A Year with the Institutes

4.16.26-30

Tue, 17 Nov 2009 01:00:00 EST

26. Not all the unbaptized are lost

Now, consequently, we must utterly reject the fiction of those who consign all the unbaptized to eternal death. Let us then fancy that, according to their assumption, baptism is administered to adults only. What will they say will become of a child who is duly and properly instructed in the rudiments of piety, and, when the day of baptism is at hand, happens to be snatched away by sudden death, contrary to the expectation of all? The promise of the Lord is clear: "Whosoever believes in the Son will not see death, nor come into judgment, but has passed from death into life" [John 5:24]. Nowhere do we find that he has ever condemned anyone as yet unbaptized. I do not want anyone on this account to think of me as meaning that baptism can be despised with impunity (by which contempt I declare the Lord's covenant will be violated-so far am I from tolerating it!); it merely suffices to prove that baptism is not so necessary that one from whom the capacity to obtain it has been taken away should straightway be counted as lost. Yet if we assent to their fiction, we shall condemn without exception all those who are by any chance prevented from baptism, though they may otherwise be endowed with a faith so great as to possess Christ himself. Moreover, to eternal death they condemn all infants to whom they deny baptism, since by their own admission it is necessary for salvation. Now let them see how beautifully their opinion agrees with Christ's words, by which the Kingdom of Heaven is awarded to that age group [Matt. 19:14]. But, though we grant them everything that bears upon the understanding of this passage, they will still gain nothing from it, unless they first overturn the doctrine we have already established concerning the regeneration of infants.

27. Jesus' baptismal words

But our adversaries boast that they have the strongest bastion of all in the very institution of baptism, which they derive from the final chapter of Matthew, where Christ, in sending the apostles to all nations, first gives a command to teach them, then a second one to baptize them [Matt. 28:19]. Then, to it they also join this from the last chapter of Mark: "He who believes and is baptized will be saved" [Mark 16:16]. What further (they say) do we seek, when the words of the Lord ring clear that we must teach before we baptize, and assign to baptism the second place after faith? The Lord Jesus has also provided in himself an example of this order, as he chose not to be baptized until his thirtieth year [Matt. 3:13; Luke 3:2i-22].

Good God! In how many ways do they entangle themselves here, and betray their ignorance! For it is more than a child's mistake to derive the first institution of baptism from those instances, which from the beginning of his preaching Christ had commanded his disciples to administer. Therefore, there is no reason for their contention that the law and rule of baptism are to be derived from these two passages, as if they contained its first institution.

Suppose we bear with this error of theirs, yet just how effective is this argument? Certainly, if we should want to evade it, not a hiding place but a very broad field lies open for escape. They cling so fast to the order of words that when it is said, "Go,. . . preach . . . and baptize" [Mark 16:15], or, "He that believes and is baptized" [Mark 16:16], they reason that one must preach before baptizing, and believe before one seeks baptism. Why, then, can we not answer them in turn that one must baptize before teaching those things which Christ has commanded us to observe? I refer to the words, "Baptize, teaching them to keep whatever I have commanded you" [Matt. 28:19-20 p.]. We have noted the same thing in that saying of Christ's which we cited above concerning the regeneration of water and of the

Spirit [John 3:5]. For if it is understood as they insist, there it will be fitting for baptism to be prior to spiritual regeneration, seeing that it is named in the prior place. For Christ teaches that we must be reborn not "of the Spirit and water," but "of water and the Spirit."

28. Infants not referred to in Mark 16:16

Now this unassailable reason in which they trust so much seems somewhat shaken. But because truth has sufficient defense in simplicity, I do not wish to slip out by such trivial shifts. Let them therefore have a substantial answer. The chief command here given by Christ is on the preaching of the gospel; he adds to it, as an appendix, the ministry of baptism. Then he speaks concerning baptism only in terms of the subordination of its administration to the office of teaching. For Christ sends the apostles to preach the gospel to all the nations of the earth, that they may by the teaching of salvation gather into his Kingdom from all places men previously lost. But who are they, and of what sort? Of course, mention is made only of those who are capable of receiving instruction. Afterward he adds that such, when they have been instructed, are to be baptized, and adds the promise, "They who believe and are baptized will be saved"' [Mark 16:16]. Is there even one syllable about infants in the whole discourse? What form of reasoning, then, is this with which they assail us? That those of mature age are to be instructed in order to believe, before they are to be baptized; therefore, it is unlawful to make baptism common to infants as well! No, though they burst themselves, they will show nothing more from this passage than that the gospel must be preached to those who are capable of hearing, before they are baptized. For it deals with these only. Let them from this raise a barrier, if they can, against the baptism of infants!

