured with the remission of their sins, reconciled to
himself, and absolved from guilt; and it is so necessary to the
Church as to be altogether indispensable. Therefore it will
continue to be offered for ever, as long as the people of God
shall exist; as we have already seen from the prophet. For so
far are we from wishing to abolish it, that in that sense we are
pleased to understand the following prediction: “From the rising
of the sun, even unto the going down of the same, my name
shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense
shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering; for my name
shall be great among the heathen, saith the Lord of hosts.”[1348]
So Paul enjoins us to “present” our “bodies, a living sacrifice,
holy, acceptable unto God,” which is our “reasonable
service.”[1349] He has expressed himself with the strictest propriety,
by adding that this is our reasonable service; for he
intended a spiritual kind of Divine worship, which he tacitly opposed
to the carnal sacrifices of the Mosaic law. So “to do
good, and to communicate,” are called “sacrifices with which
God is well pleased.”[1350] So the liberality of the Philippians
in supplying the wants of Paul was “an odour of a sweet
smell, a sacrifice acceptable and well pleasing to God.”[1351] So
all the good works of believers are spiritual sacrifices.
599XVII. Why do I multiply quotations? This form of expression
is perpetually occurring in the Scriptures. And even
while the people were kept under the external discipline of
the law, it was sufficiently declared by the prophets that those
carnal sacrifices contained a reality and truth which is common
to the Christian Church, as well as to the nation of the Jews.
For this reason David prayed, “Let my prayer be set forth before
thee as incense; and the lifting up of my hands as the evening
sacrifice.”[1352] And Hosea called thanksgivings “the calves
of our lips,”[1353] which David calls “offering thanksgiving” and
“offering praise.”[1354] In imitation of the Psalmist, the apostle
himself says, “Let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually;”
and by way of explanation adds, “that is, the fruit
of our lips,” confessing or giving “thanks to his name.”[1355]
This kind of sacrifice is indispensable in the supper of the Lord,
in which, while we commemorate and declare his death, and
give thanks, we do no other than offer the sacrifice of praise.
From this sacrificial employment, all Christians are called “a
royal priesthood;”[1356] because, as the apostle says, “By Christ
we offer the sacrifice of praise to God, that is, the fruit of our lips,
giving thanks to his name.” For we do not appear in the presence
of God with our oblations without an intercessor; Christ
is the Mediator, by whom we offer ourselves and all that we
have to the Father. He is our High Priest, who, having entered
into the celestial sanctuary, opens the way of access for us.
He is our altar, upon which we place our oblations, that whatever
we venture to do, we may attempt in him. In a word, it
is he that “hath made us kings and priests unto God.”[1357]
XVIII. What remains, then, but for the blind to see, the
deaf to hear, and even children to understand, this abomination
of the mass? which, being presented in a vessel of gold, has so
inebriated and stupefied all the kings and people of the earth,
from the highest to the lowest, that, more senseless than the
brutes themselves, they have placed the whole of their salvation
in this fatal gulf. Surely Satan never employed a more powerful
engine to assail and conquer the kingdom of Christ. This is
the Helen, for which the enemies of the truth in the present
day contend with cruelty, rage, and fury; a Helen, indeed,
with which they so pollute themselves with spiritual fornication,
which is the most execrable of all. Here I touch not,
even with my little finger, the gross abuses which they might
pretend to be profanations of the purity of their holy mass; what
a scandalous traffic they carry on, what sordid gains they make
by their masses, with what enormous rapacity they gratify their
avarice. I only point out, and that in few and plain words, the
600true nature of the most sanctimonious sanctity of the mass, on
account of which it has attracted so much admiration and
veneration for so many ages. For an illustration of such great
mysteries proportioned to their dignity, would require a larger
treatise; and I am unwilling to introduce those disgusting corruptions
which are universally notorious; that all men may understand
that the mass, considered in its choicest and most estimable
purity, without any of its appendages, from the beginning
to the end, is full of every species of impiety, blasphemy,
idolatry, and sacrilege.
XIX. The readers may now see, collected into a brief
summary, almost every thing that I have thought important to
be known respecting these two sacraments; the use of which
has been enjoined on the Christian Church from the commencement
of the New Testament until the end of time; that
is to say, baptism, to be a kind of entrance into the Church,
and an initiatory profession of faith; and the Lord’s supper,
to be a continual nourishment, with which Christ spiritually
feeds his family of believers. Wherefore, as there is but “one
God, one Christ, one faith,” one Church, the body of Christ,
so there is only “one baptism” and that is never repeated;
but the supper is frequently distributed, that those who have
once been admitted into the Church, may understand that
they are continually nourished by Christ. Beside these two,
as no other sacrament has been instituted by God, so no other
ought to be acknowledged by the Church of believers. For
that it is not left to the will of man to institute new sacraments,
will be easily understood if we remember what has
already been very plainly stated—that sacraments are appointed
by God for the purpose of instructing us respecting
some promise of his, and assuring us of his good-will towards
us; and if we also consider, that no one has been the counsellor
of God, capable of affording us any certainty respecting
his will,[1358] or furnishing us any assurance of his disposition
towards us, what he chooses to give or to deny us. Hence it
follows, that no one can institute a sign to be a testimony respecting
any determination or promise of his; he alone can furnish
us a testimony respecting himself by giving a sign. I will
express myself in terms more concise, and perhaps more homely,
but more explicit—that there can be no sacrament unaccompanied
with a promise of salvation. All mankind, collected
in one assembly, can promise us nothing respecting our salvation.
Therefore they can never institute or establish a
sacrament.
XX. Let the Christian Church, therefore, be content with
601these two, and not only neither admit nor acknowledge any
other at present, but neither desire nor expect any other to the
end of the world. For as the Jews, beside the ordinary sacraments
given to them, had also several others, differing according
to the varying circumstances of different periods, such as
the manna, the water issuing from the rock, the brazen serpent,
and the like, they were admonished by this variation not to
rest in such figures, which were of short duration, but to
expect from God something better, which should undergo no
change and come to no end. But our case is very different:
to us Christ has been revealed, “in whom are hid all the
treasures of wisdom and knowledge,”[1359] in such abundance
and profusion, that to hope or desire any new accession to
these treasures would really be to displease God, and provoke
his wrath against us. We must hunger after Christ, we must
seek, contemplate, and learn him alone, till the dawning of that
great day, when our Lord will fully manifest the glory of his
kingdom, and reveal himself to us, so that “we shall see him
as he is.”[1360] And for this reason, the dispensation under
which we live is designated in the Scriptures as “the last
time,” “these last times,” “the last days,”[1361] that no one
may deceive himself with a vain expectation of any new
doctrine or revelation. For “God, who at sundry times and in
divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the
prophets, hath, in these last days, spoken unto us by his
Son,”[1362] who alone is able to “reveal the Father,”[1363] and
who, indeed, “hath declared him”[1364] fully, as far as is necessary
for our happiness, while “now we see” him “through a
glass darkly.”[1365] As men are not left at liberty to institute
new sacraments in the Church of God, so it were to be wished
that as little as possible of human invention should be mixed
with those which have been instituted by God. For as wine is
diluted and lost by an infusion of water, and as a whole mass of
meal contracts acidity from a sprinkling of leaven, so the purity of
Divine mysteries is only polluted when man makes any addition
of his own. And yet we see, as the sacraments are observed
in the present day, how very far they have degenerated from
their original purity. There is every where an excess of pageantries,
ceremonies, and gesticulations; but no consideration
or mention of the word of God, without which even the
sacraments themselves cease to be sacraments. And the very
ceremonies which have been instituted by God are not to be
discerned among such a multitude of others, by which they are
602overwhelmed. In baptism, how little is seen of that which
ought to be the only conspicuous object—I mean baptism itself?
And the Lord’s supper has been completely buried since
it has been transformed into the mass; except that it is exhibited
once a year, but in a partial and mutilated form.
The preceding discussion respecting the sacraments might
satisfy persons of docile and sober minds, that they ought not
to carry their curiosity any further, or without the sanction of
the word of God, to receive any other sacraments beside those
two which they know to have been instituted by the Lord.
But as the opinion of seven sacraments has been so generally
admitted in the common conversation of mankind, and pervaded
the controversies of the schools, and the sermons of the
pulpit,—as it has gathered strength from its antiquity, and still
keeps its hold on the minds of men,—I have thought I should
perform a useful service by entering into a closer and distinct
examination of the five ceremonies, which are commonly
numbered among the true and genuine sacraments of the Lord,
by clearing away every fallacy, and exhibiting to the view of
plain Christians the real nature of those ceremonies, and how
falsely they have hitherto been considered as sacraments.
Here, in the first place, I wish to declare to all believers, that
I am not induced to enter on this controversy respecting the
term, by the least desire of contention, but that I am urged by
important reasons to resist the abuse of it. I am aware that
Christians have power over names as well as things, and may
therefore apply words to things at their own pleasure, provided
they retain a pious meaning, even though there be some impropriety
of expression. All this I admit, though it would be
better for words to be subject to things, than for things to be
subject to words. The case of the term sacrament, however,
is different. For those who maintain seven sacraments, give
them all the same definition—that they are visible forms of
invisible grace; they make them all alike vessels of the Holy
Spirit, instruments of communicating righteousness, causes of
obtaining grace. And the Master of the Sentences, Lombard,
denies that the sacraments of the Mosaic law are properly designated
603by this appellation; because they did not communicate
that which they prefigured. Is it to be endured, that those
symbols, which the Lord consecrated with his own mouth, and
which he adorned with excellent promises, should not be acknowledged
as sacraments; and, at the same time, that this
honour should be transferred to those rites which are merely
inventions of men, or, at least, are observed without any express
command of God? Either, therefore, let them change their
definition, or abstain from this abuse of the term, which afterwards
generates false and absurd opinions. Extreme unction,
they say, is a figure and cause of invisible grace, because it is a
sacrament. If we ought by no means to admit their inference
from the term, it certainly behoves us to lose no time in
resisting their application of the term itself, that we may not
be chargeable with giving any occasion to such an error.
Again: to prove that ceremony to be a sacrament, they allege
this reason—that it consists of the external sign and the word
of God. If we find neither command nor promise respecting
it, can we do otherwise than oppose it?
II. Now, it appears that we are not debating about the
word, but raising a necessary and useful controversy respecting
the thing itself. We must strenuously maintain, therefore, what
we have already established by irrefragable argument that the
power to institute sacraments belongs to God alone; for a sacrament
ought to exhibit the certain promise of God, for the assurance
and consolation of the consciences of believers; which
could never receive such assurance and consolation from man.
A sacrament ought to be a testimony to us of the good-will of
God towards us—a testimony which no man or angel can ever
give, as none has been “his counsellor.” It is he alone, therefore,
who, with legitimate authority, testifies to us concerning
himself by means of his word. A sacrament is a seal by which
the testament or promise of God is sealed. But it could not
be sealed by corporeal things and the elements of this world,
unless they were marked out and appointed for this purpose by
the power of God. Therefore man cannot institute a sacrament;
because it is not in human power to cause such great
and Divine mysteries to be concealed under such mean symbols.
“The word of God must precede,” as is excellently remarked
by Augustine, “in order to make a sacrament to be a sacrament.”
Moreover, if we would avoid falling into many absurdities,
it is requisite to preserve some distinction between a
sacrament and other ceremonies. The apostles prayed on
bended knees; shall we, therefore, never kneel without making
it a sacrament? The early Christians are said to have turned
their faces towards the east when they prayed; shall looking
604towards the east, then, be regarded as a sacrament? Paul says,
“I will that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands,”[1366]
and the prayers of the saints appear to have been often made
with uplifted hands; shall elevation of hands also be made a
sacrament? On this principle all the gestures of the saints
would become sacraments. I would not insist on these things,
however, if they were not connected with those greater inconveniences.
III. If they wish to press us with the authority of the ancient
Church, I assert that this is a groundless pretence. For the
number of seven sacraments can nowhere be found in the ecclesiastical
writers, nor is it clear when it was introduced. I grant,
indeed, that the fathers sometimes make too free a use of the
word sacrament; but they use it indifferently to signify all
ceremonies and external rites, and all exercises of piety. But,
when they speak of those signs which we ought to regard as
testimonies of the grace of God, they are content with these
two, baptism and the eucharist. That this may not be supposed
to be a false allegation, I shall here cite a few testimonies
from Augustine. To Januarius he says, “First, I wish you
to know what is the principal point of this controversy—that
our Lord Jesus Christ, as he says in the gospel, has laid
upon us an easy yoke and a light burden. And, therefore, he
has linked together the society of the Christian Church by
sacraments, very few in number, most easy to observe, and
excellent in signification. Such are baptism, consecrated in the
name of the Trinity, and the communion of the body and
blood of the Lord, and if there be any other enjoined in the
canonical Scriptures.” Again, in his treatise On the Christian
Doctrine: “Since the resurrection of our Lord, our Lord
himself, and the practice of his apostles, instead of many signs,
have given us few, and those most easy in performance, most
excellent in signification, and most pure in observance; such
are baptism, and the celebration of the body and blood of the
Lord.” Why does he make no mention here of the sacred or
septenary number? Is it probable that he would have omitted
it, if it had then been instituted in the Church; especially as,
in other cases, he was more curious in the observation of
numbers than was at all necessary? And, when he names
baptism and the Lord’s supper, and is silent respecting any
others, does he not sufficiently indicate, that these two mysteries
possess superior and peculiar dignity, and that all other ceremonies
occupy an inferior station? Wherefore I affirm that
these advocates for seven sacraments are not only unsupported
by the word of the Lord, but also by the consent of the ancient
605Church, however they may boast of such consent. Let us now
proceed to the particular ceremonies.
IV. It was an ancient custom in the Church for the children
of Christians, after they were come to years of discretion, to be
presented to the bishop in order to fulfil that duty which was
required of adults who offered themselves to baptism. For
such persons were placed among the catechumens, till, being
duly instructed in the mysteries of Christianity, they were
enabled to make a confession of their faith before the bishop
and all the people. Therefore those who had been baptized
in their infancy, because they had not then made such a confession
of faith before the Church, at the close of childhood, or
the commencement of adolescence, were again presented by their
parents, and were examined by the bishop according to the form
of the catechism which was then in common use. That this
exercise, which deserved to be regarded as sacred and solemn,
might have the greater dignity and reverence, they also practised
the ceremony of imposition of hands. Thus the youth, after
having given satisfaction respecting his faith, was dismissed
with a solemn benediction. This custom is frequently mentioned
by the ancient writers. Leo, the pope, says, “If any
one be converted from heresy, let him not be baptized again;
but let the influence of the Spirit, which he wanted among the
heretics, be communicated to him by the imposition of the
hands of the bishop.” Here our adversaries will exclaim that
any ceremony, by which the Holy Spirit is conferred, is properly
denominated a sacrament. But the meaning of Leo in
these words is sufficiently unfolded by himself in another
place: “Whoever is baptized among heretics, let him not
be rebaptized; but let him be confirmed by imposition of
hands with invocation of the Holy Spirit; because he has
received the mere form of baptism, without the sanctification.”
It is also mentioned by Jerome against the Luciferians. And
though I confess that Jerome is not altogether correct in
stating it to have been a custom of the apostles, yet he is very
far from the absurdities now maintained by the Romanists;
and he even corrects that very statement by adding, that this
benediction was committed wholly to the bishops, “rather in
honour of the priesthood than from necessity imposed by any
law.” Such imposition of hands, therefore, as is simply connected
with benediction, I highly approve, and wish it were
now restored to its primitive use, uncorrupted by superstition.
V. Succeeding times have almost obliterated that ancient
606practice, and introduced I know not what counterfeit confirmation
as a sacrament of God. They have pretended that the
virtue of confirmation is to give the Holy Spirit for the augmentation
of grace, who in baptism is given for innocence; to
strengthen for warfare those who in baptism had been regenerated
to life. This confirmation is performed by unction
and the following form of words: “I sign thee with the sign
of the cross, and confirm thee with the chrism of salvation, in
the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy
Spirit.” All this sounds very beautifully and pleasantly. But
where is the word of God which promises the presence of the
Holy Spirit in this ceremony? They cannot allege a single iota.
How, then, will they assure us that their chrism is the vessel
of the Holy Spirit? We see oil, a thick and viscid liquid, and
we see nothing besides. Augustine says, “Let the word be
added to the element, and it will become a sacrament.” Let the
Romanists produce this word, if they wish us to contemplate
in the oil any thing beyond the oil itself. If they acknowledged
themselves ministers of the sacraments, as they ought to do,
there would be no need of any further contention. The first
law of a minister is to undertake nothing without a command.
Now, let them produce any command for this service, and I will
not add another word on the subject. If they have no command,
they can have no excuse for such sacrilegious audacity.
On the same principle, our Lord interrogated the Pharisees:
“The baptism of John, whence was it? from heaven or of
men?”[1367] If they had answered, From men, he would have
extorted a confession that it was vain and frivolous; if, From
heaven, they would be constrained to admit the doctrine of John.
To avoid too great an injury to John, therefore, they did not dare
to confess it was from men. So, if confirmation be “of men,”
it is evinced to be vain and frivolous; if they wish to persuade
us that it is from heaven, let them prove it.
