does he give to the holy generation, which God honoured with his sacred
covenant; but he considers us, in comparison with them, as the
posthumous, and even abortive children of Abraham, and that not by
nature, but by adoption; as if a branch broken off from its native tree
were ingrafted on another stock. That they might not be defrauded of
their prerogative, therefore, it was necessary for the gospel to be
first announced to them; for they are, as it were, the first-born in the
family of God. Wherefore this honour was to be given to them, till they
rejected the offer of it, and by their ingratitude caused it to be
transferred to the Gentiles. Nor, whatever be the obstinacy with which
they persist in opposing the gospel, ought they, on that account, to be
despised by us, if we consider that, for the sake of the promise, the
blessing of God still remains among them; as the apostle clearly
testifies that it will never entirely depart from them; “for the gifts
and calling of God are without repentance.”[1178]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Footnote 1165:

  Gen. xvii. 1-14.

Footnote 1166:

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

Footnote 1167:

  Ephes. ii. 12.

Footnote 1168:

  Deut. x. 16.

Footnote 1169:

  Deut. xxx. 6.

Footnote 1170:

  Rom. xii. 3, 6.

Footnote 1171:

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

Footnote 1172:

  Col. ii. 11, 12.

Footnote 1173:

  Matt. viii. 11. Luke xiii. 29.

Footnote 1174:

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

Footnote 1175:

  Rom. iv. 9-12.

Footnote 1176:

  Eph. ii. 14.

Footnote 1177:

  Rom. ix. 7, 8.

Footnote 1178:

  Rom. xi. 29.

Footnote 1179:

  1 Cor. vii. 14.

Footnote 1180:

  Rom. xv. 8.

Footnote 1181:

  Acts ii. 39.

Footnote 1182:

  Acts iii. 25.

Footnote 1183:

  Eph. i. 11, 12.

Footnote 1184:

  Exod. xx. 6.

Footnote 1185:

  Rom. vi. 4.

Footnote 1186:

  1 Cor. xv. 22.

Footnote 1187:

  Eph. ii. 3.

Footnote 1188:

  Psalm li. 5.

Footnote 1189:

  1 Cor. xv. 50.

Footnote 1190:

  John xi. 25; xiv. 6.

Footnote 1191:

  Rev. xxi. 27.

Footnote 1192:

  John iii. 3, 5.

Footnote 1193:

  Luke i. 15.

Footnote 1194:

  1 Peter i. 23.

Footnote 1195:

  Rom. x. 17.

Footnote 1196:

  Deut. i. 39.

Footnote 1197:

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

Footnote 1198:

  Titus iii. 5.

Footnote 1199:

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

Footnote 1200:

  Gal. iii. 27.

Footnote 1201:

  1 Peter iii. 21.

Footnote 1202:

  Ephes. v. 26.

Footnote 1203:

  1 Cor. xii. 13.

Footnote 1204:

  Acts ii. 37, 38.

Footnote 1205:

  Acts viii. 37.

Footnote 1206:

  Ezek. xvi. 20; xxiii. 37.

Footnote 1207:

  Eph. ii. 12.

Footnote 1208:

  Matt. iii. 6.

Footnote 1209:

  John iii. 5.

Footnote 1210:

  Matt. iii. 11.

Footnote 1211:

  John iii. 18; v. 24.

Footnote 1212:

  Matt. xxviii. 19, 20.

Footnote 1213:

  Mark xvi. 16.

Footnote 1214:

  Luke iii. 23.

Footnote 1215:

  2 Thess. iii. 10.

Footnote 1216:

  1 Cor. xi. 28.

Footnote 1217:

  1 Cor. xi. 29.

Footnote 1218:

  1 Cor. xi. 24, 25.

Footnote 1219:

  1 Cor xi. 26.

Footnote 1220:

  John iii. 36.

Footnote 1221:

  1 Cor. xv. 46.

Footnote 1222:

  1 Cor. vii. 14.

Footnote 1223:

  2 Sam. v. 6-8.

Footnote 1224:

  Luke xiv. 21.

Footnote 1225:

  Matt. iv. 19.

Footnote 1226:

  Matt. xiii. 47.

Footnote 1227:

  1 Cor. ii. 13.

Footnote 1228:

  Matt. xxiv. 45.

Footnote 1229:

  John iv. 35-38.

Footnote 1230:

  Acts xi. 26.

Footnote 1231:

  Gal. iii. 2.

Footnote 1232:

  Acts x. 44-48.

Footnote 1233:

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

Footnote 1234:

  2 Peter i. 4.

Footnote 1235:

  John x. 35. Psalm lxxxii. 6.

Footnote 1236:

  Exod. xii. 5.

Footnote 1237:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

XXIV. But the infamy of this falsehood cannot be entirely effaced,
without repelling another calumny; for they accuse us of being so
devoted to human reason, as to limit the power of God by the order of
nature, and to allow him no more than our own understanding teaches us
to ascribe to him. Against such iniquitous aspersions I appeal to the
doctrine which I have maintained; which will sufficiently evince that I
am far from measuring this mystery by the capacity of human reason, or
subjecting it to the laws of nature. Is it from natural philosophy that
we have learned that Christ feeds our souls with his flesh from heaven,
just as our bodies are nourished with bread and wine? Whence is it that
flesh has the power of giving life to our souls? Every one will
pronounce it not to be from nature. No more will it accord with human
reason that the flesh of Christ descends to us to become nourishment to
us. In short, whoever shall understand our doctrine, will be enraptured
with admiration of the secret power of God. But these good zealots
contrive a miracle, without which God himself, with all his power,
disappears from their view. I would again request of my readers a
diligent consideration of the nature and tendency of our doctrine,
whether it depends on human reason, or on the wings of faith rises above
the world and ascends to heaven. We say that Christ descends to us both
by the external symbol and by his Spirit, that he may truly vivify our
souls with the substance of his flesh and blood. He who perceives not
that many miracles are comprehended in these few words, is more than
stupid; for there is nothing more preternatural than for souls to derive
spiritual and heavenly life from the flesh, which had its origin from
the earth, and was subject to death; nothing is more incredible than for
things separated from each other by all the distance of heaven and