29. Jesus as prototype of adult baptism

"But, to make their deceits evident even to the blind, I shall indicate them by a quite clear comparison. If any man subtly reasons that infants ought to be denied food on the pretext that :he apostle allows only those who labor to eat [II Thess. 3:10], does not such a man deserve to be spat upon by all? Why so? Because he applies to all men without distinction what had been said of men of a definite kind and definite age. The skill of our opponents in the present case is no greater! For what everyone sees as applying only to grown men, they relate to infants, so as to subject this age group to a rule that had been laid down only for older persons.

As for the example of Christ, it does not in the least support their case. He was not baptized before his thirtieth year [Luke 3:23; Matt. 3:13, conflated]; indeed, this is true, but there is a ready reason: he determined by his preaching to lay a solid foundation of baptism, or rather to make firm the foundation laid by John a little while before. Therefore, when he intended by his teaching to establish baptism, in order to procure greater authority for his institution, he sanctified it with his own body, and did so at the most appropriate time, namely, when he began his preaching. In short, they will reap nothing else here than that baptism took its origin and beginning from the preaching of the gospel. If it pleases them to set the thirtieth year, why do they not observe this but receive each one for baptism when in their judgment he has advanced far enough? But even Servetus, one of their teachers, although he persistently advocated this age, in his twenty-first year had already begun to boast himself a prophet. As though anyone can be trusted who claims for himself the place of a teacher in the church before he is a member of the church itself!

30. Baptism and Lord's Supper

"Furthermore, they object that there is no more reason to Administer baptism to infants than the Lord's Supper, which is not permitted to them. As if Scripture did not mark a wide difference in every respect! This permission was indeed commonly given in the ancient church, as is clear from Cyprian and Augustine, but the custom has deservedly fallen into disuse. For if we consider the peculiar character of baptism, surely it is an entrance and a sort of initiation into the church, through which we are numbered among God's people: a sign of our spiritual regeneration, through which we are reborn as children of God. On the other hand, the Supper is given to older persons who, having passed tender infancy, can now take solid food.

This distinction is very clearly shown in Scripture. For with respect to baptism, the Lord there sets no definite age. But he does not similarly hold forth the Supper for all to partake of, but only for those who are capable of discerning the body and blood of the Lord, of examining their own conscience, of pro-claiming the Lord's death, and of considering its power. Do we wish anything plainer than the apostle's teaching when he exhorts each man to prove and search himself, then to eat of this bread and drink of this cup [I Cor. 11:28]? A self-examination ought, therefore, to come first, and it is vain to expect this of infants.

Again: "He who eats unworthily eats and drinks condemnation for himself, not discerning the body of the Lord" [I Cor. 11:29]. If only those who know how to distinguish rightly the holiness of Christ's body are able to participate worthily, why should we offer poison instead of life-giving food to our tender children? What is that command of the Lord: "Do this in remembrance of me" [Luke 22:19; I Cor. 11:25]? What is that other command which the apostle derives from it: "As often as you eat this bread, you will proclaim the Lord's death until he comes" [I Cor. 11:26]? What remembrance of this thing, I ask, shall we require of infants when they have never grasped it? What preaching of the cross of Christ, the force and benefit of which their minds have not yet comprehended? None of these things is prescribed in baptism. Accordingly, there is a very great difference between these two signs, as we have noted in like signs also under the Old Testament. Circumcision, which is known to correspond to our baptism, had been appointed for infants [Gen. 17:12]. But the Passover, the place of which has been taken by the Supper, did not admit all guests indiscriminately, but was duly eaten only by those who were old enough to be able to inquire into its meaning [Ex. 12:26]. If these men had a particle of sound brain left, would they be blind to a thing so clear and obvious?

4.16.31-32

Wed, 18 Nov 2009 01:00:00 EST

31. Servetus' objections

It troubles me to burden my readers with a heap of trifles.

Nevertheless, it behooves us to make short work of the specious reasons which Servetus, not the least among the Anabaptists-indeed, the great glory of that tribe-girding himself for conflict, decided to bring forward.

1. He claims that, as the symbols instituted by Christ are perfect, they also require perfect persons, or those capable of perfection. But the answer is easy: the perfection of baptism, which extends even to death, is wrongly confined to one point of time. Besides, it is foolish to seek in a man on the first day that perfection to which baptism invites us to advance by continual steps throughout life.