VI. They defend themselves, indeed, by the example of the
apostles, whom they consider as having done nothing without
sufficient reason. This consideration is correct; nor would
they receive any reprehension from us, if they showed themselves
imitators of the apostles. But what was the practice of
the apostles? Luke relates, that “when the apostles, which
were at Jerusalem, heard that Samaria had received the word
of God, they sent unto them Peter and John; who, when they
were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the
Holy Ghost; for as yet he was fallen upon none of them; only
they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then laid
they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.”[1368]
607And this imposition of hands is mentioned by the sacred historian
on several occasions. I perceive what the apostles did—that
they faithfully executed their ministry. It was the Lord’s
will, that those visible and wonderful graces of the Holy Spirit,
which he then poured out upon his people, should be administered
and distributed by his apostles with imposition of
hands. Now, I do not conceive that the imposition of hands
concealed any higher mystery, but am of opinion that this
ceremony was employed by them as an external expression
of their commending, and, as it were, presenting to God, the
person upon whom they laid their hands. If the ministry
which was then executed by the apostles were still continued
in the Church, imposition of hands ought also to be still observed;
but since such grace is no longer conferred, of what use
is the imposition of hands? It is true that the people of God
still enjoy the presence of the Holy Spirit, whose guidance
and direction are indispensable to the existence of the Church.
For we have the eternal promise, which can never fail, and in
which Christ has said, “If any man thirst, let him come unto
me, and drink living water.”[1369] But those miraculous powers
and manifest operations, which were distributed by imposition
of hands, have ceased; and it was right that they should continue
but for a time. For it was necessary that the first
preaching of the gospel, and the kingdom of Christ, at its commencement,
should be illustrated and magnified by miracles
never seen or heard before: the subsequent cessation of which
does not argue the Lord’s desertion of his Church, but is equivalent
to a declaration from him that the magnificence of his
reign and the dignity of his word had been sufficiently manifested.
In what respect, then, will these impostors affirm that
they imitate the apostles? They should have effected, by
imposition of hands, that the evident power of the Spirit might
immediately show itself. This they do not practise. Why,
then, do they boast that they are countenanced by the imposition
of hands, which we find was used by the apostles, but for
a totally different purpose.
VII. This is just as reasonable as it would be for any one
to affirm the afflation, with which the Lord breathed upon his
disciples, to be a sacrament by which the Holy Spirit is conferred.[1370]
But though the Lord did this once, he has never
directed it to be done by us. In the same manner, the apostles
practised imposition of hands during that period in which the
Lord was pleased to dispense the visible graces of the Holy
Spirit in compliance with their prayers; not in order that
persons in succeeding times might counterfeit a vain and useless
sign, as a mere piece of mimicry destitute of any reality. Besides,
608even if they could prove themselves to imitate the
apostles in the imposition of hands, in which they have nothing
similar to the apostles, except this preposterous mimicry,
whence do they derive their oil, which they call the oil of
salvation? Who has taught them to seek salvation in oil?
Who has taught them to attribute to it the property of imparting
spiritual strength? Is it Paul, who calls us off from the
elements of this world, and severely condemns an attachment
to such observances?[1371] On the contrary, I fearlessly pronounce,
not of myself, but from the Lord, that those who
call oil the oil of salvation, abjure the salvation which is in
Christ, reject Christ, and have no part in the kingdom of God.
For oil is for the belly, and the belly for oil; the Lord shall
destroy both; all these weak elements “which perish with the
using,”[1372] have no connection with the kingdom of God,
which is spiritual, and shall never perish. What, then, it will
be said, do you apply the same rule to the water with which
we are baptized, and to the bread and wine used in the Lord’s
supper? I answer, that in sacraments of Divine appointment,
two things are to be regarded—the substance of the corporeal
symbol which is proposed to us, and the character impressed
upon it by the word of God, in which consists all its virtue.
Therefore, as the bread, and wine, and water, which are presented
to our view in the sacraments, retain their natural substance,
that observation of Paul is always applicable: “Meats
for the belly, and the belly for meats; but God shall destroy
both it and them;”[1373] for they pass and vanish away with the
fashion of this world. But as they are sanctified by the word
of God to be sacraments, they do not confine us to the flesh,
but impart to us true and spiritual instruction.
VIII. Let us examine still more narrowly how many monsters
are fostered by this oil. The dispensers of it say, that
the Holy Spirit is given, in baptism for innocence, in confirmation
for an augmentation of grace; that in baptism we are
regenerated to life, and that by confirmation we are armed for
warfare; and they have so far lost all shame, as to deny that
baptism can be rightly performed without confirmation. What
corruption! Are we not, then, “in baptism buried with Christ,
planted together in the likeness of his death,” that we may be
“also in the likeness of his resurrection?” Now this fellowship
with the death and life of Christ, Paul explains to consist in
the mortification of the flesh, and the vivification of the Spirit;
“that our old man is crucified with him, that we should walk
in newness of life.”[1374] What is it to be armed for the spiritual
609warfare, if this be not? If they deemed it of no importance to
trample under foot the word of God, why did they not at least
reverence the Church, to which they wish to appear so uniformly
obsequious? But what can be produced more severe
against this doctrine of theirs, than the following decree of the
Council of Milevum? “Whoever asserts that baptism is only
given for the remission of sins, and not for assistance of future
grace, let him be accursed.” When Luke, in a passage which
we have already cited, speaks of some as having been “baptized
in the name of the Lord Jesus,”[1375] who had not received
the Holy Ghost, he does not absolutely deny that any gift of
the Spirit had been imparted to those persons who had believed
in Christ with the heart, and had confessed him with the
mouth; he intends that gift of the Spirit which communicated
his manifest powers and visible graces. So the apostles
are said to have received the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost;
though Christ had long before declared to them, “It
is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father, which
speaketh in you.”[1376] Let all who are of God, here observe
the malicious and pestilent artifice of Satan. That which was
truly given in baptism, he falsely asserts to be given in his
confirmation, with the crafty design of seducing us unawares
from baptism. Who can doubt, now, that this is the doctrine
of Satan, which severs from baptism the promises which belong
to that sacrament, and transfers them to something else? It
is now discovered on what kind of a foundation this famous
unction rests. The word of God is, that “as many as have
been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ,”[1377] with his
gifts. The word of these anointers is, That we have received
no promise in baptism to arm us for the spiritual warfare. The
word of God is the voice of truth; consequently the word of the
anointers must be the voice of falsehood. I can, therefore, give
a more correct definition of this confirmation than they have
yet given of it; namely, that it is a manifest insult against baptism,
obscuring and even abolishing its use; that it is a deceitful
promise of the devil, seducing us from the truth of God; or,
if the following be preferred, that it is oil polluted with the falsehood
of the devil, to darken and deceive the minds of the simple.
IX. They further assert that all believers after baptism
ought to receive the Holy Spirit by imposition of hands, that
they may be found complete Christians; for that no one can
be altogether a Christian who is never anointed with episcopal
confirmation. These are their own words. But I thought
that all things relating to Christianity had been comprehended
and declared in the Scriptures. Now, it seems, the true form
610of religion is to be sought and learned from some other quarter.
The wisdom of God, therefore, celestial truth, all the doctrine
of Christ, only begins to make Christians; oil completes them.
Such a sentiment condemns all the apostles, and a number of
martyrs who, it is certain, had never received this unction.
For the holy chrism, the perfusion of which would complete
their Christianity, or rather make them Christians from being
no Christians at all, had not then been manufactured. But these
chrismatics abundantly confute themselves, without my saying
a word. For how small a part of their people do they anoint
after baptism? Why, then, do they suffer such semi-Christians
in their own community, from an imperfection which they
might easily remedy? Why do they, with such supine negligence,
suffer them to omit that which cannot be omitted
without great criminality? Why do they not more rigidly
insist upon a thing so necessary and indispensable to salvation,
unless any one be prevented by sudden death? Surely while
they suffer it to be so easily despised, they tacitly confess it not
to be of so much importance as they pretend it to be.
X. In the last place, they determine that this sacred unction
ought to be held in greater reverence than baptism; because
it is only dispensed by the hands of the greatest prelates,
whereas baptism is commonly administered by all priests. Must
they not be considered as evidently mad, who discover such
fondness for their own inventions, that, in comparison with
them, they presume to undervalue the sacred institutions of
God? Sacrilegious mouth, dost thou dare to place an unction,
which is only defiled with thy fetid breath, and enchanted by
the muttering of a few words, on a level with the sacrament
of Christ, and to compare it with water sanctified by the word
of God? But this would not satisfy thy presumption; thou
hast even given it the preference! These are the responses
of the Holy See; they are the oracles of the apostolic tripod.
But some of them have begun to moderate this infatuation,
which even in their opinion was carried beyond all due limits.
Confirmation is to be regarded, they say, with greater reverence
than baptism; not, perhaps, for the greater virtue and advantage
that it confers, but because it is dispensed by persons of superior
dignity, and is applied to the nobler part of the body, that
is, the forehead; or because it contributes a greater augmentation
of virtues, though baptism is more available to remission.
But in the first reason, do they not betray themselves to be
Donatists, who estimate the virtue of the sacrament by the
dignity or worthiness of the minister? I will grant, however,
that confirmation be considered as more excellent from the
dignity of episcopal hands. But if any one inquire of them
how such a prerogative has been conferred on bishops, what
611reason will they assign but their own pleasure? They allege,
that the apostles alone exercised that right, being the sole
dispensers of the Holy Spirit. Are bishops the only apostles;
or are they apostles at all? Let us, however, grant that also;
why do they not on the same principle contend that none but
bishops ought to touch the sacrament of the blood in the
Lord’s supper; which they refuse to the laity, because the
Lord, as they say, only gave it to the apostles? If our Lord
gave it to the apostles alone, why do they not infer, Therefore
it ought now to be given to bishops alone? But in this case
they make the apostles simple presbyters; now, they are hurried
away with an extravagant notion suddenly to create them
bishops. Lastly, Ananias was not an apostle; yet to him Paul
was sent, that he might receive his sight, be baptized, and be
filled with the Holy Ghost.[1378] I will add one question more:
If this was the peculiar office of bishops by a Divine right, why
have they dared to transfer it to common presbyters, as we
read in one of the epistles of Gregory?
XI. How frivolous and foolish is the second reason, That
they call their confirmation more excellent than the baptism instituted
by God, because in confirmation the forehead is anointed
with oil, and in baptism the crown of the head; as though
baptism were performed with oil, and not with water! I appeal
to all believers, whether these deceivers do not direct all
their efforts to this one object; to corrupt the purity of the
sacraments by the leaven of their false doctrine. I have already
remarked, in another part of this book, that in the sacraments
it is scarcely possible to discern that which is of Divine institution
among the multiplicity of human inventions. If any one
did not give credit to that observation of mine, let him now at
least believe his own masters. By their passing over the water
without the least notice, it appears that the only thing to
which they attribute much importance in baptism, is their own
oil. We, therefore, on the contrary, affirm, that in baptism the
forehead also is laved with water. In comparison with this,
we esteem all their oil perfectly worthless, whether in baptism
or in confirmation. If any one allege that it is sold for more,
this accession of price would only corrupt the good, if it contained
any; an imposture of the foulest kind can never be
legalized by robbery. In the third reason, they expose their
impiety, when they pretend that a greater augmentation of
virtues is conferred in confirmation than in baptism. The
apostles, by imposition of hands, dispensed the visible graces
of the Spirit. In what respect does their unction appear to be
productive of any advantage? Let us leave these moderators,
612therefore, who cover one sacrilege with a number of others.
It is a Gordian knot, which it is better to cut asunder than to
spend much labour to untie.
XII. Now, when they find themselves stripped of the word
of God, and of every probable argument, they resort to their
usual pretext, that it is a very ancient usage, and confirmed by
the consent of many ages. Though this allegation were true,
it would not at all serve their cause. A sacrament is not from
earth, but from heaven; not of men, but of God alone. If
they wish their confirmation to be regarded as a sacrament,
they must prove God to be the Author of it. But why do
they allege antiquity, seeing that the ancient fathers, whenever
they mean to express themselves with strict propriety,
nowhere enumerate more than two sacraments? If it were
necessary to fortify our faith by the authority of men, we
have an impregnable fortress, that those ceremonies, which our
adversaries falsely pretend to be sacraments, were never acknowledged
as sacraments by the ancients. The fathers speak
of imposition of hands; but do they call it a sacrament? Augustine
explicitly affirms that it is no other than prayer. Here
let them not oppose me with their foolish distinctions, that
Augustine applied this remark to imposition of hands, not as
practised in confirmation, but as used for the purpose of healing,
or of reconciliation. The book is extant, and is in many hands.
If I pervert the passage to any meaning different from that of
Augustine himself, I am content to submit to their severest
censure and contempt. For he is speaking of schismatics,
who returned to the unity of the Church; and denies that they
have any need of the reiteration of baptism, for that imposition
of hands was sufficient, in order that, by the bond of peace, the
Lord might give them his Holy Spirit. And as it might
appear unreasonable to repeat imposition of hands rather than
baptism, he shows the difference. “For what,” he says, “is
imposition of hands, but prayer over a man?” And that this
was his meaning, is evident from another passage, where he
says, “We lay hands upon reclaimed heretics, for the union
of charity, which is the principal gift of the Holy Spirit, and
without which whatever else may be holy in man is unavailing
to salvation.”
XIII. I sincerely wish that we retained the custom, which I
have stated was practised among the ancients before this
abortive image of a sacrament made its appearance. For it
was not such a confirmation as the Romanists pretend, which
cannot be mentioned without injury to baptism; but a catechetical
exercise, in which children or youths used to deliver
an account of their faith in the presence of the Church. Now,
it would be the best mode of catechetical instruction, if a
613formulary were written for this purpose, containing and stating,
in a familiar manner, all the articles of our religion, in which
the universal Church of believers ought to agree, without
any controversy: a boy of ten years of age might present
himself to make a confession of his faith; he might be questioned
on all the articles, and might give suitable answers: if
he were ignorant of any, or did not fully understand them, he
should be taught. Thus the Church would witness his profession
of the only true and pure faith, in which all the community
of believers unanimously worship the one God. If this discipline
were observed in the present day, it would certainly sharpen
the inactivity of some parents, who carelessly neglect the instruction
of their children as a thing in which they have no
concern, but which, in that case, they could not omit without
public disgrace; there would be more harmony of faith among
Christian people, nor would many betray such great ignorance
and want of information; some would not be so easily carried
away with novel and strange tenets; in short, all would have a
regular acquaintance with Christian doctrine.
XIV. In the next place, they add penance; of which they
treat in such a confused and disorderly manner, that the consciences
of men can deduce no certain or solid conclusion respecting
their doctrine. In another part of this treatise, we
have stated at large what we learn from the Scriptures respecting
repentance, and likewise what is inculcated on that subject
by the Romanists. Our present business is only to inquire
briefly into the reasons of those persons who promulgated the
opinion which has prevailed for a long period in the churches and
in the schools, that penance is a sacrament. In the first place,
I will make a few remarks on the practice of the ancient
Church, the pretence of which they have abused for the introduction
and establishment of their foolish invention. The
order observed by the ancients in public penitence was, that
persons who had completed the satisfactions enjoined upon
them, were reconciled to the Church by solemn imposition of
hands. This was a sign of absolution, to encourage the sinner
himself with an assurance of pardon before God, and to admonish
the Church that they ought to obliterate the memory
of his offence, and kindly to receive him into favour. This
Cyprian often calls “giving peace.” To increase the importance
of this act, and give it a greater recommendation among
the people, it was ordained that it should always be done by
the authority of a bishop. Hence that decree of the second
614Council of Carthage: “Let no presbyter be permitted to reconcile
a penitent publicly at the mass.” And another decree of
the Council of Arausium: “Let those who, during the period
of their penitence, depart out of this life, be admitted to the
communion without the reconciliatory imposition of hands.
If they recover from their illness, let them complete the period
of their penitence, and then let them receive from the bishop
the reconciliatory imposition of hands.” Also the decree
of the third Council of Carthage: “Let not a presbyter reconcile
a penitent without the authority of the bishop.” The
design of all these decrees was, to prevent the severity which
they wished to preserve in this matter from falling into disuse.
Therefore they committed it to the cognizance of the
bishop, who was likely to be more circumspect in conducting
the examination. But Cyprian states that it was not the
bishop alone who laid hands on the penitent, but that all the
clergy also united in this act. These are his words: “They
do penance for a proper time, and then they come to the
communion, and are restored to the right of communion by
the imposition of the hands of the bishop and clergy.” Afterwards,
in process of time, the custom was corrupted, so that
they used this ceremony in private absolutions, without any
public expression of penitence. Hence that distinction in
Gratian, between public and private reconciliation. I consider
that ancient custom, which is mentioned by Cyprian, to have
been holy and useful to the Church, and could wish it were
revived in the present day. This more recent one, though I
venture not to condemn or censure it with severity, yet I consider
less necessary. We see, however, that imposition of hands on
repentance is a ceremony of human, not of Divine institution,
and is to be placed among indifferent things and external exercises,
such as are not to be despised, but ought to hold a station
far below the sacraments, which are enjoined upon us by the
word of God.