2. He objects, that Christ's symbols were instituted for remembrance, in order that everyone should remember that he was buried with Christ. I reply that what he has contrived out of his own head needs no refutation; indeed, what he applies to baptism rightly refers to the Sacred Supper, as Paul's words show: "that each one examine himself" [I Cor. 11:28]; there is nowhere any such thing said of baptism. From this we conclude that those who, because of their youth, are not yet capable of examination may rightly be baptized.

3. He brings up a third objection: that all who do not believe in the Son of God remain in death, and God's wrath remains upon them [John 3:36]. Therefore, infants, who cannot believe, lie in their own damnation. I reply: Christ does not speak there of the general guilt in which all the posterity of Adam is entangled, but only threatens the despisers of the gospel, who haughtily and stubbornly reject the grace offered them. But this has nothing to do with infants. At the same time, I bring forward a contrary argument: anyone Christ blesses is freed from the curse of Adam and the wrath of God. Since, therefore, it is known that infants were blessed by him [Matt. 19:15; Mark 10:16], it follows that they were freed from death. Servetus then falsely cites what is nowhere to be read: "Everyone who is born of the Spirit hears the Spirit's voice" [cf. John 3:8]. But even if we grant this to have been written, it will still prove nothing except that believers are formed to obedience according as the Spirit works in them. Yet to apply to all equally what is said of a certain number is unreasonable.

4. His fourth objection is that because what is physical comes first [I Cor. 15:46], we must await a mature time for baptism, which is spiritual. But though I admit that all the offspring of Adam begotten of flesh bear their condemnation from the very womb itself, I still deny that this prevents God from providing an immediate remedy. For Servetus will not prove that many years were divinely prescribed for the newness of spiritual life to begin. As Paul testifies, although those who are born of believers may by nature be lost, they are holy by supernatural grace [I Cor. 7:14].

5. Then he puts forth an allegory, that David, ascending into the stronghold of Zion, took neither blind nor lame men with him, but strong soldiers [II Sam. 5:8]. But suppose I counter with the parable in which God invites the blind and lame to the heavenly banquet [Luke 14:21]-how will Servetus dispose of this difficulty? I also ask whether lame and disabled men had not previously served with David? Nevertheless, it is superfluous to dwell on this reason, which is fashioned out of sheer falsehood, as my readers will discover from the Sacred History.

6. Another allegory follows: that the apostles were fishers of men [Matt. 4:19], not of babes. I ask in return what Christ meant in saying that in the net of the gospel all kinds of fish are gathered [Matt. 13:47]. But because I do not want to play with allegories, I reply, that when the task of teaching was enjoined upon the apostles, they were surely not forbidden to baptize infants. Although I should still like to know, when the Evangelist calls them anthropos (which term includes, without exception, the human race) why Servetus should deny that infants are human beings.

7. His seventh objection is that, since spiritual things agree with spiritual [I Cor. 2:13-14], infants, who are not spiritual, are also not fit for baptism. But first it is very clear how perversely he twists Paul's statement. He is dealing with doctrine: when the Corinthians flattered themselves too much on their vain cleverness, Paul rebuked their stupidity, because they were still to be instructed in the first rudiments of the heavenly doctrine. Who will conclude from this that baptism ought to be denied to infants whom, begotten of flesh, God consecrates to himself by free adoption?

8. He objects that they must be fed spiritual food if they are new men. The answer is easy: by baptism they are admitted into Christ's flock, and the symbol of their adoption suffices them until as adults they are able to bear solid food. Therefore, we should wait for the time of examination, which God expressly requires in the Sacred Supper.

9. Afterward, he objects that Christ calls all his people to the Sacred Supper. Yet it is clear enough that he admits none but those who are already prepared to celebrate the remembrance of his death. From this it follows that infants, whom he vouchsafed to embrace, remain in their distinct and proper rank until they grow up, and yet are not strangers. He objects that it is monstrous for a man, after being born, not to eat. I answer: souls are fed in another way than by the outward eating of the Supper; therefore, to infants Christ is nonetheless food, though they abstain from the symbol. But the case is different in baptism, by which only the door into the church is opened to them.

10. Again Servetus objects: a good steward distributes food to his household at the proper time [Matt. 24:45]. Even though I willingly admit this, by what rule will he define the time of baptism for us, to prove that infancy is not the right time to give it? Moreover, he adds that command of Christ's to the apostles, that they hasten to the harvest while the fields are becoming white [John 4:35]. Now, Christ only means that the apostles, seeing the present fruit of their labor, should gird themselves more eagerly for teaching. Who will conclude from this that only the harvest time is ripe for baptism?

11. His eleventh argument is that in the first church Christians and disciples were identical [Acts 11:26]; but already we have seen him clumsily reasoning from the part to the whole. Those called disciples are men of full age, who had already been taught and had been enrolled under Christ, just as the Jews under the law had to be disciples of Moses. Yet no one will rightly conclude from this that the infants, whom God attested to be of his own household, were strangers.

12. He claims further that all Christians are brothers, but that, to us, children are not of that number so long as we keep them away from the Supper. But I return to that principle that only those who are members of Christ are heirs of the Kingdom of Heaven; then Christ's embrace [Matt. 19:13-15; Mark 10:

13-16; Luke 18:15-17] was the true token of adoption, by which infants are joined in common with adults, and that abstaining from the Supper for a time does not prevent them from belonging to the body of the church. Indeed, the thief converted on the cross [Luke 23:40-43] did not fail to become a brother of the

pious, although he never came to the Supper.

13. He afterward adds that no one can become our brother except through the Spirit of adoption [Rom. 8:15], which is conferred only through the hearing of faith [Gal. 3:2]. I reply: he always falls back into the same false reasoning, for he preposterously applies to infants what was said concerning adults alone. Paul teaches there [Rom. 10:17; Gal. 3:5] that this is God's ordinary manner of calling-to draw his elect to

faith while he raises up for them faithful teachers, by whose ministry and labor he reaches out his hand. Who would dare, on the basis of this, to impose a law upon him, that he should not engraft infants into Christ by another secret means?

14. He objects that Cornelius, having received the Holy Spirit, was baptized [Acts 10:44-48]. But he wrongly draws a general rule from one example, as is clear from the eunuch and the Samaritans [Acts 8:27-38; 8:12], in whom the Lord followed a different order so that baptism should precede the gifts of the Spirit.

15. The fifteenth reason is more than absurd. He says that we become gods by regeneration, but gods are those "to whom the Word of God came" [John 10:34-35; cf. Ps. 82:6], which is not possible for infant children. It is one of his delusions to imagine deity in believers; but this is not the place to examine it. However, to twist a verse of a psalm [Ps. 82:6] into such an alien meaning is an act of abandoned shamelessness. Christ says that kings and magistrates are called "gods" by the prophet because they bear an office divinely enjoined upon them. But this skilled interpreter applies to the doctrine of the gospel something directed to certain men concerning a special command of governing, in order that he may banish infants from the church.

16. Again, he objects that infants cannot be considered new men because they are not begotten through the Word. But I now repeat what I have often said already, that the doctrine of the gospel is an incorruptible seed [I Peter 1:23] to regenerate us, if we are indeed fit to receive it; but when we are not old enough to be taught, God keeps his own timetable of regeneration.

17. Afterward, Servetus returns to his allegories, saying that in the law a sheep and a she-goat were not offered in sacrifice immediately at birth. If I wish to apply a figurative interpretation to this, I can readily retort that all the first-born, as they opened the womb, were sacred to God [Ex. 13:2], and again, that a year old male lamb had to be sacrificed [Ex. 12:5]. From this it will follow that we are by no means to wait for the strength of manhood, but rather that the recently born and still tender are chosen for sacrifices by God.

18. He contends, moreover, that only those prepared by John could come to Christ. As if the office of John were not temporary! But to pass over this, surely the children whom Christ embraced and blessed [Matt. 19:13-15; Mark 10:13-16; Luke 18:15-17] did not have that preparation. Good-by, then, to him with his false principle!

19. At length he calls upon Trismegistus and the sibyls to witness that holy washings befit only adults. See how honorably he thinks of the baptism of Christ, which he conforms to the profane rites of the heathen, that it may be administered only at the pleasure of Trismegistus! But we esteem more highly the authority of God, who was pleased to consecrate infants to himself, and to admit them by the holy symbol whose effect they were not yet old enough to understand. And we do not deem it lawful to borrow from the expiations of the heathen anything that may change in our baptism the eternal and inviolable law of God which he has established on circumcision.

20. In the final place, he reasons that if infants, without understanding, can be baptized, baptism can be administered by children at play as a farce and a mockery. Let him quarrel with God over this matter, according to whose precept circumcision was common to infants before they attained understanding. Was it therefore something for children to play with and fool over, so that they could overturn God's holy institution? But it is no wonder that those reprobate spirits, as if agitated by a frenzy, drag in the crassest absurdities in defense of their errors. For God justly avenges their pride and obstinacy by such irrationality. I trust I have made plain how weakly Servetus has supported his little Anabaptist brothers.