XV. Now, the Romish theologians and schoolmen, who are
in the habit of corrupting every thing by misinterpretation,
take very great pains here to discover a sacrament, but to no
purpose. Nor ought this to be wondered at, for they seek it
where it is not to be found. When they have done their best,
they leave the subject perplexed, doubtful, uncertain, and confounded
with a variety of opinions. They say, then, that
external penitence is a sacrament, and if it be so, that it ought
to be considered as a sign of internal penitence, that is, of
contrition of heart, which is the substance of the sacrament;
or that both together constitute the sacrament, not two sacraments,
but one complete one; but that external penitence is
merely the sacrament; while that which is internal is both the
615sacrament and the substance of the sacrament; and remission
of sins is the substance only, and not the sacrament. Let those
who bear in mind the definition of a sacrament which we have
already given, apply it to the examination of this pretended
sacrament, and they will find that it is not an external ceremony
instituted by God for the confirmation of our faith. If
they plead that my definition is not a law which they are
bound to obey, let them hear Augustine, whom they profess to
regard with the greatest reverence. He says, “Visible sacraments
are instituted for carnal persons, that by the steps of the
sacraments they may be led from those things which are visible
to the eye, to those which are intelligible to the mind.” What
resemblance to this do they themselves see, or are they able to
point out to others, in that which they call the sacrament of
penance? The same writer says in another place, “It is
therefore called a sacrament, because one thing is seen, another
is understood in it. That which is seen has corporeal form;
that which is understood has spiritual fruit.” These things
are not at all applicable to the sacrament of penance, which
they have invented, in which there is no corporeal form to
represent any spiritual fruit.
XVI. And to vanquish these champions on their own
ground, if any sacrament be sought for here, would it not be far
more plausible to say that the sacrament consists in the absolution
of the priest, rather than in penitence, either internal or
external? For it would be easy to say, that this is a ceremony
appointed for the confirmation of our faith in the remission of
sins, and has what they call the promise of the keys: “Whatsoever
ye shall bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven; and
whatsoever ye shall loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven.”[1379]
But some would have objected, that many who are absolved
by priests, derive no such benefits from their absolution;
whereas, upon their principle, the sacraments of the new law actually
accomplish that which they represent. To this it might
be replied, that, as in the eucharist there is a twofold eating,—sacramental,
which is equally common to the good and the
wicked; and spiritual, which is peculiar to the good—why
might they not also imagine the reception of a twofold absolution?
Yet I have never yet been able to comprehend what
they intended by that principle of theirs, respecting the efficacious
virtue of the sacraments of the new law; which we have
proved to be altogether at variance with the truth of God,
when we professedly discussed that subject. Here I only
mean to show that this difficulty is no objection to their
calling sacerdotal absolution a sacrament. For they might
616answer, in the language of Augustine, “That sanctification is
sometimes without the visible sacrament, and that the visible
sacrament is sometimes unaccompanied by internal sanctification.”
Again: “That the sacraments effect that which they
represent in the elect alone.” Again: “That some persons
put on Christ as far as the reception of the sacrament, and
others even to sanctification;” that the former is equally the
case with the good and evil; and the latter with none but the
good. Surely they have betrayed more than the weakness of
children, and shown themselves blind to the broad day, who,
in the midst of such difficulty and perplexity, have not discovered
a thing so plain and obvious to every one.
XVII. Yet let them not flatter themselves, for in whatever
part they place their sacrament, I deny that it ought to be considered
as a sacrament at all; first, because it is not accompanied
with any special promise of God, which is the only
foundation of a sacrament; secondly, because all the ceremony
exhibited here is the mere invention of men; whereas
it has been already ascertained that sacramental ceremonies
cannot be instituted, except by God himself. All that they
have fabricated, therefore, respecting the sacrament of penance,
is nothing but falsehood and imposture. This counterfeit
sacrament they have adorned with a suitable title, calling it
“a second plank after a shipwreck;” for that, if any one by
sin has soiled the garment of innocence received in baptism,
he may purify it by penance. But this, they say, is the language
of Jerome. Whose language soever it may be, it cannot
be exculpated from manifest impiety, if it be explained according
to their notion of it. As if baptism were effaced by sin,
and ought not rather to be recalled to the memory of the
sinner whenever he thinks of remission of sins, that it may
serve to comfort his mind, inspire him with courage, and
confirm his confidence of obtaining the remission of sins, which
was promised to him in baptism. But that which Jerome has
expressed with some degree of harshness and impropriety, that
baptism, from which those who deserve to be excommunicated
from the Church have fallen away, is repaired by penitence,
these admirable expositors apply to their impiety. We shall
speak with the greatest propriety, therefore, if we call baptism
the sacrament of penitence; since it is given for a confirmation
of grace, and seal of confidence, to those who meditate
repentance. And this must not be considered as an invention
of ours, for, beside its conformity to the language of Scripture,
it appears to have been generally received in the ancient
Church as an indubitable axiom. For in the treatise on Faith
addressed to Peter, which is attributed to Augustine, it is called
“the sacrament of faith and repentance.” And why do we
617resort to uncertain testimonies? Nothing can be required more
explicit than what is recited by the evangelists, that “John
did preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of
sins.”[1380]
XVIII. The third counterfeit sacrament is extreme unction;
which is never performed but by a priest, and that in the last
moments of life, with oil consecrated by a bishop, and the following
form of words: “By this holy unction, and by his most
tender mercy, may God pardon thee whatever sin thou hast
committed by sight, by hearing, by smell, by taste, and by
touch.” They pretend that it has two virtues—remission of
sins, and relief from bodily disease, if that be expedient, or
otherwise the salvation of the soul. They say that the institution
of it is established by James, who says, “Is any sick
among you? let him call for the elders of the Church; and let
them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the
Lord; and the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord
shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall
be forgiven him.”[1381] This unction of theirs is of the same
kind as we have already proved their imposition of hands to be:
it is a mere hypocritical farce, by which, without any reason,
and without any advantage, they affect to mimic the apostles.
It is related by Mark, that the apostles, at their first mission, according
to the command which they had received from the Lord,
raised the dead, ejected demons, cleansed lepers, healed the sick,
and that in the cure of the sick they made use of oil. “They
anointed with oil,” he says, “many that were sick, and healed
them.”[1382] James had this in view when he directed the elders
of the Church to be sent for to anoint the sick. That such ceremonies
concealed no higher mystery, will easily be concluded by
any attentive observers of the great liberty used by our Lord
and his apostles in external things. When our Lord was about
to restore sight to a blind man, he made clay of dust and
spittle; some he healed with a touch, others with a word.
In the same manner, the apostles cured some maladies with a
mere word, others with a touch, others with unction. But it
may be alleged that it is probable that this unction, like the
other methods, was not employed without reason. This I
confess; not, however, that they used it as an instrument of
cure, but merely as a sign, to instruct the ignorance of the
simple whence such virtue proceeded, that they might not
ascribe the praise of it to the apostles. Now, it is very common
618in the Scriptures for the Holy Spirit and his gifts to be signified
by oil. But that grace of healing has disappeared, like
all the other miraculous powers, which the Lord was pleased
to exhibit for a time, that he might render the preaching of the
gospel, which was then new, the object of admiration for ever.
Even though we should fully grant, therefore, that unction
was a sacrament of the powers which were administered by
the instrumentality of the apostles, it has nothing to do with
us, to whom the administration of those powers has not been
committed.
XIX. And what greater reason have they to make a sacrament
of this unction than of all the other signs or symbols
which are mentioned in the Scriptures? Why do not they
appoint some pool of Siloam, in which the sick may bathe
themselves at certain seasons?[1383] That, they say, would be
a vain attempt. Surely not more in vain than unction. Why
do they not “fall upon and embrace” the dead, because Paul
resuscitated a deceased young man by such means?[1384] Why
is not clay, composed of spittle and dust, converted into a
sacrament? All the others, they say, were single examples,
but the use of unction is commanded by James. I reply, that
James was speaking in reference to that period in which this
benediction of God was still enjoyed by the Church. They
affirm, indeed, that there is even now the same virtue in their
unction; but we find it to be otherwise by experience. Let no
one now wonder how they have so confidently deluded souls,
whom they know to be stupid and blind when deprived of the
word of God, which is their life and light, since they are not at
all ashamed to attempt to deceive the living and observing senses
of the body. They make themselves ridiculous, therefore,
when they boast that they are endued with the gift of healing.
The Lord is undoubtedly present with his people to assist
them in all ages; and, whenever it is necessary, he heals their
diseases as much as he did in ancient times; but he does not
display those visible powers, or dispense miracles by the hands
of apostles; because that gift was only of temporary duration,
and was soon lost, in some measure, by the ingratitude of men.
XX. As the apostles, therefore, had sufficient cause for
using the symbol of oil as an evident testimony that the gift
of healing, which had been committed to them, was not a
power of their own, but of the Holy Spirit, so, on the other
hand, they do a great injury to the Holy Spirit who represent
a fetid oil, destitute of all efficacy, as his power. This is just
as if any one were to affirm, that all oil is the power of the
Holy Spirit, because it is called by that name in the Scripture;
619or that every dove is the Holy Spirit, because he appeared
under that form. But let them look to these things. For us,
it is sufficient, at present, that we see beyond all doubt that
their unction is not a sacrament, being a ceremony which is
neither of God’s institution, nor accompanied with any promise
from him. For when we require these two things in a sacrament,
that it be a ceremony instituted by God, and that it have
some promise of God, we at the same time require that the
ceremony be enjoined upon us, and that the promise have reference
to us. For no one contends that circumcision is now
a sacrament of the Christian Church, notwithstanding it was
instituted by God, and had a promise annexed to it; because
it is not enjoined upon us, nor is the promise which was subjoined
to it given to us on that condition. That the promise
which they presumptuously boast of in their unction is not
given to us, we have clearly proved, and they themselves
declare by experience. The ceremony ought not to have been
used, except by those who were endued with the gift of healing;
and not by these butchers, who are more capable of
killing and murdering than of healing.
XXI. Even if they had established, what they are very far
from having established, that the injunction of James respecting
unction is applicable to the present age, still they would
have made but little progress in defending their unction with
which they have hitherto besmeared us. James directs that all
sick persons be anointed; these men bedaub with their unguent
not sick persons, but half-dead corpses, when their souls are at
the point of departing from them. If in their sacrament they
have a present medicine, by which they can either alleviate
the anguish of disease, or at least communicate some consolation
to the soul, they are cruel never to apply the remedy in
time. James directs, that the sick person be anointed by the
elders of the Church; these men admit no anointer but a priest.
Their explanation that the term elders denotes priests, and
the plural number is used for the sake of dignity, is frivolous
in the extreme; as though the Churches in that age abounded
with priests, to be able to march in a long procession, carrying
their box of consecrated oil. When James simply commands
that sick persons be anointed, he appears to me to intend no
other unction than of common oil; nor is any other mentioned
in the narrative of Mark. These men deign to use no oil
which has not been consecrated by the bishop; that is, warmed
with his breath, enchanted by his muttering, and nine times
saluted by him on bended knees; three times, Hail, holy oil;
three times, Hail, holy chrism; three times, Hail, holy balm.
From whom have they derived such incantations? James
says, that when the elders shall have prayed over the sick
620person, anointing him with oil, if he have committed sins they
shall be forgiven him; that, being absolved from guilt, he may
obtain relief from pain; not meaning that sins are effaced by unction,
but that the prayers of the believers, by which the afflicted
brother shall have been commended to God, shall not be in
vain. These men impiously pretend, that sins are remitted
by their holy, or, to speak more properly, abominable unction.
See what lengths they will go, when they shall be allowed to
abuse that passage of James by their absurd interpretation.
And we need not labour any longer in the proof; even their
own histories relieve us from this difficulty. For they relate,
that Pope Innocent, who presided over the Church of Rome
in the time of Augustine, decreed that not only elders, but also
all Christians, should use oil, in case of illness, for the purpose
of anointing themselves or their friends.
XXII. The fourth place in their catalogue is occupied by the
sacrament of orders; but this is so fertile that it is the parent
of seven little sacraments which arise out of it. Now, it is
truly ridiculous for them to affirm, that there are seven sacraments,
and when they proceed to specify them, to enumerate
thirteen. Nor can they plead, that the seven sacraments of
orders are only one sacrament, because they all belong to one
priesthood, and form, as it were, so many steps to it. For, as it
appears that in all of them there are different ceremonies, and
they themselves say that there are different graces, no person
can doubt that, if their principles be admitted, they ought to
be called seven sacraments. And why do we controvert it as
a doubtful thing, when they themselves plainly and distinctly
declare that there are seven? In the first place, we will briefly
suggest by the way what numerous and great absurdities they
obtrude upon us, when they wish us to receive their orders as
sacraments; and then we will inquire, whether the ceremony
which the churches use in ordaining ministers ought to be
called a sacrament at all. They mention seven ecclesiastical
orders or degrees, which they dignify with the name of sacrament.
They are—beadles, readers, exorcists, acolothists,
subdeacons, deacons, priests. And they are seven, it is said,
on account of the sevenfold grace of the Holy Spirit, with
which those who are promoted to them ought to be endued;
but it is increased, and more abundantly communicated to
them, in their promotion. Now, the number itself is consecrated
by a perverse interpretation of the Scripture; because
they think they have read in Isaiah of seven virtues of the
621Holy Spirit; though, in truth, that prophet mentions only six,
and had no intention of enumerating them all in that passage;
for in other passages of Scripture, he is called “the Spirit of
life, of holiness, and of adoption,” as he is there called “the
Spirit of wisdom and understanding, the Spirit of counsel
and might, the Spirit of knowledge, and of the fear of the
Lord.”[1385] Other persons of greater subtlety limit not the
orders to seven, but extend them to nine, in resemblance, they
say, of the church triumphant. And they are not agreed
among themselves; for some represent the clerical tonsure to be
the first order of all, and the episcopate the last: others exclude
the tonsure, and place the archiepiscopal office among the
orders. Isidore distinguishes them in a different way; for he
makes psalmists and readers two separate orders, appointing
the former to the chantings, and the latter to the reading of
the Scriptures, for the instruction of the people. And this
distinction is observed in the canons. In such a diversity,
what do they wish us to pursue or to avoid? Shall we say
that there are seven orders? So teaches the master of the
sentences, Lombard; but the most illuminated doctors determine
otherwise; and these doctors differ among themselves.
Moreover, the most sacred canons call us another way. This
is the harmony exhibited by men, when they discuss Divine
subjects without the word of God.
XXIII. But this surpasses all folly, that in every one of
their orders they make Christ a colleague with them. First,
they say, he executed the office of beadle, when he made a
whip of small cords, and drove all the buyers and sellers out
of the temple. He showed himself to be a beadle, when he said,
“I am the door.” He assumed the place of a reader, when he
read a passage of Isaiah in the synagogue. He discharged the
function of an exorcist, when, applying spittle to the ears and
tongue of a man who was deaf and dumb, he restored his hearing
and speech. He declared himself to be an acolothist in
these words: “He that followeth me shall not walk in darkness.”
He discharged the duty of a subdeacon, when he
girded himself with a towel, and washed the feet of his disciples.
He sustained the character of a deacon, when he distributed
his body and blood in the supper. He acted the part
of a priest, when he offered himself on the cross a sacrifice to
the Father. It is impossible to hear these things without
laughing, so that I wonder they were written without laughing;
at least, if those who wrote them were men. But the most
remarkable of all is, the subtlety with which they reason on
the word acolothist, which they call ceroferarius, a taper-bearer;
a term of magic, I suppose, certainly unknown in any
622nation or language; whereas the Greek word ακολουθος, acolothist,
simply signifies a follower or attendant. But I should
justly incur ridicule myself, if I were to dwell on a serious
refutation of such things, they are so frivolous and ludicrous.
XXIV. To prevent them, however, from continuing their
impositions on silly women, it is necessary, as we proceed, to
expose their vanity. They create with great pomp and
solemnity their readers, psalmists, beadles, acolothists, to discharge
those offices in which they employ either boys, or at
least those whom they call laymen. For who, in most cases,
lights the wax tapers, who pours wine and water out of the
flagon, but a boy, or some mean layman, who gets his livelihood
by it? Do not the same persons chant? Do they not open
and shut the doors of the churches? For who ever saw in their
temples an acolothist or beadle performing his office? On
the contrary, he who, when a boy, discharged the duty of an
acolothist, as soon as he is admitted into that order, ceases to
be what he begins to be called; so that it should seem to be
their deliberate intention to discard the office when they assume
the title. We see what need they have to be consecrated
by sacraments, and to receive the Holy Spirit; it is, that they
may do nothing. If they allege, that this arises from the
perverseness of the present age, that men desert and neglect
their official duties, let them at the same time confess, that
their holy orders, which they so wonderfully extol, are of no
use or benefit to the Church in the present day, and that their
whole Church is filled with a curse, since it permits boys and
laymen to handle the tapers and flagons, which none are worthy
of touching except those who have been consecrated as
acolothists; and since it leaves boys to chant those services,
which ought never to be heard but from a consecrated mouth.
But for what purpose do they consecrate their exorcists? I
know that the Jews had their exorcists; but I find that they
derived their name from the exorcisms which they practised.
Respecting these counterfeit exorcists, who ever heard of their
exhibiting one specimen of their profession? It is pretended
that they are invested with power to lay hands upon maniacs,
demoniacs, and catechumens; but they cannot persuade the
demons that they are endued with such power; not only
because the demons do not submit to their commands, but because
they even exercise dominion over them. For scarcely
one in ten can be found among them who is not influenced
by an evil spirit. Whatever ridiculous pretensions they may
set up respecting their contemptible orders, are the mere
compositions of ignorance and falsehood. Of the ancient
acolothists, beadles, and readers, we have spoken already, when
we discussed the order of the Church. Our present design is
623only to combat that novel invention of a sevenfold sacrament
in ecclesiastical orders; on which not a syllable is any where
to be found, except among those sapient theologues, the Sorbonists
and Canonists.