52. Gratitude due for God's care of our children

Now I think no sober person will be in doubt how rashly they stir up Christ's church with their altercations and contentions over infant baptism. But it behooves us to note what Satan is attempting with this great subtlety of his. He is trying to take away from us the singular fruit of assurance and spiritual joy which is to be gathered from it, and also to diminish somewhat the glory of the divine goodness. For how sweet is it to godly minds to be assured, not only by word, but by sight, that they obtain so much favor with the Heavenly Father that their offspring are within his care? For here we can see how he takes on toward us the role of a most provident Father, who even after our death maintains his care for us, providing for and looking after our children. Should we not, following David's example, rejoice with all our heart in thanksgiving, that his name may be hallowed by such an example of his goodness [Ps. 48:10]? It is precisely this which Satan is attempting in assailing infant baptism with such an army: that, once this testimony of God's grace is taken away from us, the promise which, through it, is put before our eyes may eventually vanish little by little. From this would grow up not only an impious ungratefulness toward God's mercy but a certain negligence about instructing our children in piety. For when we consider that immediately from birth God takes and acknowledges them as his children, we feel a strong stimulus to instruct them in an earnest fear of God and observance of the law. Accordingly, unless we wish spitefully to obscure God's goodness, let us offer our infants to him, for he gives them a place among those of his family and household, that is, the members of the church.

4.17.1-3

Thu, 19 Nov 2009 01:00:00 EST

CHAPTER XVII

THE SACRED SUPPER OF CHRIST, AND WHAT IT BRINGS TO US

1. Sign and thing

God has received us, once for all, into his family, to hold us not only as servants but as sons. Thereafter, to fulfill the duties of a most excellent Father concerned for his offspring, he under-takes also to nourish us throughout the course of our life. And not content with this alone, he has willed, by giving his pledge, to assure us of this continuing liberality. To this end, therefore, he has, through the hand of his only-begotten Son, given to his church another sacrament, that is, a spiritual banquet, wherein Christ attests himself to be the life-giving bread, upon which our souls feed unto true and blessed immortality [John 6:51].

The knowledge of this high mystery is very necessary, and in view of its very greatness it demands a careful explanation. Furthermore, Satan, to deprive the church of this inestimable treasure, has long since spread clouds, and afterward, to obscure this light, has raised quarrels and conflicts to estrange the minds of simple folk from a taste for this sacred food, and also has tried the same trick in our own day. For these reasons, after summarizing the matter in a way intelligible to the unlearned, I shall resolve those difficulties with which Satan has tried to ensnare the world.

First, the signs are bread and wine, which represent for us the invisible food that we receive from the flesh and blood of Christ. For as in baptism, God, regenerating us, engrafts us into the society of his church and makes us his own by adoption, so we have said, that he discharges the function of a provident householder in continually supplying to us the food to sustain and preserve us in that life into which he has begotten us by his Word.

Now Christ is the only food of our soul, and therefore our Heavenly Father invites us to Christ, that, refreshed by partaking of him, we may repeatedly gather strength until we shall have reached heavenly immortality.

Since, however, this mystery of Christ's secret union with the devout is by nature incomprehensible, he shows its figure and image in visible signs best adapted to our small capacity. Indeed, by giving guarantees and tokens he makes it as certain for us as if we had seen it with our own eyes. For this very familiar comparison penetrates into, even the dullest minds: just as bread and wine sustain physical life, so are souls fed by Christ. We now understand the purpose of this mystical blessing,7 namely, to confirm for us the fact that the Lord's body was once for all so sacrificed for us that we may now feed upon it, and by feeding feel in ourselves the working of that unique sacrifice; and that his blood was once so shed for us in order to be our perpetual drink. And so speak the words of the promise added there: "Take, this is my body which is given for you" [I Cor. 11:24; Matt. 26:26; Mark 14:22; Luke 22:19]. We are therefore bidden to take and eat the body which was once for all offered for our salvation, in order that when we see ourselves made partakers in it, we may assuredly conclude that the power of his life-giving death will be efficacious in us. Hence, he also calls the cup "the covenant in his blood" [Luke 22:20; I Cor. 11:25]. For he in some measure renews, or rather continues, the covenant which he once for all ratified with his blood (as far as it pertains to the strengthening of our faith) whenever he proffers that sacred blood for us to taste.