XXV. Let us now examine the ceremonies which they
employ. In the first place, all whom they enrol in their army
they initiate into the rank of clergy by a common sign. They
shave them on the crown of the head, that the crown may
denote regal dignity; because ecclesiastics ought to be kings,
to rule themselves and others, according to the language in
which Peter addresses them: “Ye are a chosen generation, a
royal priesthood, a holy nation, a peculiar people.” But it
was sacrilege for them to arrogate exclusively to themselves
that which is attributed to the whole Church, and proudly to
glory in the title which they had stolen from the believers.
Peter addresses the whole Church; they misapply his words
to a few shavelings, as if they were the only holy persons, as
if they alone had been redeemed by the blood of Christ, as if
they alone had been made by him kings and priests unto God.
They proceed to assign other reasons; that the top of their head
is laid bare, to show that their mind is free to the Lord, and can
with open face contemplate the glory of God; or to indicate
that the faults of their mouth and eyes ought to be cut off.
Or the tonsure of the crown signifies the relinquishment and
renunciation of temporal things; and the hair left round the
crown denotes the relics of property which are reserved for
their sustenance. Every thing is symbolical; because, with
respect to them, the veil of the temple has not yet been rent
asunder. Therefore, having persuaded themselves that they
have completely discharged their duties, when they have represented
such things by their shaven crown, they, in reality,
fulfil none of them. How long will they impose upon us with
such deceptions and falsehoods? Ecclesiastics, by shaving off
a few hairs, signify that they have relinquished an abundance
of temporal possessions, to be at liberty to contemplate the
glory of God, and that they have mortified the inordinate propensities
of their ears and eyes; but there is no class of men
more rapacious, ignorant, or libidinous. Why do they not
make an actual exhibition of sanctity, rather than counterfeit
the appearance of it by false and delusive symbols?
XXVI. When they say that their clerical tonsure derives
its origin and reason from the Nazarites, what is this but declaring
that their mysteries have sprung from Jewish ceremonies,
or, rather, are mere Judaism? But when they add,
that Priscilla, Aquila, and Paul himself, after having made a
vow, shaved their heads in order to purify themselves, they
betray their gross ignorance. For this is nowhere said of
624Priscilla; and there is some uncertainty even respecting
Aquila; for that tonsure may as well be referred to Paul as
to Aquila.[1386] But not to leave them what they require, that
they have an example of this tonsure in Paul, it ought to be
observed by the plain reader, that Paul never shaved his head
with a view to any sanctity, but merely to accommodate himself
to the weakness of his brethren. I am accustomed to call
vows of this kind vows of charity, and not of piety; that is to
say, they were not made for any purpose of religion, or as acts
of service to God, but in order to bear the ignorance of weak
brethren; as the apostle himself says: “Unto the Jews I became
as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews.”[1387] Therefore he
did this act, and that once, and for a short period, that he
might accommodate himself to the Jews. When these men
desire, without any cause, to imitate the purifications of the
Nazarites, what is this but raising up a new Judaism by a
culpable affectation of emulating that which is abolished? The
same superstition dictated that decretal epistle which prohibits
ecclesiastics, according to the apostle, to let their hair grow,
but enjoins them to shave in a circular form; as though the
apostle, when he mentioned what is becoming to all men, were
concerned about the circular tonsure of the clergy. Hence
the readers may form some opinion of the importance and
dignity of other succeeding mysteries, to which there is such
an introduction.
XXVII. The true origin of the clerical tonsure is very
evident from the testimony of Augustine. As, in that age, no
persons suffered their hair to grow long, but such as were
effeminate, and affected an elegance and delicacy not sufficiently
manly, it was thought that it would be a bad example to
permit this custom in the clergy. They were, therefore,
commanded to shave their heads, that they might exhibit no
appearance of effeminate ornament. The tonsure then became
so common, that some monks, to display their superior sanctity
by something remarkable and distinguished from others, left
their hair to grow very long. Afterwards, when the custom
of wearing long hair was revived, and several nations were
converted to Christianity, who had always been accustomed to
wear their hair, as France, Germany, and England, it is probable
that ecclesiastics every where shaved their heads, that they
might not appear to be fond of the ornament of hair. At
length, in a more corrupt age, when all the ancient institutions
were either perverted or degenerated into superstition, because
they saw no reason in the clerical tonsure (for they had retained
nothing but a foolish imitation of their predecessors,)
they had recourse to a mystery, which they now superstitiously
625obtrude upon us as a proof of their sacrament. Beadles, at
their consecration, receive the keys of the Church, as a sign
that the custody of it is committed to them. Readers are
presented with the Holy Bible. To exorcists are given the
forms of exorcisms to be used over catechumens and maniacs.
Acolothists receive their tapers and flagons. These are the
ceremonies which, if we believe them, contain such secret
virtue as to be, not only signs and tokens, but even causes, of
an invisible grace. For, according to their definition, all this is
assumed when they insist on their being numbered among the
sacraments. But, to conclude in a few words, I maintain it to
be absurd for canonists and scholastic theologues to give the title
of sacraments to these, which they themselves call lesser orders;
since, even according to their own confession, they were unknown
to the primitive Church, and were invented many years
after. But, as sacraments contain some promises of God, they
cannot be instituted by men or angels, but by God alone, whose
prerogative it is to give the promise.
XXVIII. There remain three orders, which they call greater
orders; of which sub-deaconry, they say, was transferred to this
class after the number of the lesser orders began to increase. As
they think that they have a testimony for these from the word
of God, they peculiarly denominate them, for the sake of honour,
holy orders. But we must now examine how perversely
they abuse the Divine appointments of God in their own vindication.
We will begin with the order of presbyters, or priests.
For by these two names they signify one thing; and these are
the appellations which they apply to those whose office, they say,
it is, to offer the sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ upon
the altar, to say prayers and to pronounce benedictions on the
gifts of God. Therefore, at their ordination, they receive a
chalice, with the patine and host, as symbols of the power
committed to them to offer expiatory sacrifices to God; and
their hands are anointed with oil, as a symbol to show that
they are invested with power to consecrate. The ceremonies
we shall notice hereafter. Of the thing itself, I affirm, that it
is so far from having a syllable of the Divine word to support
it, that it was impossible for them to have introduced a viler
corruption of the order instituted by God. In the first place, it
ought to be taken for granted, as we have shown in the preceding
chapter, on the Papal Mass, that great injury is done
to Christ by all those who call themselves priests to offer sacrifices
of expiation. He was constituted and consecrated by the
Father, with an oath, a priest after the order of Melchisedec,
without end, and without a successor. He once offered a sacrifice
of eternal expiation and reconciliation; and now, having
entered into the sanctuary of heaven, intercedes for us. In him
626we are all priests; but it is only to offer to God praises and
thanksgivings, in short, ourselves and all that belongs to us.
It was his province alone, by his oblation, to appease God and
expiate sins. When these men usurp that office to themselves,
what follows, but that their priesthood is chargeable with
impiety and sacrilege? They certainly betray the greatest
effrontery when they dare to dignify it with the title of a sacrament.
The imposition of hands, which is used at the introduction
of the true presbyters and ministers of the Church
into their office, I have no objection to consider as a sacrament;
for, in the first place, that ceremony is taken from the Scripture,
and, in the next place, it is declared by Paul to be not unnecessary
or useless, but a faithful symbol of spiritual grace.[1388]
I have not enumerated it as the third among the sacraments,
because it is not ordinary or common to all believers, but a
special rite for a particular office. The ascription of this
honour to the Christian ministry, however, furnishes no reason
for the pride of Romish priests; for Christ has commanded the ordination
of ministers to dispense his gospel and his mysteries,
not the inauguration of priests to offer sacrifices. He has commissioned
them to preach the gospel and to feed his flock, and
not to immolate victims. He has promised them the grace of
the Holy Spirit, not in order to effect an expiation for sins, but
rightly to sustain and conduct the government of the Church.
XXIX. There is an excellent correspondence between the
ceremonies and the thing itself. Our Lord, when he sent forth
his disciples to preach the gospel, “breathed upon them;”[1389] by
that symbol representing the power of the Holy Spirit which he
imparted to them. These sapient theologues retain the breathing,
and, as if they disgorged the Holy Spirit from their throats,
they mutter over the priests whom they ordain, Receive ye the
Holy Ghost. Thus they leave nothing that they do not preposterously
counterfeit, I do not say like comedians, whose gesticulations
are not without art and meaning, but like apes, who
imitate every thing without any taste or design. We observe,
they say, the example of our Lord. But our Lord did many
things which he never intended to be examples to us. He said
to his disciples, “Receive ye the Holy Ghost.” He said to
Lazarus, “Lazarus, Come forth.”[1390] He said to the paralytic,
“Arise and walk.”[1391] Why do not they say the same to all
deceased persons and paralytics? When he breathed upon his
apostles, and filled them with the grace of the Holy Spirit, he
exhibited a specimen of his Divine power. If they attempt to
do the same, they emulate God, and, as it were, challenge him
to contend with them; but they are very far from producing
627a similar effect, and the foolish mimicry is a mere mockery of
Christ. They have the effrontery, indeed, to dare to assert,
that they confer the Holy Ghost; but how far this is true is
shown by experience, which proves, that those who are consecrated
priests, from being horses become asses, and are changed
from fools to madmen. Nor do I contend with them on this
account; I only condemn the ceremony itself, which ought
not to be made a precedent, since it was used by Christ as a
special sign of a particular miracle; so far is their pretence of
imitating him from justifying their conduct.
XXX. But from whom have they received the unction?
Their answer is, that they have received it from the sons of
Aaron, from whom also their order derived its origin. Thus
they always prefer defending themselves by improper examples,
to confessing that which they practise without just reason
to be their own invention; but at the same time, they do not
consider that, in professing themselves successors of the sons of
Aaron, they do an injury to the priesthood of Christ; which
was the only thing adumbrated and prefigured by all the ancient
priesthoods. In him, therefore, they were all accomplished
and concluded; in him they ceased, as we have more
than once already stated, and the Epistle to the Hebrews declares
without the help of any comment. But, if they are so
highly delighted with the Mosaic ceremonies, why do they
not take oxen, and calves, and lambs, and offer them as sacrifices?
They have, indeed, a great part of the ancient tabernacle,
and of all the Jewish worship; but their religion is
still deficient in that they do not sacrifice animal victims.
Who does not see that this custom of anointing is far more
pernicious than circumcision; especially when it is attended
with superstition and a pharisaical opinion of the merit of the
act? The Jews placed a confidence of righteousness in circumcision;
in unction these men place spiritual graces. Therefore,
while they desire to be imitators of the Levites, they
become apostates from Christ, and renounce the office of
pastors.
XXXI. This is their consecrated oil, which, it is pretended,
impresses a character never to be effaced; as though oil could
not be cleansed away with dust and salt, or, if it be more
adhesive, with soap. But this character, they say, is spiritual.
What connection has oil with the soul? Have they forgotten
an observation, which they often quote to us from Augustine—That,
if the word be separated from the water, it will be
nothing but water, and that it is the word which makes it a
sacrament? What word will they show in their unction?
Will they produce the command which was given to Moses to
anoint the sons of Aaron? But in that case there was also a
628command given respecting the coat, the ephod, the mitre,
the holy crown, with which Aaron was to be adorned; and
respecting the coats, girdles, and mitres, with which his sons
were to be invested. It was commanded to kill a bullock, to
burn his fat, to cut one ram asunder and burn it, to sanctify
their ears and garments with the blood of another ram; and
numerous other observances, which I wonder how it is that
they have entirely omitted, and taken only the anointing oil.
But if they are fond of being sprinkled, why are they sprinkled
with oil rather than with blood? They attempt, indeed, a most
ingenious thing; to frame one religion out of a number of
fragments collected together from Christianity, Judaism, and
Paganism. Their unction, therefore, is quite fetid, for want
of the salt, the word of God. There remains imposition of
hands, which I confess to be a sacrament in true and legitimate
ordinations, but I deny that it has any place in this farce, in
which they neither obey the command of Christ, nor regard
the end to which the promise ought to lead us. If they wish
the sign not to be refused to them, they must apply it to the very
object to which it was dedicated.
XXXII. Respecting the order of deacons, also, I should
have no controversy with them, if that office were restored to
its primitive purity, as it existed under the apostles, and in the
purer times of the Church. But what resemblance to it is to
be found among those whom the Romanists pretend to be
deacons? I speak not of the persons, lest they should complain
that it is unjust to estimate their doctrine by the faults
of individuals; but I contend that, taking their deacons exactly
as their doctrine describes them to us, it is absurd to fetch
any testimony in their favour from the examples of those
who were appointed deacons by the apostolic Church. They
say that it belongs to their deacons to assist the priests, to
minister in every thing that is done in the sacraments, as in
baptism, in chrism, to pour the wine into the chalice, to place
the bread in the patine; to lay and dispose the oblations upon
the altar, to prepare and cover the table of the Lord, to bear the
cross, to read and chant the gospel and epistle to the people.
Is there in all this a single word of the true duty of deacons?
Now, let us hear how they are inaugurated. On the deacon
who is ordained the bishop alone lays his hand; on his left
shoulder he places a stole, to teach him that he has taken upon
him the light yoke of the Lord, to subject to the fear of God
every thing belonging to the left side. He gives him the text
of the gospel, that he may know himself to be a herald of it.
And what have these things to do with deacons? It is no
better than if any one pretended to ordain apostles, while he
only appointed them to burn incense, to adorn the images, to
629trim the lamps, to sweep the Churches, to catch mice, and to
drive out dogs. Who could suffer such persons to be called
apostles, and to be compared with the apostles of Christ? Let
them never again falsely represent those as deacons, whom they
merely appoint to act a part in their farcical exhibitions. The
very name which they bear sufficiently declares the nature of
their office. For they call them Levites, and wish to deduce their
origin from the sons of Levi. This I have no objection to their
doing, provided they drop their pretensions to Christianity.
XXXIII. Of what use is it to say any thing respecting sub-deacons?
In ancient times they actually had the care of the
poor. The Romanists attribute to them I know not what
nugatory functions; as to bring the chalice and patine, the
flagon with water, and the towel to the altar, to pour out water
for washing the hands of the priests, and similar services.
When they speak of the sub-deacons receiving and bringing
oblations, they mean those which they devour as consecrated
to their use. With this office the ceremony of their initiation
perfectly corresponds: they receive from the bishop the patine
and chalice, from the archdeacon the flagon with water, the
manual, and similar trumpery. They require us to confess the
Holy Ghost to be contained in these fooleries. What pious
person can bear to admit this? But to come to an end, we
may draw the same conclusion respecting them as respecting
the rest; nor is it necessary to repeat any more of what we
have already stated. This will be sufficient for persons of
modest and docile minds, to whom this book is addressed;
that there is no sacrament of God, which does not exhibit a
ceremony annexed to a promise, or rather which does not
present a promise in a ceremony. In this case not a syllable is
to be found of any certain promise; and, therefore, it is in
vain to seek for a ceremony to confirm the promise. And of
all the ceremonies which they use, not one appears to have been
instituted by God; therefore there can be no sacrament.
XXXIV. The last of their sacraments is matrimony, which
all confess to have been instituted by God, but which no one,
till the time of Gregory, ever discovered to have been enjoined
as a sacrament. And what man, in his sober senses,
would ever have taken it into his head? It is alleged to be a
good and holy ordinance of God; and so agriculture, architecture,
shoemaking, and many other things, are legitimate ordinances
of God, and yet they are not sacraments. For it is required
in a sacrament, not only that it be a work of God, but that it
be an external ceremony appointed by God for the confirmation
630of a promise. That there is nothing of this kind in matrimony
even children can judge. But, they say, it is a sign of a sacred
thing, that is, of the spiritual union of Christ with the Church.
If by the word sign, they mean a symbol presented to us by
God to support our faith, they are very far from the truth. If by
a sign they merely understand that which is adduced as a similitude,
I will show how acutely they reason. Paul says, “One
star differeth from another star in glory: so also is the resurrection
of the dead.”[1392] Here is one sacrament. Christ says,
“The kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed.”
Here is another. Again: “The kingdom of heaven is like
unto leaven.”[1393] Here is a third. Isaiah says, “Behold, the
Lord shall feed his flock like a shepherd.”[1394] Here is a
fourth. Again: “The Lord shall go forth as a mighty man.”[1395]
Here is a fifth. And what end will there be? Upon this
principle, every thing will be a sacrament; as many parables
and similitudes as there are in the Scripture, there will be so
many sacraments. Even theft will be a sacrament; because
it is written, “The day of the Lord cometh as a thief.”[1396]
Who can bear the foolish babblings of these sophists? I confess
indeed, that, whenever we see a vine, it is very desirable to
recall to remembrance the language of Christ: “I am the vine,
ye are the branches, and my Father is the husbandman.”[1397]
Whenever we meet a shepherd with his flock, it is good for us
to remember another declaration of our Lord: “I am the good
shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.”[1398]
But if any one should class such similitudes among the sacraments,
it would argue a want of mental sanity.
XXXV. They obtrude upon us the language of Paul, in
which, they say, he expressly calls matrimony a sacrament.
“He that loveth his wife, loveth himself. For no man ever
yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it,
even as the Lord the Church; for we are members of his body,
of his flesh, and his bones; for this cause shall a man leave
his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and
they two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery (or sacrament,
as the word is rendered in the Vulgate;) but I speak
concerning Christ and the Church.”[1399] But to treat the
Scriptures in this manner, is to confound heaven and earth together.