2. Union with Christ as the special fruit of the Lord's Supper

Godly souls can gather great assurance and delight from this Sacrament; in it they have a witness of our growth into one body with Christ such that whatever is his may be called ours. As a consequence, we may dare assure ourselves that eternal life, of which he is the heir, is ours; and that the Kingdom of Heaven, into which he has already entered, can no more be cut off from us than from him; again, that we cannot be condemned for our sins, from whose guilt he has absolved us, since he willed to take them upon himself as if they were his own. This is the wonderful exchange which, out of his measureless benevolence, he has made with us; that, becoming Son of man with us, he has made us sons of God with him; that, by his descent to earth, he has prepared an ascent to heaven for us; that, by taking on our mortality, he has conferred his immortality upon us; that, accepting our weakness, he has strengthened us by his power; that, receiving our poverty unto himself, he has transferred his wealth to us; that, taking the weight of our iniquity upon himself (which oppressed us), he has clothed us with his righteousness.

3. The spiritual presence of Christ

In this Sacrament we have such full witness of all these things that we must certainly consider them as if Christ here present were himself set before our eyes and touched by our hands. For his word cannot lie or deceive us: "Take, eat, drink: this is my body, which is given for .you; this is my blood, which is shed for forgiveness of sins" [Matt. 26:26-28, conflated with I Cor. 11:24; cf. Mark 14:22-24; Luke 22:19-20]. By bidding us take, he indicates that it is ours; by bidding us eat, that it is made one substance with us; by declaring that his body is given for us and his bloodshed for us, he teaches that both are not so much his as ours. For he took up and laid down both, not for his own advantage but for our salvation.

And, indeed, we must carefully observe that the very powerful and almost entire force of the Sacrament lies in these words: "which is given for you," "which is shed for you." The present distribution of the body and blood of the Lord would not greatly benefit us unless they had once for all been given for our redemption and salvation. They are therefore represented under bread and wine so that we may learn not only that they are ours but that they have been destined as food for our spiritual life.

And so as we previously stated, from the physical things set forth in the Sacrament we are led by a sort of analogy to spiritual things. Thus, when bread is given as a symbol of Christ's body, we must at once grasp this comparison: as bread nourishes, sustains, and keeps the life of our body, so Christ's body is the only food to invigorate and enliven our soul. When we see wine set forth as a symbol of blood, we must reflect on the benefits which wine imparts to the body, and so realize that the same are spiritually imparted to us by Christ's blood. These benefits are to nourish, refresh, strengthen, and gladden. For if we sufficiently consider what value we have received from the giving of that most holy body and the shedding of that blood, we shall clearly perceive that those qualities of bread and wine are, according to such an analogy, excellently adapted to express those things when they are communicated to us.

4.17.4-7

Fri, 20 Nov 2009 01:00:00 EST

4. The meaning of the promise of the Lord's Supper

It is not, therefore, the chief function of the Sacrament simply and without higher consideration to extend to us the body of Christ. Rather, it is to seal and confirm that promise by which he testifies that his flesh is food indeed and his blood is drink [John 6:56], which feed us unto eternal life [John 6:55]. By this he declares himself to be the bread of life, of which he who eats will live forever [John 6:48, 50]. And to do this, the Sacrament sends us to the cross of Christ, where that promise was indeed per-formed and in all respects fulfilled. For we do not eat Christ duly and unto salvation unless he is crucified, when in living experience we grasp the efficacy of his death. In calling himself "the bread of life," he did not borrow that name from the Sacrament, as some wrongly interpret. Rather, he had been given as such to us by the Father and showed himself as such when, being made a sharer in our human mortality, he made us partakers in his divine immortality; when, offering himself as a sacrifice, he bore our curse in himself to imbue us with his blessing; when, by his death, he swallowed up and annihilated death [cf. I Peter 3:22, Vg., and I Cor. 15:54]; and when, in his resurrection, he raised up this corruptible flesh of ours, which he had put on, to glory and incorruption [cf. I Cor. 15:53-54].

5. How we are partakers by faith

It remains for all this to be applied to us. That is done through the gospel but more clearly through the Sacred Supper, where he offers himself with all his benefits to us, and we receive him by faith. Therefore, the Sacrament does not cause Christ to begin to be the bread of life; but when it reminds us that he was made the bread of life, which we continually eat, and which gives us a relish and savor of that bread, it causes us to feel the power of that bread. For it assures us that all that Christ did or suffered was done to quicken us; and again, that this quickening is eternal, we being ceaselessly nourished, sustained, and preserved throughout life by it. For, as Christ would not have been the bread of life for us if he had not been born and had not died for us, and if he had not arisen for us, so this would not now be the case at all if the effectiveness and result of his birth, death, and resurrection were not something eternal and immortal. "Christ beautifully expresses the whole matter in these words: "The bread which I shall give you is my flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world" [John 6:51; cf. ch. 6:52, Vg.]. By these words he doubtless means that his body will to us be as bread for the spiritual life of the soul, for it was to be made subject to death for our salvation; moreover, that it is offered to us to eat, when it makes us sharers in him by faith. Once for all, therefore, he gave his body to be made bread when he yielded himself to be crucified for the redemption of the world; daily he gives it when by the word of the gospel he offers it for us to partake, inasmuch as it was crucified, when he seals such giving of himself by the sacred mystery of the Supper, and when he inwardly fulfills what he outwardly designates.