To show to husbands what peculiar affection they
ought to bear to their wives, Paul proposes Christ to them as
an example. For as he has poured forth all the treasures of his
kindness upon the Church, which he had espoused to himself,
so the apostle would have every man to evince a similar affection
towards his wife. It follows, “He that loveth his wife,
631loveth himself; even as the Lord the Church.” Now, to
declare how Christ has loved the Church, even as himself,
and how he has made himself one with the Church his spouse,
Paul applies to him what Moses relates Adam to have spoken
of himself. For when Eve was brought into his presence,
knowing her to have been formed out of his side, he said,
“This is bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh.”[1400] Paul
testifies that all this has been spiritually fulfilled in Christ and
us, when he says, “We are members of his body, of his flesh,
and of his bones,” and consequently “one flesh” with him.
At length he concludes with an exclamation, “This is a great
mystery;” and, that no one might be deceived by an ambiguity
of language, he expressly states, that he intends not the
conjugal union of man and woman, but the spiritual marriage
of Christ and his Church: “I speak concerning Christ and the
Church.” And, indeed, it is a great mystery that Christ has suffered
a rib to be taken from him, of which we might be formed:
that is to say, though he was strong, he voluntarily became
weak, that we might be strengthened with his might; so that
now we “live, yet not” we, “but Christ liveth in” us.[1401]
XXXVI. They have been deceived by the word sacrament
in the Vulgate version. But was it reasonable that the whole
Church should suffer the punishment of their ignorance? Paul
has used the word μυστηριον, mystery—a word which the translator
might have retained, mysterium being not unfamiliar to
Latin ears, or he might have rendered it arcanum, secret; he
preferred, however, to use the word sacramentum, sacrament,
but in the same sense in which Paul has used the Greek
word μυστηριον, mystery. Now, let them go and clamorously rail
against the critical knowledge of languages, through ignorance
of which they have so long been most shamefully deceived in
a thing so easy and obvious to every one. But why do they
so strenuously insist on the word sacrament in this one passage,
and pass it over in so many others without the least notice?
For that translator has used it twice in the First Epistle to
Timothy,[1402] and in another place in this Epistle to the Ephesians,[1403]
and in every other case where the word mystery
occurs. Let this oversight, however, be forgiven them; liars
ought, at least, to have good memories. For, after having
dignified matrimony with the title of a sacrament, what brainless
versatility is it for them to stigmatize it with the characters
of impurity, pollution, and carnal defilement! What an
absurdity is it to exclude priests from a sacrament! If they
deny that they are interdicted from the sacrament, but only
from the conjugal intercourse, I shall not be satisfied with this
evasion. For they inculcate that the conjugal intercourse
632itself is part of the sacrament, and that it represents the union
which we have with Christ in conformity of nature; because
it is by that intercourse that a husband and wife become one
flesh. Here some of them have found two sacraments; one,
of God and the soul, in the man and woman when betrothed;
the other, of Christ and the Church, in the husband and wife.
The conjugal intercourse, upon their principles, however, is a
sacrament, from which no Christian ought to be prohibited;
unless the sacraments of Christians are so incompatible, that
they cannot consist together. There is also another absurdity
in their doctrine. They affirm that the grace of the Holy
Spirit is conferred in every sacrament; they acknowledge that
the conjugal intercourse is a sacrament; yet they deny that
the Holy Spirit is ever present in that intercourse.
XXXVII. And, not to deceive the Church in one thing
only, what a long series of errors, falsehoods, frauds, and iniquities,
have they joined to that false principle! It may truly
be affirmed that, when they made matrimony into a sacrament,
they only sought a den of all abominations. For, when they
had once established this notion, they assumed to themselves
the cognizance of matrimonial causes; for matrimony was a
spiritual thing, and not to be meddled with before lay judges.
Then they made laws for the confirmation of their tyranny;
and some of them manifestly impious towards God, and others
most unjust towards men. Such as, that marriages contracted
between young persons subject to the authority of parents,
without the consent of their parents, remain valid and permanent;
that no marriages be lawful between persons related,
even to the seventh degree; and that, if any such be contracted,
they be dissolved, (and the degrees themselves they
state in opposition to the laws of all nations, and to the institution
of Moses, so that what they call the fourth degree is, in
reality, the seventh;) that it be unlawful for a man, who has
repudiated his wife for adultery, to marry another; that spiritual
relatives be not united in marriage; that no marriages be celebrated
from Septuagesima, or the third Sunday before Lent,
to the octaves of Easter, or eight days after that festival; for
three weeks before the nativity of John the Baptist, or Midsummer-day,
instead of which three weeks they now substitute
the Whitsun week, and the two weeks which precede it; or
from Advent to the Epiphany; and innumerable other regulations,
which it would be tedious to enumerate. We must now
quit their corruptions, in which we have been detained longer
than I could wish: but I think I have gained some advantage
by stripping these asses, in some measure, of the lion’s skin,
and so far unmasking their principles, and exposing them to
the world in their true colours.
633
Having already stated that man is the subject of two kinds
of government, and having sufficiently discussed that which
is situated in the soul, or the inner man, and relates to eternal
life,—we are, in this chapter, to say something of the other
kind, which relates to civil justice, and the regulation of the
external conduct. For, though the nature of this argument
seems to have no connection with the spiritual doctrine of faith
which I have undertaken to discuss, the sequel will show that
I have sufficient reason for connecting them together, and, indeed,
that necessity obliges me to it; especially since, on the
one hand, infatuated and barbarous men madly endeavour to
subvert this ordinance established by God; and, on the other
hand, the flatterers of princes, extolling their power beyond all
just bounds, hesitate not to oppose it to the authority of God
himself. Unless both these errors be resisted, the purity of the
faith will be destroyed. Besides, it is of no small importance
for us to know what benevolent provision God has made for
mankind in this instance, that we may be stimulated by a
greater degree of pious zeal to testify our gratitude. In the
first place, before we enter on the subject itself, it is necessary
for us to recur to the distinction which we have already established,
lest we fall into an error very common in the world,
and injudiciously confound together these two things, the
nature of which is altogether different. For some men, when
they hear that the gospel promises a liberty which acknowledges
no king or magistrate among men, but submits to Christ
alone, think they can enjoy no advantage of their liberty,
while they see any power exalted above them. They imagine,
therefore, that nothing will prosper, unless the whole
world be modelled in a new form, without any tribunals, or
laws, or magistrates, or any thing of a similar kind, which they
consider injurious to their liberty. But he who knows how
to distinguish between the body and the soul, between this
present transitory life and the future eternal one, will find no
difficulty in understanding, that the spiritual kingdom of
Christ and civil government are things very different and
remote from each other. Since it is a Jewish folly, therefore,
to seek and include the kingdom of Christ under the elements
of this world, let us, on the contrary, considering what the
Scripture clearly inculcates, that the benefit which is received
634from the grace of Christ is spiritual; let us, I say, remember
to confine within its proper limits all this liberty which is
promised and offered to us in him. For why is it that the
same apostle, who, in one place, exhorts to “stand fast in the
liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled
again with the yoke of bondage,”[1404] in another, enjoins
servants to “care not for” their servile condition;[1405]
except that spiritual liberty may very well consist with civil
servitude? In this sense we are likewise to understand him
in these passages: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is
neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female.”[1406]
Again: “There is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor
uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ
is all, and in all;”[1407] in which he signifies, that it is of no
importance, what is our condition among men, or under the
laws of what nation we live, as the kingdom of Christ consists
not in these things.
II. Yet this distinction does not lead us to consider the
whole system of civil government as a polluted thing, which
has nothing to do with Christian men. Some fanatics, who
are pleased with nothing but liberty, or rather licentiousness
without any restraint, do indeed boast and vociferate, That
since we are dead with Christ to the elements of this world,
and, being translated into the kingdom of God, sit among
the celestials, it is a degradation to us, and far beneath
our dignity, to be occupied with those secular and impure
cares which relate to things altogether uninteresting to a Christian
man. Of what use, they ask, are laws without judgments
and tribunals? But what have judgments to do with a Christian
man? And if it be unlawful to kill, of what use are laws
and judgments to us? But as we have just suggested that
this kind of government is distinct from that spiritual and internal
reign of Christ, so it ought to be known that they are
in no respect at variance with each other. For that spiritual
reign, even now upon earth, commences within us some preludes
of the heavenly kingdom, and in this mortal and transitory
life affords us some prelibations of immortal and incorruptible
blessedness; but this civil government is designed, as
long as we live in this world, to cherish and support the external
worship of God, to preserve the pure doctrine of religion,
to defend the constitution of the Church, to regulate our lives
in a manner requisite for the society of men, to form our manners
to civil justice, to promote our concord with each other,
and to establish general peace and tranquillity; all which I
635confess to be superfluous, if the kingdom of God, as it now
exists in us, extinguishes the present life. But if it is the will of
God, that while we are aspiring towards our true country, we
be pilgrims on the earth, and if such aids are necessary to our
pilgrimage, they who take them from man deprive him of his
human nature. They plead that there should be so much perfection
in the Church of God, that its order would suffice to supply
the place of all laws; but they foolishly imagine a perfection
which can never be found in any community of men. For
since the insolence of the wicked is so great, and their iniquity
so obstinate that it can scarcely be restrained by all the severity
of the laws, what may we expect they would do, if they found
themselves at liberty to perpetrate crimes with impunity, whose
outrages even the arm of power cannot altogether prevent?
III. But for speaking of the exercise of civil polity, there
will be another place more suitable. At present we only wish
it to be understood, that to entertain a thought of its extermination,
is inhuman barbarism; it is equally as necessary to
mankind as bread and water, light and air, and far more excellent.
For it not only tends to secure the accommodations
arising from all these things, that men may breathe, eat, drink,
and be sustained in life, though it comprehends all these things
while it causes them to live together, yet, I say, this is not its
only tendency; its objects also are, that idolatry, sacrileges
against the name of God, blasphemies against his truth, and
other offences against religion, may not openly appear and be
disseminated among the people; that the public tranquillity
may not be disturbed; that every person may enjoy his property
without molestation; that men may transact their business
together without fraud or injustice; that integrity and modesty
may be cultivated among them; in short, that there may be
a public form of religion among Christians, and that humanity
may be maintained among men. Nor let any one think it
strange that I now refer to human polity the charge of the due
maintenance of religion, which I may appear to have placed
beyond the jurisdiction of men. For I do not allow men to
make laws respecting religion and the worship of God now,
any more than I did before; though I approve of civil government,
which provides that the true religion which is contained
in the law of God, be not violated, and polluted by public
blasphemies, with impunity. But the perspicuity of order will
assist the readers to attain a clearer understanding of what sentiments
ought to be entertained respecting the whole system
of civil administration, if we enter on a discussion of each
branch of it. These are three: The magistrate, who is the
guardian and conservator of the laws: The laws, according to
which he governs: The people, who are governed by the laws,
636and obey the magistrate. Let us, therefore, examine, first, the
function of a magistrate, whether it be a legitimate calling and
approved by God, the nature of the duty, and the extent of the
power; secondly, by what laws Christian government ought
to be regulated; and lastly, what advantage the people derive
from the laws, and what obedience they owe to the magistrate.
IV. The Lord has not only testified that the function of
magistrates has his approbation and acceptance, but has eminently
commended it to us, by dignifying it with the most
honourable titles. We will mention a few of them. When
all who sustain the magistracy are called “gods,”[1408] it ought
not to be considered as an appellation of trivial importance;
for it implies, that they have their command from God, that
they are invested with his authority, and are altogether his
representatives, and act as his vicegerents. This is not an invention
of mine, but the interpretation of Christ, who says, “If
he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and
the Scripture cannot be broken.”[1409] What is the meaning
of this, but that their commission has been given to them
by God, to serve him in their office, and, as Moses and Jehoshaphat
said to the judges whom they appointed, to “judge not
for man, but for the Lord?”[1410] To the same purpose is the
declaration of the wisdom of God by the mouth of Solomon:
“By me kings reign, and princes decree justice. By me princes
rule, and nobles, even all the judges of the earth.”[1411] This
is just as if it had been affirmed, that the authority possessed
by kings and other governors over all things upon earth is not
a consequence of the perverseness of men, but of the providence
and holy ordinance of God, who has been pleased to regulate
human affairs in this manner; forasmuch as he is present, and
also presides among them, in making laws and in executing
equitable judgments. This is clearly taught by Paul, when
he enumerates governments (ὁ προἱσταμενος)[1412] among the gifts
of God, which, being variously distributed according to the
diversity of grace, ought to be employed by the servants of
Christ to the edification of the Church. For though in that
place he is properly speaking of the council of elders, who
were appointed in the primitive Church to preside over the
regulation of the public discipline, the same office which in
writing to the Corinthians he calls κυβερνησεις, “governments,”[1413]
yet, as we see that civil government tends to promote the same
object, there is no doubt that he recommends to his every kind
of just authority. But he does this in a manner much more
explicit, where he enters on a full discussion of that subject.
637For he says, “There is no power but of God; the powers
that be are ordained of God. Rulers are ministers of God,
revengers to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Do that
which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same.”[1414]
This is corroborated by the examples of holy men; of whom
some have been kings, as David, Josiah, Hezekiah; some have
been viceroys, as Joseph and Daniel; some have held civil
offices in a commonwealth, as Moses, Joshua, and the Judges;
whose functions God declared to be approved by him. Wherefore
no doubt ought now to be entertained by any person that
civil magistracy is a calling not only holy and legitimate, but
far the most sacred and honourable in human life.
V. Those who would wish to introduce anarchy, reply, that
though, in ancient times, kings and judges presided over a rude
people, that servile kind of government is now quite incompatible
with the perfection which accompanies the gospel of
Christ. Here they betray not only their ignorance, but their
diabolical pride, in boasting of perfection, of which not the
smallest particle can be discovered in them. But whatever
their characters may be, they are easily refuted. For, when
David exhorts kings and judges to kiss the Son of God,[1415] he
does not command them to abdicate their authority and retire
to private life, but to submit to Christ the power with which
they are invested, that he alone may have the preëminence
over all. In like manner Isaiah, when he predicts that “kings
shall be nursing-fathers and queens nursing-mothers” to the
Church,[1416] does not depose them from their thrones; but
rather establishes them by an honourable title, as patrons and
protectors of the pious worshippers of God; for that prophecy
relates to the advent of Christ. I purposely omit numerous
testimonies, which often occur, and especially in the Psalms,
in which the rights of all governors are asserted. But the most
remarkable of all is that passage where Paul, admonishing
Timothy that in the public congregation, “supplications,
prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for kings
and for all that are in authority,” assigns as a reason, “that
we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and
honesty;”[1417] language in which he recommends the state of
the Church to their patronage and defence.
VI. This consideration ought continually to occupy the
magistrates themselves, since it is calculated to furnish them
with a powerful stimulus, by which they may be excited to
their duty, and to afford them peculiar consolation, by which
the difficulties of their office, which certainly are many and
638arduous, may be alleviated. For what an ardent pursuit of
integrity, prudence, clemency, moderation, and innocence ought
they to prescribe to themselves, who are conscious of having
been constituted ministers of the Divine justice! With what
confidence will they admit iniquity to their tribunal, which they
understand to be the throne of the living God? With what
audacity will they pronounce an unjust sentence with that
mouth which they know to be the destined organ of Divine
truth? With what conscience will they subscribe to impious
decrees with that hand which they know to be appointed to register
the edicts of God? In short, if they remember that they
are the vicegerents of God, it behoves them to watch with all
care, earnestness, and diligence, that in their administration they
may exhibit to men an image, as it were, of the providence,
care, goodness, benevolence, and justice of God. And they must
constantly bear this in mind, that if in all cases “he be cursed
that doeth the work of the Lord deceitfully,”[1418] a far heavier
curse awaits those who act fraudulently in a righteous calling.
Therefore, when Moses and Jehoshaphat wished to exhort
their judges to the discharge of their duty, they had nothing to
suggest more efficacious than the principle which we have
already mentioned. Moses says, “Judge righteously between
every man and his brother, and the stranger that is with him.
For the judgment is God’s.”[1419] Jehoshaphat says, “Take
heed what ye do; for ye judge not for man, but for the Lord,
who is with you in the judgment. Wherefore now let the fear
of the Lord be upon you: take heed and do it; for there is no
iniquity with the Lord our God.”[1420] And in another place it
is said, “God standeth in the congregation of the mighty: he
judgeth among the gods;”[1421] that they may be animated to
their duty, when they understand that they are delegated by
God, to whom they must one day render an account of their
administration. And this admonition is entitled to have considerable
weight with them; for if they fail in their duty,
they not only injure men by criminally distressing them, but
even offend God by polluting his sacred judgments. On the
other hand, it opens a source of peculiar consolation to them
to reflect, that they are not employed in profane things, or
occupations unsuitable to a servant of God, but in a most sacred
function, inasmuch as they execute a Divine commission.