"Now here we ought to guard against two faults. First, we should not, by too little regard for the signs, divorce them from their mysteries, to which they are so to speak attached. Secondly, we should not, by extolling them immoderately, seem to obscure somewhat the mysteries themselves.

None but the utterly irreligious deny that Christ is the bread of life by which believers are nourished into eternal life. But there is no unanimity as to the mode of partaking of him. For there are some who define the eating of Christ's flesh and the drinking of his blood as, in one word, nothing but to believe in Christ. But it seems to me that Christ meant to teach something more definite, and more elevated, in that noble discourse in which he commends to us the eating of his flesh [John 6:26 ff.]. It is that we are quickened by the true partaking of him; and he has therefore designated this partaking by the words "eating" and "drinking," in order that no one should think that the life that we receive from him is received by mere knowledge. As it is not the seeing but the eating of bread that suffices to feed the body, so the soul must truly and deeply become partaker of Christ that it may be quickened to spiritual life by his power. We admit indeed, meanwhile, that this is no other eating than that of faith, as no other can be imagined. But here is the difference between my words and theirs: for them to eat is only to believe; I say that we eat Christ's flesh in believing, because it is made ours by faith, and that this eating is the result and effect of faith. Or if you want it said more clearly, for them eating is faith; for me it seems rather to follow from faith. This is a small difference indeed in words, but no slight one in the matter itself. For even though the apostle teaches that "Christ dwells in our hearts through faith" [Eph. 3:17, cf. Vg.], no one will interpret this indwelling to be faith, but all feel that he is there expressing a remarkable effect of faith, for through this believers gain Christ abiding in them. In this way the Lord intended, by calling himself the "bread of life" [John 6:51], to teach not only that salvation for us rests on faith in his death and resurrection, but also that, by true partaking of him, his life passes into us and is made ours-just as bread when taken as food imparts vigor to the body.

6. Augustine and Chrysostom on this

And Augustine (whom they appeal to as their patron) did not write that we eat by believing in any other sense than to show that this eating is of faith, not of the mouth. I too do not deny this. At the same time, however, I add that by faith we embrace Christ not as appearing from afar but as joining himself to us that he may be our head, we his members. Yet I do not utterly disallow that expression, but only deny that it is the full interpretation, if they mean to define what it is to eat Christ's flesh.

Elsewhere, I see that Augustine has often used this expression. For example, he says in Book 3, On Christian Doctrine: "The phrase, 'Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man' [John 6:54, Vg.; ch. 6:53, EV], is a figure, teaching us that we must partake of the Lord's Passion, and sweetly and profitably store up in memory the fact that his flesh was crucified and wounded for us." Again, when he says that those three thousand men who were converted by Peter's preaching [Acts 2:41] by believing drank Christ's blood, which in cruel rage they had shed. But in very many other passages he highly commends that benefit of faith, for through it our souls are as much refreshed by partaking of Christ's flesh as bodies are by the bread they eat. And Chrysostom writes the same thing in another passage: "Christ makes us his body not by faith only but by the very thing itself." For he means that such good is not obtained from any other source than faith; but he only wishes to exclude the possibility that anyone, when he hears faith mentioned, should conceive of it as mere imagining.

I now pass over those who would have the Supper only a mark of outward profession; for it seems to me that I have refuted their error sufficiently when I dealt with the sacraments in general. Let my readers only observe that when the cup is called the covenant "in . . . blood" [Luke 22:20], a promise is expressed which serves to strengthen faith. From this it follows that unless we look to God and embrace what he offers, we do not rightly use the Sacred Supper.