VII. Those who are not restrained by so many testimonies
of Scripture, but still dare to stigmatize this sacred ministry as
a thing incompatible with religion and Christian piety, do they
not offer an insult to God himself, who cannot but be involved
639in the reproach cast upon his ministry? And in fact they do
not reject magistrates, but they reject God, “that he should
not reign over them.”[1422] For if this was truly asserted by the
Lord respecting the people of Israel, because they refused the
government of Samuel, why shall it not now be affirmed with
equal truth of those who take the liberty to outrage all the
authorities which God has instituted? But they object that
our Lord said to his disciples, “The kings of the Gentiles
exercise lordship over them: but ye shall not be so; but he
that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he
that is chief, as he that doth serve:”[1423] and they contend that
these words prohibit the exercise of royalty, or any other
authority, by any Christians. Admirable expositors! A contention
had arisen among the disciples “which of them should
be accounted the greatest.” To repress this vain ambition,
our Lord taught them that their ministry was not like temporal
kingdoms, in which one person has the preëminence over all
others. Now, what dishonour does this comparison cast upon
regal dignity? What does it prove at all, except that the regal
office is not the apostolic ministry? Moreover, though there
are various forms of magistracy, yet there is no difference in
this respect, but we ought to receive them all as ordinances of
God. For Paul comprehends them all together, when he says,
that “there is no power but of God;” and that which was
furthest from giving general satisfaction, is recommended to us
in a remarkable manner beyond all others; namely, the government
of one man; which, as it is attended with the common
servitude of all, except the single individual to whose will all
others are subjected, has never been so highly approved by
heroic and noble minds. But the Scripture, on the contrary,
to correct these unjust sentiments, expressly affirms, that it is
by the providence of Divine wisdom that kings reign, and particularly
commands us to “honour the king.”[1424]
VIII. And for private men, who have no authority to deliberate
on the regulation of any public affairs, it would surely be
a vain occupation to dispute which would be the best form of
government in the place where they live. Besides, this could
not be simply determined, as an abstract question, without
great impropriety, since the principle to guide the decision
must depend on circumstances. And even if we compare the
different forms together, without their circumstances, their advantages
are so nearly equal, that it will not be easy to discover
of which the utility preponderates. The forms of civil government
are considered to be of three kinds: Monarchy, which is
640the dominion of one person, whether called a king, or a duke,
or any other title; Aristocracy, or the dominion of the principal
persons of a nation; and Democracy, or popular government,
in which the power resides in the people at large. It is
true that the transition is easy from monarchy to despotism;
it is not much more difficult from aristocracy to oligarchy, or
the faction of a few; but it is most easy of all from democracy
to sedition. Indeed, if these three forms of government, which
are stated by philosophers, be considered in themselves, I shall
by no means deny, that either aristocracy, or a mixture of
aristocracy and democracy, far excels all others; and that
indeed not of itself, but because it very rarely happens that
kings regulate themselves so that their will is never at variance
with justice and rectitude; or, in the next place, that they are
endued with such penetration and prudence, as in all cases to
discover what is best. The vice or imperfection of men therefore
renders it safer and more tolerable for the government to
be in the hands of many, that they may afford each other
mutual assistance and admonition, and that if any one arrogate
to himself more than is right, the many may act as censors and
masters to restrain his ambition. This has always been proved
by experience, and the Lord confirmed it by his authority,
when he established a government of this kind among the
people of Israel, with a view to preserve them in the most
desirable condition, till he exhibited in David a type of Christ.
And as I readily acknowledge that no kind of government is
more happy than this, where liberty is regulated with becoming
moderation, and properly established on a durable basis, so also
I consider those as the most happy people, who are permitted
to enjoy such a condition; and if they exert their strenuous
and constant efforts for its preservation and retention, I admit
that they act in perfect consistence with their duty. And to
this object the magistrates likewise ought to apply their greatest
diligence, that they suffer not the liberty, of which they are
constituted guardians, to be in any respect diminished, much
less to be violated: if they are inactive and unconcerned about
this, they are perfidious to their office, and traitors to their
country. But if those, to whom the will of God has assigned
another form of government, transfer this to themselves so as
to be tempted to desire a revolution, the very thought will be
not only foolish and useless, but altogether criminal. If we
limit not our views to one city, but look round and take a
comprehensive survey of the whole world, or at least extend
our observations to distant lands, we shall certainly find it to
be a wise arrangement of Divine Providence that various countries
are governed by different forms of civil polity; for they
are admirably held together with a certain inequality, as the
641elements are combined in very unequal proportions. All these
remarks, however, will be unnecessary to those who are satisfied
with the will of the Lord. For if it be his pleasure to
appoint kings over kingdoms, and senators or other magistrates
over free cities, it is our duty to be obedient to any governors
whom God has established over the places in which we reside.
IX. Here it is necessary to state in a brief manner the nature
of the office of magistracy, as described in the word of God,
and wherein it consists. If the Scripture did not teach that
this office extends to both tables of the law, we might learn it
from heathen writers; for not one of them has treated of the
office of magistrates, of legislation, and civil government, without
beginning with religion and Divine worship. And thus
they have all confessed that no government can be happily
constituted, unless its first object, be the promotion of piety,
and that all laws are preposterous which neglect the claims of
God, and merely provide for the interests of men. Therefore,
as religion holds the first place among all the philosophers, and
as this has always been regarded by the universal consent of
all nations, Christian princes and magistrates ought to be
ashamed of their indolence, if they do not make it the object
of their most serious care. We have already shown that this
duty is particularly enjoined upon them by God; for it is reasonable
that they should employ their utmost efforts in asserting
and defending the honour of him, whose vicegerents they are,
and by whose favour they govern. And the principal commendations
given in the Scripture to the good kings are for
having restored the worship of God when it had been corrupted
or abolished, or for having devoted their attention to religion,
that it might flourish in purity and safety under their reigns.
On the contrary, the sacred history represents it as one of the
evils arising from anarchy, or a want of good government, that
when “there was no king in Israel, every man did that which
was right in his own eyes.”[1425] These things evince the folly
of those who would wish magistrates to neglect all thoughts of
God, and to confine themselves entirely to the administration
of justice among men; as though God appointed governors in
his name to decide secular controversies, and disregarded that
which is of far greater importance—the pure worship of himself
according to the rule of his law. But a rage for universal innovation,
and a desire to escape with impunity, instigate men
of turbulent spirits to wish that all the avengers of violated
piety were removed out of the world. With respect to the
second table, Jeremiah admonishes kings in the following
manner: “Execute ye judgment and righteousness, and deliver
642the spoiled out of the hand of the oppressor; and do no
wrong, do no violence to the stranger, the fatherless, nor the
widow, neither shed innocent blood.”[1426] To the same purpose
is the exhortation in the eighty-second psalm: “Defend
the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy:
deliver the poor and needy: rid them out of the hand of the
wicked.”[1427] And Moses “charged the judges” whom he
appointed to supply his place, saying, “Hear the causes
between your brethren, and judge righteously between every
man and his brother, and the stranger that is with him: ye
shall not respect persons in judgment; but ye shall hear the
small as well as the great; ye shall not be afraid of the face
of man; for the judgment is God’s.”[1428] I forbear to remark
the directions given by him in another place respecting their
future kings: “He shall not multiply horses to himself;
neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold;
his heart shall not be lifted up above his brethren; he shall
read in the law all the days of his life;”[1429] also that judges
show no partiality, nor take bribes, with similar injunctions,
which abound in the Scriptures; because, in describing the
office of magistrates in this treatise, my design is not so much
to instruct magistrates themselves, as to show to others what
magistrates are, and for what end God has appointed them.
We see, therefore, that they are constituted the protectors and
vindicators of the public innocence, modesty, probity, and
tranquillity, whose sole object it ought to be to promote the
common peace and security of all. Of these virtues, David
declares that he will be an example, when he shall be exalted
to the royal throne. “I will set no wicked thing before mine
eyes. I will not know a wicked person. Whoso privily
slandereth his neighbour, him will I cut off: him that hath a
high look and a proud heart will I not suffer. Mine eyes shall
be upon the faithful of the land, that they may dwell with me:
he that walketh in a perfect way, he shall serve me.”[1430] But
as they cannot do this, unless they defend good men from the
injuries of the wicked, and aid the oppressed by their relief
and protection, they are likewise armed with power for the
suppression of crimes, and the severe punishment of malefactors,
whose wickedness disturbs the public peace. For experience
fully verifies the observation of Solon: “That all states
are supported by reward and punishment; and that when these
two things are removed, all the discipline of human societies is
broken and destroyed.” For the minds of many lose their regard
for equity and justice, unless virtue be rewarded with due
643honour; nor can the violence of the wicked be restrained, unless
crimes are followed by severe punishments. And these
two parts are included in the injunction of the prophet to kings
and other governors, to “execute judgment and righteousness.”[1431]
Righteousness means the care, patronage, defence,
vindication, and liberation of the innocent: judgment imports
the repression of the audacity, the coercion of the violence, and
the punishment of the crimes, of the impious.
X. But here, it seems, arises an important and difficult question.
If by the law of God all Christians are forbidden to kill,[1432]
and the prophet predicts respecting the Church, that “they
shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain, saith the
Lord,”[1433] how can it be compatible with piety for magistrates
to shed blood? But if we understand, that in the infliction
of punishments, the magistrate does not act at all from
himself, but merely executes the judgments of God, we shall
not be embarrassed with this scruple. The law of the Lord
commands, “Thou shalt not kill;” but that homicide may
not go unpunished, the legislator himself puts the sword into
the hands of his ministers, to be used against all homicides.[1434]
To hurt and to destroy are incompatible with the character of
the godly; but to avenge the afflictions of the righteous at
the command of God, is neither to hurt nor to destroy. Therefore
it is easy to conclude that in this respect magistrates are
not subject to the common law; by which, though the Lord
binds the hands of men, he does not bind his own justice, which
he exercises by the hands of magistrates. So, when a prince
forbids all his subjects to strike or wound any one, he does not
prohibit his officers from executing that justice which is particularly
committed to them. I sincerely wish that this consideration
were constantly in our recollection, that nothing is
done here by the temerity of men, but every thing by the
authority of God, who commands it, and under whose guidance
we never err from the right way. For we can find no valid
objection to the infliction of public vengeance, unless the justice
of God be restrained from the punishment of crimes. But
if it be unlawful for us to impose restraints upon him, why do
we calumniate his ministers? Paul says of the magistrate,
that “He beareth not the sword in vain; for he is the minister
of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth
evil.”[1435] Therefore, if princes and other governors know that
nothing will be more acceptable to God than their obedience,
and if they desire to approve their piety, justice, and integrity
before God, let them devote themselves to this duty. This
644motive influenced Moses, when, knowing himself to be destined
to become the liberator of his people by the power of the Lord,
“he slew the Egyptian;”[1436] and when he punished the idolatry
of the people by the slaughter of three thousand men in
one day.[1437] The same motive actuated David, when, at the
close of his life, he commanded his son Solomon to put to death
Joab and Shimei.[1438] Hence, also, it is enumerated among
the virtues of a king, to “destroy all the wicked of the land,
that he may cut off all wicked doers from the city of the
Lord.”[1439] The same topic furnishes the eulogium given
to Solomon: “Thou lovest righteousness, and hatest wickedness.”[1440]
How did the meek and placid disposition of Moses
burn with such cruelty, that, after having his hands imbrued
in the blood of his brethren, he continued to go through the
camp till three thousand were slain? How did David, who
discovered such humanity all his lifetime, in his last moments
bequeath such a cruel injunction to his son respecting Joab?
“Let not his hoar head go down to the grave in peace;” and
respecting Shimei: “His hoar head bring down to the grave
with blood.” Both Moses and David, in executing the vengeance
committed to them by God, by this severity sanctified
their hands, which would have been defiled by lenity.
Solomon says, “It is an abomination to kings to commit wickedness;
for the throne is established by righteousness.”[1441]
Again: “A king that sitteth in the throne of judgment, scattereth
away all evil with his eyes.”[1442] Again: “A wise
king scattereth the wicked, and bringeth the wheel over
them.”[1443] Again: “Take away the dross from the silver,
and there shall come forth a vessel for the finer. Take away
the wicked from before the king, and his throne shall be established
in righteousness.”[1444] Again: “He that justifieth the
wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both are
an abomination to the Lord.”[1445] Again: “An evil man
seeketh only rebellion; therefore a cruel messenger shall be
sent against him.”[1446] Again: “He that saith unto the
wicked, Thou art righteous; him shall the people curse,
nations shall abhor him.”[1447] Now, if it be true justice for
them to pursue the wicked with a drawn sword, let them
sheathe the sword, and keep their hands from shedding blood,
while the swords of desperadoes are drenched in murders; and
they will be so far from acquiring the praise of goodness
and justice by this forbearance, that they will involve themselves
in the deepest impiety. There ought not, however, to
645be any excessive or unreasonable severity, nor ought any cause
to be given for considering the tribunal as a gibbet prepared
for all who are accused. For I am not an advocate for unnecessary
cruelty, nor can I conceive the possibility of an
equitable sentence being pronounced without mercy; of which
Solomon affirms, that “mercy and truth preserve the king;
and his throne is upholden by mercy.”[1448] Yet it behoves the
magistrate to be on his guard against both these errors; that
he do not, by excessive severity, wound rather than heal; or,
through a superstitious affectation of clemency, fall into a mistaken
humanity, which is the worst kind of cruelty, by indulging
a weak and ill-judged lenity, to the detriment of multitudes.
For it is a remark not without foundation, that was anciently
applied to the government of Nerva, that it is bad to live
under a prince who permits nothing, but much worse to live
under one who permits every thing.
XI. Now, as it is sometimes necessary for kings and nations
to take up arms for the infliction of such public vengeance, the
same reason will lead us to infer the lawfulness of wars which
are undertaken for this end. For if they have been intrusted
with power to preserve the tranquillity of their own territories,
to suppress the seditious tumults of disturbers, to succour the
victims of oppression, and to punish crimes,—can they exert
this power for a better purpose, than to repel the violence of
him who disturbs both the private repose of individuals and
the general tranquillity of the nation; who excites insurrections,
and perpetrates acts of oppression, cruelty, and every
species of crime? If they ought to be the guardians and defenders
of the laws, it is incumbent upon them to defeat the
efforts of all by whose injustice the discipline of the laws is
corrupted. And if they justly punish those robbers, whose injuries
have only extended to a few persons, shall they suffer
a whole district to be plundered and devastated with impunity?
For there is no difference, whether he, who in a hostile manner
invades, disturbs, and plunders the territory of another to
which he has no right, be a king, or one of the meanest of
mankind: all persons of this description are equally to be considered
as robbers, and ought to be punished as such. It is
the dictate both of natural equity, and of the nature of the
office, therefore, that princes are armed, not only to restrain the
crimes of private individuals by judicial punishments, but also
to defend the territories committed to their charge by going
to war against any hostile aggression; and the Holy Spirit, in
many passages of Scripture, declares such wars to be lawful.
XII. If it be objected that the New Testament contains no
646precept or example, which proves war to be lawful to Christians,
I answer, first, that the reason for waging war which
existed in ancient times, is equally valid in the present age;
and that, on the contrary, there is no cause to prevent princes
from defending their subjects. Secondly, that no express declaration
on this subject is to be expected in the writings of the
apostles, whose design was, not to organize civil governments,
but to describe the spiritual kingdom of Christ. Lastly, that
in those very writings it is implied by the way, that no change
has been made in this respect by the coming of Christ. “For,”
to use the words of Augustine, “if Christian discipline condemned
all wars, the soldiers who inquired respecting their
salvation ought rather to have been directed to cast away their
arms, and entirely to renounce the military profession; whereas
the advice given them was, ‘Do violence to no man, neither
accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages.’[1449] An
injunction to be content with their wages was certainly not a
prohibition of the military life.” But here all magistrates
ought to be very cautious, that they follow not in any respect
the impulse of their passions. On the contrary, if punishments
are to be inflicted, they ought not to be precipitated
with anger, exasperated with hatred, or inflamed with implacable
severity: they ought, as Augustine says, “to commiserate
our common nature even in him whom they punish for his
crime.” Or, if arms are to be resorted to against an enemy, that
is, an armed robber, they ought not to seize a trivial occasion,
nor even to take it when presented, unless they are driven to
it by extreme necessity. For, if it be our duty to exceed what
was required by that heathen writer who maintained that the
evident object of war ought to be the restoration of peace, certainly
we ought to make every other attempt before we have
recourse to the decision of arms. In short, in both cases they
must not suffer themselves to be carried away by any private
motive, but be wholly guided by public spirit; otherwise they
grossly abuse their power, which is given them, not for their
own particular advantage, but for the benefit and service of
others. Moreover, on this right of war depends the lawfulness
of garrisons, alliances, and other civil munitions. By garrisons,
I mean soldiers who are stationed in towns to defend the
boundaries of a country. By alliances, I mean confederations
which are made between neighbouring princes, that, if any disturbance
arise in their territories, they will render each other
mutual assistance, and will unite their forces together for the
common resistance of the common enemies of mankind. By
civil munitions, I mean all the provisions which are employed
in the art of war.