7. Thought and words inadequate

"Moreover, I am not satisfied with those persons who, recognizing that we have some communion with Christ, when they would show what it is, make us partakers of the Spirit only, omitting mention of flesh and blood. As though all these things were said in vain: that his flesh is truly food, that his blood is truly drink [John 6:55]; that none have life except those who eat his flesh and drink his blood [John 6:53]; and other passages pertaining to the same thing. Therefore, if it is certain that an integral communion of Christ reaches beyond their too narrow description of it, I shall proceed to deal with it briefly, in so far as it is clear and manifest, before I discuss the contrary fault of excess. For I shall have a longer disputation with the extravagant doctors, who, while in the grossness of their minds they devise an absurd fashion of eating and drinking, also transfigure Christ, stripped of his own flesh, into a phantasm-if one may reduce to words so great a mystery, which I see that I do not even sufficiently comprehend with my mind. I therefore freely admit that no man should measure its sublimity by the little measure of my childishness.

Rather, I urge my readers not to confine their mental interest within these too narrow limits, but to strive to rise much higher than I can lead them. For, whenever this matter is discussed, when I have tried to say all, I feel that I have as yet said little in proportion to its worth. And although my mind can think beyond what my tongue can utter, yet even my mind is conquered and overwhelmed by the greatness of the thing. Therefore, nothing remains but to break forth in wonder at this mystery, which plainly neither the mind is able to conceive nor the tongue to express. Nevertheless, I shall in one way or another sum up my views; for, as I do not doubt them to be true, I am confident they will be approved in godly hearts.

An Introduction to, "A Year with the Institutes"

Fri, 01 Jan 2010 01:00:00 EST

Princeton Theological Seminary Invites the Church and the Academy to Read Calvin Together in 2009 in "A Year with the Institutes"

Princeton Theological Seminary is inviting the church, the academy, and individual Christians around the world to celebrate the 500th anniversary of John Calvin's birth by participating in "A Year with the Institutes," a daily reading of Calvin's major work, The Institutes of the Christian Religion, during 2009. Calvin, the most important founding theologian of the Reformed theological tradition, was born July 10, 1509. His Institutes represent a systematized approach to Reformed theology, written with a pastor's heart in service to the church of Calvin's day.

Princeton Seminary, through its Center of Continuing Education, will provide a daily reading schedule and text of a three-to-six-page section of the 1559 version of the Institutes for each day of 2009, except Sundays and Christmas Day, online on its web site (www.ptsem.edu). The readings, using the McNeill/Battles translation of the Institutes, thanks to permission from Westminster John Knox Press, will also be provided in audio format, as a podcast, with sections read by oral performers from around the country. Michael Brothers, an assistant professor of speech communication in ministry at Princeton Seminary, will direct this part of the project.

Each week an invited scholar or pastor will provide a reflection paper on that week's readings on the web site, and participants will be able to comment on both the readings and the reflection papers.

The project was the brainchild of Princeton Seminary's Christian education assistant professor Gordon Mikoski, who decided to read through the Institutes as part of his Christian devotional practice to commemorate the anniversary year of Calvin's birth. As he told friends and colleagues about his idea, they wanted to join him.

"While browsing through the Westminster John Knox book display at the American Academy of Religion meeting in November, I came upon new copies of the Institutes," Mikoski said. "It occurred to me that reading them cover-to-cover from January 1 through December 31, 2009 would be an appropriate way to honor Calvin's life and work."

Mikoski believes such disciplined reading of the Institutes can remind the church of its rooting in God, not itself. Calvin wrote that "we are not our own; insofar as we can, let us forget ourselves and all that is ours. Conversely, we are God's: let his wisdom and will therefore rule all our actions; let all parts of our life accordingly strive toward him as our only lawful goal." (Institutes 3.7.1)

Mikoski's project was enthusiastically received by the Erdman Center of Continuing Education, which is sponsoring a number of events in 2009 to celebrate the Calvin anniversary. The first of these is 2009's first global Calvin conference, "Calvin and the Church Today," January 20-23, 2009. For more information on these events, visit www.ptsem.edu/calvin2009.

Princeton Seminary hopes pastors, lay people, and scholars will take this opportunity to read and interact with the work of a theological giant in the Reformed tradition, with a community of Christians across the church and the world.

In addition to Mikoski and Brothers, steering committee members for the project include students Jason Santos, Michael Gyura, Katherine Douglass; Raymond Bonwell, director of programs for the Center of Continuing Education; Barbara Chaapel, the Seminary's director of communications; and Joyce MacKichan Walker, a member of the pastoral staff of Nassau Presbyterian Church in Princeton.

For information about how to participate in "A Year with the Institutes," and for answers to questions, visit www.ptsem.edu/calvin2009 or email calvin2009@ptsem.edu.

Princeton Theological Seminary was founded in 1812, the first seminary established by the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church. It is the largest Presbyterian Seminary in the country, with more than 600 students in six graduate degree programs.