647XIII. In the last place, I think it necessary to add, that
tributes and taxes are the legitimate revenues of princes;
which, indeed, they ought principally to employ in sustaining
the public expenses of their office, but which they may likewise
use for the support of their domestic splendour, which is
closely connected with the dignity of the government that
they hold. Thus we see that David, Jehoshaphat, Hezekiah,
Josiah, and other pious kings, and likewise Joseph and Daniel,
without any violation of piety, on account of the office which
they filled, lived at the public expense; and we read in Ezekiel
of a very ample portion of land being assigned to the kings;[1450]
in which passage, though the prophet is describing the spiritual
kingdom of Christ, yet he borrows the model of it from the
legitimate kingdoms of men. On the other hand, princes
themselves ought to remember, that their finances are not so
much private incomes, as the revenues of the whole people,
according to the testimony of Paul,[1451] and therefore cannot
be lavished or dilapidated without manifest injustice; or, rather,
that they are to be considered as the blood of the people, not to
spare which is the most inhuman cruelty; and their various
imposts and tributes ought to be regarded merely as aids of the
public necessity, to burden the people with which, without
cause, would be tyrannical rapacity. These things give no
encouragement to princes to indulge profusion and luxury; and
certainly there is no need to add fuel to their passions, which
of themselves are more than sufficiently inflamed; but, as it is
of very great importance, that whatever they undertake they
attempt it with a pure conscience before God, it is necessary,
in order to their avoiding vain confidence and contempt of
God, that they be taught how far their rights extend. Nor is
this doctrine useless to private persons, who learn from it not to
pronounce rash and insolent censures on the expenses of princes,
notwithstanding they exceed the limits of common life.
XIV. From the magistracy, we next proceed to the laws,
which are the strong nerves of civil polity, or, according to an
appellation which Cicero has borrowed from Plato, the souls of
states, without which magistracy cannot subsist, as, on the
other hand, without magistrates laws are of no force. No observation,
therefore, can be more correct than this, that the law
is a silent magistrate, and a magistrate a speaking law. Though
I have promised to show by what laws a Christian state ought
to be regulated, it will not be reasonable for any person to
expect a long discussion respecting the best kind of laws;
which is a subject of immense extent, and foreign from our
present object. I will briefly remark, however, by the way,
648what laws it may piously use before God, and be rightly
governed by among men. And even this I would have preferred
passing over in silence, if I did not know that it is a
point on which many persons run into dangerous errors. For
some deny that a state is well constituted, which neglects the
polity of Moses, and is governed by the common laws of nations.
The dangerous and seditious nature of this opinion I
leave to the examination of others; it will be sufficient for me
to have evinced it to be false and foolish. Now, it is necessary
to observe that common distinction, which distributes all the
laws of God promulgated by Moses into moral, ceremonial, and
judicial; and these different kinds of laws are to be distinctly
examined, that we may ascertain what belongs to us, and what
does not. Nor let any one be embarrassed by this scruple, that
even the ceremonial and judicial precepts are included in the
moral. For the ancients, who first made this distinction,
were not ignorant that these two kinds of precepts related to
the conduct of moral agents; yet, as they might be changed
and abrogated without affecting the morality of actions, therefore
they did not call them moral precepts. They particularly
applied this appellation to those precepts without which there can
be no real purity of morals, nor any permanent rule of a holy life.
XV. The moral law, therefore, with which I shall begin,
being comprised in two leading articles, of which one simply
commands us to worship God with pure faith and piety,
and the other enjoins us to embrace men with sincere love,—this
law, I say, is the true and eternal rule of righteousness,
prescribed to men of all ages and nations, who wish to conform
their lives to the will of God. For this is his eternal and immutable
will, that he himself be worshipped by us all, and that
we mutually love one another. The ceremonial law was the
pupilage of the Jews, with which it pleased the Lord to exercise
that people during a state resembling childhood, till that
“fulness of the time” should come,[1452] when he would fully
manifest his wisdom to the world, and would exhibit the reality
of those things which were then adumbrated in figures. The
judicial law, given to them as a political constitution, taught
them certain rules of equity and justice, by which they might
conduct themselves in a harmless and peaceable manner towards
each other. And as that exercise of ceremonies properly related
to the doctrine of piety, inasmuch as it kept the Jewish
Church in the worship and service of God, which is the first
article of the moral law, and yet was distinct from piety itself,
so these judicial regulations, though they had no other end
than the preservation of that love, which is enjoined in the
649eternal law of God, yet had something which distinguished
them from that precept itself. As the ceremonies, therefore,
might be abrogated without any violation or injury of piety, so
the precepts and duties of love remain of perpetual obligation,
notwithstanding the abolition of all these judicial ordinances.
If this be true, certainly all nations are left at liberty to enact
such laws as they shall find to be respectively expedient for
them; provided they be framed according to that perpetual rule
of love, so that, though they vary in form, they may have the
same end. For those barbarous and savage laws which rewarded
theft and permitted promiscuous concubinage, with
others still more vile, execrable, and absurd, I am very far
from thinking ought to be considered as laws; since they are
not only violations of all righteousness, but outrages against
humanity itself.
XVI. What I have said will be more clearly understood, if
in all laws we properly consider these two things—the constitution
of the law and its equity, on the reason of which the
constitution itself is founded and rests. Equity, being natural,
is the same to all mankind; and consequently all laws, on
every subject, ought to have the same equity for their end.
Particular enactments and regulations, being connected with
circumstances, and partly dependent upon them, may be different
in different cases without any impropriety, provided they
are all equally directed to the same object of equity. Now, as
it is certain that the law of God, which we call the moral law,
is no other than a declaration of natural law, and of that
conscience which has been engraven by God on the minds
of men, the whole rule of this equity, of which we now
speak, is prescribed in it. This equity, therefore, must alone
be the scope, and rule, and end, of all laws. Whatever laws
shall be framed according to that rule, directed to that object,
and limited to that end, there is no reason why we
should censure them, however they may differ from the Jewish
law or from each other. The law of God forbids theft. What
punishment was enacted for thieves, among the Jews, may
be seen in the book of Exodus.[1453] The most ancient laws
of other nations punished theft by requiring a compensation
of double the value. Subsequent laws made a distinction
between open and secret theft. Some proceeded to banishment,
some to flagellation, and some to the punishment of
death. False witness was punished, among the Jews, with
the same punishment as such testimony would have caused to
be inflicted on the person against whom it was given;[1454] in
some countries it was punished with infamy, in others with
hanging, in others with crucifixion. All laws agree in punishing
650murder with death, though in several different forms.
The punishments of adulterers in different countries have been
attended with different degrees of severity. Yet we see how,
amidst this diversity, they are all directed to the same end.
For they all agree in denouncing punishment against those
crimes which are condemned by the eternal law of God; such
as murders, thefts, adulteries, false testimonies, though there is
not a uniformity in the mode of punishment; and, indeed, this
is neither necessary, nor even expedient. One country, if it
did not inflict the most exemplary vengeance upon murderers,
would soon be ruined by murders and robberies. One age
requires the severity of punishments to be increased. If a
country be disturbed by any civil commotion, the evils which
generally arise from it must be corrected by new edicts. In
time of war all humanity would be forgotten amidst the din of
arms, if men were not awed by more than a common dread of
punishment. During famine and pestilence, unless greater
severity be employed, every thing will fall into ruin. One
nation is more prone than others to some particular vice, unless
it be most rigidly restrained. What malignity and envy against
the public good will be betrayed by him who shall take offence
at such diversity, which is best adapted to secure the observance
of the law of God? For the objection made by some,
that it is an insult to the law of God given by Moses, when it
is abrogated, and other laws are preferred to it, is without any
foundation; for neither are other laws preferred to it, when
they are more approved, not on a simple comparison, but on
account of the circumstances of time, place, and nation; nor do
we abrogate that which was never given to us. For the Lord
gave not that law by the hand of Moses to be promulgated
among all nations, and to be universally binding; but after
having taken the Jewish nation into his special charge, patronage,
and protection, he was pleased to become, in a peculiar
manner, their legislator, and, as became a wise legislator, in all
the laws which he gave them, he had a special regard to their
peculiar circumstances.
XVII. It now remains for us, as we proposed, in the last
place, to examine what advantage the common society of
Christians derives from laws, judgments, and magistrates; with
which is connected another question—what honour private persons
ought to render to magistrates, and how far their obedience
ought to extend. Many persons suppose the office of magistracy
to be of no use among Christians, for that they cannot,
consistently with piety, apply for their assistance, because they
are forbidden to have recourse to revenge or litigation. But as
Paul, on the contrary, clearly testifies that the magistrate is
“the minister of God to us for good,”[1455] we understand from
651this that he is divinely appointed, in order that we may be defended
by his power and protection against the malice and
injuries of wicked men, and may lead peaceable and secure
lives. But if it be in vain that he is given to us by the Lord
for our protection, unless it be lawful for us to avail ourselves
of such an advantage, it clearly follows that we may appeal to
him, and apply for his aid, without any violation of piety.
But here I have to do with two sorts of persons; for there are
multitudes inflamed with such a rage for litigation, that they
never have peace in themselves, unless they are in contention
with others; and they commence their lawsuits with a mortal
bitterness of animosities, and with an infuriated cupidity of
revenge and injury, and pursue them with an implacable obstinacy,
even to the ruin of their adversary. At the same time,
that they may not be thought to do any thing wrong, they
defend this perverseness under the pretext of seeking justice.
But, though it is allowable for a man to endeavour to obtain
justice from his neighbour by a judicial process, he is not
therefore at liberty to hate him, or to cherish a desire to hurt
him, or to persecute him without mercy.
XVIII. Let such persons, therefore, understand, that judicial
processes are lawful to those who use them rightly; and that
the right use, both for the plaintiff and for the defendant, is this:
First, if the plaintiff, being injured either in his person or in his
property, has recourse to the protection of the magistrate, states
his complaint, makes a just and equitable claim, but without
any desire of injury or revenge, without any asperity or hatred,
without any ardour for contention, but rather prepared to waive
his right, and to sustain some disadvantage, than to cherish
enmity against his adversary. Secondly, if the defendant,
being summoned, appears on the day appointed, and defends his
cause by the best arguments in his power, without any bitterness,
but with the simple desire of maintaining his just right.
On the contrary, when their minds are filled with malevolence,
corrupted with envy, incensed with wrath, stimulated with
revenge, or inflamed with the fervour of contention, so as to
diminish their charity, all the proceedings of the justest cause
are inevitably wicked. For it ought to be an established
maxim with all Christians, that however just a cause may be,
no lawsuit can ever be carried on in a proper manner by any
man, who does not feel as much benevolence and affection
towards his adversary, as if the business in dispute had already
been settled and terminated by an amicable adjustment. Some,
perhaps, will object, that such moderation in lawsuits is far
from being ever practised, and that if one instance of it were
to be found, it would be regarded as a prodigy. I confess,
indeed, that, in the corruption of these times, the example of an
652upright litigator is very rare; but the thing itself ceases not to
be good and pure, if it be not defiled by an adventitious evil.
But when we hear that the assistance of the magistrate is a
holy gift of God, it behoves us to use the more assiduous
caution that it be not contaminated by our guilt.
XIX. Those who positively condemn all controversies at
law, ought to understand that they thereby reject a holy ordinance
of God, and a gift of the number of those which may
be “pure to the pure;” unless they mean to charge Paul with
a crime, who repelled the calumnies of his accusers, exposing
their subtlety and malice; who, before his judges, asserted his
right to the privileges of a Roman citizen; and who, when he
found it necessary, appealed from an unjust governor to the
tribunal of Cæsar. It is no objection to this that all Christians
are forbidden the desire of revenge, which we also wish to
banish to the greatest distance from all Christian judicatures.
For, in a civil cause, no man proceeds in the right way, who
does not, with innocent simplicity, commit his cause to the
judge as to a public guardian, without the least thought of a
mutual retaliation of evil, which is the passion of revenge.
And in any more important or criminal action we require
the accuser to be one who goes into the court, influenced by
no desire of revenge, affected by no resentment of private injury,
and having no other motive than to resist the attempts of
a mischievous man, that he may not injure the public. But if
a vindictive spirit be excluded, no offence is committed against
that precept by which revenge is forbidden to Christians. It
may probably be objected, that they are not only forbidden to
desire revenge, but are also commanded to wait for the hand of
the Lord, who promises that he will assist and revenge the afflicted
and oppressed, and therefore that those who seek the interference
of the magistrate on behalf of themselves or others, anticipate
all that vengeance of the celestial protector. But this is
very far from the truth. For the vengeance of the magistrate
is to be considered, not as the vengeance of man, but of God,
which, according to the testimony of Paul, he exercises by the
ministry of men for our good.
XX. Nor do we any more oppose the prohibition and injunction
of Christ, “Resist not evil; but whosoever shall
smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also; and
if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away, thy coat, let
him have thy cloak also.”[1456] In this passage, indeed, he
requires the minds of his servants to be so far from cherishing
a desire of retaliation, as rather to suffer the repetition of an
injury against themselves than to wish to revenge it; nor do
653we dissuade them from this patience. For it truly behoves
Christians to be a people, as it were, formed to bear injuries
and reproaches, exposed to the iniquity, impostures, and ridicule
of the worst of mankind; and not only so, but they ought
to be patient under all these evils; that is to say, so calm and
composed in their minds, that, after having suffered one affliction,
they may prepare themselves for another, expecting nothing
all their lifetime but to bear a perpetual cross. At the same
time, they are required to bless and pray for them from whom
they receive curses, to do good to them from whom they experience
injuries,[1457] and to aim at that which constitutes
their only victory, to “overcome evil with good.”[1458] With
this disposition they will not demand “an eye for an eye, and
a tooth for a tooth,” as the Pharisees taught their disciples to
desire revenge; but, as we are instructed by Christ, they will
suffer injuries in their persons and property in such a manner
as to be ready to forgive them as soon as they are committed.[1459]
Yet this equanimity and moderation will be no
obstacle, but that, without any breach of friendship towards
their enemies, they may avail themselves of the assistance of
the magistrate for the preservation of their property; or, from
zeal for the public good, may bring a pestilent offender to
justice, though they know he can only be punished with
death. For it is very correctly explained by Augustine, that
the end of all these precepts is, “that a just and pious man
should be ready to bear with patience the wickedness of those
whom he desires to become good; rather in order that the
number of the good may increase, not that with similar
wickedness he may himself join the number of the evil; and
in the next place, that they relate to the internal affection of
the heart more than to the external actions; in order that in
the secrecy of our minds we may feel patience and benevolence,
but in our outward conduct may do that which we see tends to
the advantage of those to whom we ought to feel benevolent
affections.”
XXI. The objection which is frequently alleged, that lawsuits
are universally condemned by Paul, has no foundation in
truth.[1460] It may be easily understood from his words, that
in the Church of the Corinthians there was an immoderate
rage for litigation, so that they exposed the gospel of Christ,
and all the religion which they professed, to the cavils and reproaches
of the impious. The first thing which Paul reprehended
in them was, that the intemperance of their dissensions
brought the gospel into discredit among unbelievers. And the
654next thing was, that they had such altercations among them,
brethren with brethren; for they were so far from bearing an
injury, that they coveted each other’s property, and molested
and injured one another without any provocation. It was
against that rage for litigation, therefore, that he inveighed, and
not absolutely against all controversies. But he pronounces it
to be altogether a vice or a weakness, that they did not suffer
the injury or loss of their property rather than to proceed to
contentions for the preservation of it: when they were so disturbed
or exasperated at every loss or injury, that they had
recourse to lawsuits on the most trivial occasions, he argues that
this proved their minds to be too irritable, and not sufficiently
patient. It is certainly incumbent on Christians, in all cases,
to prefer a concession of their right to an entrance on a lawsuit;
from which they can scarcely come out without a mind exasperated
and inflamed with enmity to their brother. But when
one sees that, without any breach of charity, he may defend
his property, the loss of which would be a serious injury to
him; if he do it, he commits no offence against that sentence
of Paul. In a word, as we have observed at the beginning,
charity will give every one the best counsel; for, whatever
litigations are undertaken without charity, or are carried to a
degree inconsistent with it, we conclude them, beyond all controversy,
to be unjust and wicked.
XXII. The first duty of subjects towards their magistrates
is to entertain the most honourable sentiments of their function,
which they know to be a jurisdiction delegated to them from
God, and on that account to esteem and reverence them as
God’s ministers and vicegerents. For there are some persons
to be found, who show themselves very obedient to their
magistrates, and have not the least wish that there were no
magistrates for them to obey, because they know them to be
so necessary to the public good; but who, nevertheless, consider
the magistrates themselves as no other than necessary evils.
But something more than this is required of us by Peter, when
he commands us to “honour the king;”[1461] and by Solomon,
when he says, “Fear thou the Lord and the king;”[1462] for
Peter, under the term honour, comprehends a sincere and candid
esteem; and Solomon, by connecting the king with the Lord,
attributes to him a kind of sacred veneration and dignity. It
is also a remarkable commendation of magistrates which is
given by Paul, when he says, that we “must needs be subject,
not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake;”[1463] by
which he means, that subjects ought to be induced to submit to
princes and governors, not merely from a dread of their power,
655as persons are accustomed to yield to an armed enemy, who
they know will immediately take vengeance upon them if
they resist; but because the obedience which is rendered to
princes and magistrates is rendered to God, from whom they
have received their authority. I am not speaking of the
persons, as if the mask of dignity ought to palliate or excuse
folly, ignorance, or cruelty, and conduct the most nefarious and
flagitious, and so to acquire for vices the praise due to virtues;
but I affirm that the station itself is worthy of honour and
reverence; so that, whoever our governors are, they ought to
possess our esteem and veneration on account of the office
which they fill.
XXIII. Hence follows another duty, that, with minds disposed
to honour and reverence magistrates, subjects approve
their obedience to them, in submitting to their edicts, in paying
taxes, in discharging public duties, and bearing burdens which
relate to the common defence, and in fulfilling all their other
commands. Paul says to the Romans, “Let every soul be
subject unto the higher powers. Whosoever resisteth the power,
resisteth the ordinance of God.”[1464] He writes to Titus, “Put
them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers, to obey
magistrates, to be ready to every good work.”[1465] Peter exhorts,
“Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the
Lord’s sake; whether it be to the king, as supreme; or unto
governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment
of evil-doers, and for the praise of them that do well.”[1466]
Moreover, that subjects may testify that theirs is not a hypocritical
but a sincere and cordial submission, Paul teaches, that
they ought to pray to God for the safety and prosperity of
those under whose government they live. “I exhort,” he
says, “that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of
thanks, be made for all men; for kings, and for all that are in
authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all
godliness and honesty.”[1467] Here let no man deceive himself.
For as it is impossible to resist the magistrate without, at the
same time, resisting God himself; though an unarmed magistrate
may seem to be despised with impunity, yet God is armed
to inflict exemplary vengeance on the contempt offered to
himself. Under this obedience I also include the moderation
which private persons ought to prescribe to themselves in relation
to public affairs, that they do not, without being called
upon, intermeddle with affairs of state, or rashly intrude themselves
into the office of magistrates, or undertake any thing of
a public nature. If there be any thing in the public administration
656which requires to be corrected, let them not raise any
tumults, or take the business into their own hands, which ought
to be all bound in this respect, but let them refer it to the cognizance
of the magistrate, who is alone authorized to regulate
the concerns of the public. I mean, that they ought to attempt
nothing without being commanded; for when they have the
command of a governor, then they also are invested with public
authority. For, as we are accustomed to call the counsellors
of a prince his eyes and ears, so they may not unaptly
be called his hands whom he has commissioned to execute
his commands.
XXIV. Now, as we have hitherto described a magistrate
who truly answers to his title; who is the father of his country,
and, as the poet calls him, the pastor of his people, the guardian
of peace, the protector of justice, the avenger of innocence;
he would justly be deemed insane who disapproved of such a
government. But, as it has happened, in almost all ages, that
some princes, regardless of every thing to which they ought to
have directed their attention and provision, give themselves
up to their pleasures in indolent exemption from every care;
others, absorbed in their own interest, expose to sale all laws,
privileges, rights, and judgments; others plunder the public
of wealth, which they afterwards lavish in mad prodigality;
others commit flagrant outrages, pillaging houses, violating virgins
and matrons, and murdering infants; many persons cannot
be persuaded that such ought to be acknowledged as princes,
whom, as far as possible, they ought to obey. For in such
enormities, and actions so completely incompatible, not only
with the office of a magistrate, but with the duty of every
man, they discover no appearance of the image of God, which
ought to be conspicuous in a magistrate; while they perceive
no vestige of that minister of God who is “not a terror to good
works, but to the evil,” who is sent “for the punishment of
evil-doers, and for the praise of them that do well;” nor recognize
that governor, whose dignity and authority the Scripture
recommends to us. And certainly the minds of men have
always been naturally disposed to hate and execrate tyrants as
much as to love and reverence legitimate kings.
XXV. But, if we direct our attention to the word of God,
it will carry us much further; even to submit to the government,
not only of those princes who discharge their duty to us with
becoming integrity and fidelity, but of all who possess the
sovereignty, even though they perform none of the duties of
their function. For, though the Lord testifies that the magistrate
is an eminent gift of his liberality to preserve the safety
of men, and prescribes to magistrates themselves the extent
of their duty, yet he at the same time declares, that whatever
657be their characters, they have their government only from him;
that those who govern for the public good are true specimens
and mirrors of his beneficence; and that those who rule in an
unjust and tyrannical manner are raised up by him to punish
the iniquity of the people; that all equally possess that sacred
majesty with which he has invested legitimate authority. I
will not proceed any further till I have subjoined a few testimonies
in proof of this point. It is unnecessary, however, to
labour much to evince an impious king to be a judgment of
God’s wrath upon the world, as I have no expectation that any
one will deny it: and in this we say no more of a king than
of any other robber who plunders our property; or adulterer
who violates our bed; or assassin who attempts to murder us;
since the Scripture enumerates all these calamities among the
curses inflicted by God. But let us rather insist on the proof
of that which the minds of men do not so easily admit; that
a man of the worst character, and most undeserving of all
honour, who holds the sovereign power, really possesses that
eminent and Divine authority, which the Lord has given by
his word to the ministers of his justice and judgment; and,
therefore, that he ought to be regarded by his subjects, as far
as pertains to public obedience, with the same reverence and
esteem which they would show to the best of kings, if such a
one were granted to them.
XXVI. In the first place, I request my readers to observe
and consider with attention, what is so frequently and justly
mentioned in the Scriptures,—the providence and peculiar
dispensation of God in distributing kingdoms and appointing
whom he pleases to be kings. Daniel says, “God changeth
the times and the seasons: he removeth kings and setteth up
kings.”[1468] Again: “That the living may know that the
Most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to
whomsoever he will.”[1469] Passages of this kind abound
throughout the Scriptures, but particularly in this prophecy.
Now, the character of Nebuchadnezzar, who conquered Jerusalem,
is sufficiently known, that he was an invader and depopulator
of the territories of others. Yet by the mouth of Ezekiel
the Lord declares that he had given him the land of Egypt, as
a reward for the service which he had performed in devastating
Tyre.[1470] And Daniel said to him, “Thou, O king, art a king
of kings; for the God of heaven hath given thee a kingdom,
power, and strength, and glory; and wheresoever the children
of men dwell, the beasts of the field, and the fowls of the
heaven, hath he given into thine hand, and hath made thee
ruler over all.”[1471] Again: to his grandson Belshazzar Daniel
658said, “The most high God gave Nebuchadnezzar thy father
a kingdom, and majesty, and glory, and honour; and for the
majesty that he gave him, all people, nations, and languages,
trembled and feared before him.”[1472] When we hear that
Nebuchadnezzar was placed on the throne by God, let us,
at the same time, call to mind the celestial edicts which
command us to fear and honour the king; and we shall not
hesitate to regard the most iniquitous tyrant with the honour
due to the station in which the Lord has deigned to place
him. When Samuel denounced to the children of Israel what
treatment they would receive from their kings, he said, “This
will be the manner[1473] of the king that shall reign over you; he
will take your sons and appoint them for himself, for his
chariots, and to be his horsemen, and to ear his ground, and to
reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war. And he
will take your daughters to be confectionaries, and to be cooks,
and to be bakers. And he will take your fields, and your vineyards,
and your oliveyards, even the best of them, and give them
to his servants. And he will take the tenth of your seed, and
of your vineyards, and give to his officers and to his servants.
And he will take your men-servants, and your maid-servants,
and your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put them
to his work. He will take the tenth of your sheep; and ye
shall be his servants.”[1474] Certainly the kings would not do
all this by “right,” for they were excellently instructed by
the law to observe all moderation; but it was called a “right”
with respect to the people who were bound to obey, and were
not at liberty to resist it. It was just as if Samuel had said,
The cupidity of your kings will proceed to all these outrages,
which it will not be your province to restrain; nothing will
remain for you, but to receive their commands and to obey
them.
XXVII. But the most remarkable and memorable passage
of all is in the Prophecy of Jeremiah, which, though it is rather
long, I shall readily quote, because it most clearly decides the
whole question: “I have made the earth, the man and the
beast that are upon the ground, by my great power and by my
outstretched arm, and have given it unto whom it seemed meet
unto me. And now I have given all these lands into the hand
of Nebuchadnezzar, the king of Babylon, my servant. And all
nations shall serve him, and his son, and his son’s son, until the
very time of his land come. And it shall come to pass, that
the nation and kingdom which will not serve the same king
of Babylon, that nation will I punish with the sword, and with
the famine, and with the pestilence. Therefore serve the king
659of Babylon and live.”[1475] We see what great obedience and
honour the Lord required to be rendered to that pestilent and
cruel tyrant, for no other reason than because he possessed the
kingdom; and it was by the heavenly decree that he was
seated on the throne of the kingdom, and exalted to that regal
majesty, which it was not lawful to violate. If we have this
constantly present to our eyes and impressed upon our hearts,
that the most iniquitous kings are placed on their thrones by
the same decree by which the authority of all kings is established,
those seditious thoughts will never enter our minds,
that a king is to be treated according to his merits, and that it
is not reasonable for us to be subject to a king who does not
on his part perform towards us those duties which his office
requires.
XXVIII. In vain will any one object that this was a special
command given to the Israelites. For we must observe the
reason upon which the Lord founds it. He says, “I have
given these lands to Nebuchadnezzar; therefore serve him
and live.” To whomsoever, therefore, a kingdom shall evidently
be given, we have no room to doubt that subjection is
due to him. And as soon as he exalts any person to royal
dignity, he gives us a declaration of his pleasure that he shall
reign. The Scripture contains general testimonies on this
subject. Solomon says, “For the transgression of a land,
many are the princes thereof.”[1476] Job says, “He looseth the
bonds of kings,” or divests them of their power; “and girdeth
their loins with a girdle,”[1477] or restores them to their former
dignity. This being admitted, nothing remains for us but to
serve and live. The prophet Jeremiah likewise records another
command of the Lord to his people: “Seek the peace of the
city whither I have caused you to be carried away captives, and
pray unto the Lord for it; for in the peace of it ye shall have
peace.”[1478] Here, we see, the Israelites, after having been
stripped of all their property, torn from their habitations, driven
into exile, and forced into a miserable servitude, were commanded
to pray for the prosperity of their conqueror; not in
the same manner in which we are all commanded to pray for
our persecutors; but that his kingdom might be preserved in
safety and tranquillity, and that they might live in prosperity
under him. Thus David, after having been already designated
as king by the ordination of God, and anointed with his holy
oil, though he was unjustly persecuted by Saul, without having
given him any cause of offence, nevertheless accounted the
person of his pursuer sacred, because the Lord had consecrated
660it by the royal dignity. “And he said, The Lord forbid that
I should do this thing unto my master, the Lord’s anointed, to
stretch forth mine hand against him, seeing he is the anointed of
the Lord.” Again: “Mine eye spared thee; and I said, I will
not put forth mine hand against my lord; for he is the Lord’s
anointed.”[1479] Again: “Who can stretch forth his hand against
the Lord’s anointed, and be guiltless? As the Lord liveth, the
Lord shall smite him; or his day shall come to die, or he shall
descend into battle, and perish. The Lord forbid that I should
stretch forth mine hand against the Lord’s anointed.”[1480]
XXIX. Finally, we owe these sentiments of affection and
reverence to all our rulers, whatever their characters may be;
which I the more frequently repeat, that we may learn not to
scrutinize the persons themselves, but may be satisfied with
knowing that they are invested by the will of the Lord with
that function, upon which he has impressed an inviolable
majesty. But it will be said, that rulers owe mutual duties to
their subjects. That I have already confessed. But he who
infers from this that obedience ought to be rendered to none
but just rulers, is a very bad reasoner. For husbands owe
mutual duties to their wives, and parents to their children.
Now, if husbands and parents violate their obligations; if
parents conduct themselves with discouraging severity and
fastidious moroseness towards their children, whom they are
forbidden to provoke to wrath;[1481] if husbands despise and vex
their wives, whom they are commanded to love and to spare as
the weaker vessels;[1482] does it follow that children should be
less obedient to their parents, or wives to their husbands?
They are still subject, even to those who are wicked and
unkind. As it is incumbent on all, not to inquire into the
duties of one another, but to confine their attention respectively
to their own, this consideration ought particularly to be regarded
by those who are subject to the authority of others.
Wherefore, if we are inhumanly harassed by a cruel prince; if
we are rapaciously plundered by an avaricious or luxurious one;
if we are neglected by an indolent one; or if we are persecuted,
on account of piety, by an impious and sacrilegious one,—let
us first call to mind our transgressions against God, which
he undoubtedly chastises by these scourges. Thus our impatience
will be restrained by humility. Let us, in the next
place, consider that it is not our province to remedy these evils;
and that nothing remains for us, but to implore the aid of the
Lord, in whose hand are the hearts of kings and the revolutions
of kingdoms. It is “God” who “standeth in the congregation
661of the mighty,” and “judgeth among the gods;”[1483] whose
presence shall confound and crush all kings and judges of the
earth who shall not have kissed his Son;[1484] “that decree
unrighteous decrees, to turn aside the needy from judgment,
and to take away the right from the poor, that widows may be
their prey, and that they may rob the fatherless.”[1485]
XXX. And here is displayed his wonderful goodness, and
power, and providence; for sometimes he raises up some of
his servants as public avengers, and arms them with his commission
to punish unrighteous domination, and to deliver from
their distressing calamities a people who have been unjustly
oppressed: sometimes he accomplishes this end by the fury of
men who meditate and attempt something altogether different.
Thus he liberated the people of Israel from the tyranny of
Pharaoh by Moses; from the oppression of Chusan by Othniel;
and from other yokes by other kings and judges. Thus he
subdued the pride of Tyre by the Egyptians; the insolence of
the Egyptians by the Assyrians; the haughtiness of the Assyrians
by the Chaldeans; the confidence of Babylon by the Medes and
Persians, after Cyrus had subjugated the Medes. The ingratitude
of the kings of Israel and Judah, and their impious rebellion,
notwithstanding his numerous favours, he repressed and
punished, sometimes by the Assyrians, sometimes by the Babylonians.
These were all the executioners of his vengeance, but
not all in the same manner. The former, when they were
called forth to the performance of such acts by a legitimate
commission from God, in taking arms against kings, were not
chargeable with the least violation of that majesty with which
kings are invested by the ordination of God; but, being armed
with authority from Heaven, they punished an inferior power
by a superior one, as it is lawful for kings to punish their inferior
officers. The latter, though they were guided by the
hand of God in such directions as he pleased, and performed
his work without being conscious of it, nevertheless contemplated
in their hearts nothing but evil.
XXXI. But whatever opinion be formed of the acts of men,
yet the Lord equally executed his work by them, when he
broke the sanguinary sceptres of insolent kings, and overturned
tyrannical governments. Let princes hear and fear. But,
in the mean while, it behoves us to use the greatest caution,
that we do not despise or violate that authority of magistrates,
which is entitled to the greatest veneration, which God has established
by the most solemn commands, even though it reside
in those who are most unworthy of it, and who, as far as in
them lies, pollute it by their iniquity. For though the correction
662of tyrannical domination is the vengeance of God, we
are not, therefore, to conclude that it is committed to us, who
have received no other command than to obey and suffer.
This observation I always apply to private persons. For if
there be, in the present day, any magistrates appointed for the
protection of the people and the moderation of the power of
kings, such as were, in ancient times, the Ephori, who were a
check upon the kings among the Lacedæmonians, or the popular
tribunes upon the consuls among the Romans, or the Demarchi
upon the senate among the Athenians; or with power
such as perhaps is now possessed by the three estates in every
kingdom when they are assembled; I am so far from prohibiting
them, in the discharge of their duty, to oppose the violence
or cruelty of kings, that I affirm, that if they connive at kings
in their oppression of their people, such forbearance involves
the most nefarious perfidy, because they fraudulently betray the
liberty of the people, of which they know that they have been
appointed protectors by the ordination of God.
XXXII. But in the obedience which we have shown to be
due to the authority of governors, it is always necessary to make
one exception, and that is entitled to our first attention,—that it
do not seduce us from obedience to him, to whose will the
desires of all kings ought to be subject, to whose decrees all
their commands ought to yield, to whose majesty all their
sceptres ought to submit. And, indeed, how preposterous it
would be for us, with a view to satisfy men, to incur the displeasure
of him on whose account we yield obedience to men!
The Lord, therefore, is the King of kings; who, when he has
opened his sacred mouth, is to be heard alone, above all, for all,
and before all; in the next place, we are subject to those
men who preside over us; but no otherwise than in him.
If they command any thing against him, it ought not to have
the least attention; nor, in this case, ought we to pay any
regard to all that dignity attached to magistrates; to which no
injury is done when it is subjected to the unrivalled and supreme
power of God. On this principle Daniel denied that he had
committed any crime against the king in disobeying his impious
decree;[1486] because the king had exceeded the limits of his
office, and had not only done an injury to men, but, by raising
his arm against God, had degraded his own authority. On the
other hand, the Israelites are condemned for having been too
submissive to the impious edict of their king. For when Jeroboam
had made his golden calves, in compliance with his
will, they deserted the temple of God and revolted to new
superstitions. Their posterity conformed to the decrees of
663their idolatrous kings with the same facility. The prophet
severely condemns them for having “willingly walked after
the commandment:”[1487] so far is any praise from being due
to the pretext of humility, with which courtly flatterers excuse
themselves and deceive the unwary, when they deny that it
is lawful for them to refuse compliance with any command
of their kings; as if God had resigned his right to mortal men
when he made them rulers of mankind; or as if earthly
power were diminished by being subordinated to its author,
before whom even the principalities of heaven tremble with
awe. I know what great and present danger awaits this
constancy, for kings cannot bear to be disregarded without the
greatest indignation; and “the wrath of a king,” says Solomon,
“is as messengers of death.”[1488] But since this edict has
been proclaimed by that celestial herald, Peter, “We ought to
obey God rather than men,”[1489]—let us console ourselves with
this thought, that we truly perform the obedience which God
requires of us, when we suffer any thing rather than deviate
from piety. And that our hearts may not fail us, Paul stimulates
us with another consideration—that Christ has redeemed us at
the immense price which our redemption cost him, that we may
not be submissive to the corrupt desires of men, much less be
slaves to their impiety.[1490]
END OF THE INSTITUTES.
